Law&Crime Sidebar - Top 5 Key Moments from Alex Murdaugh's Family Murder Trial Opening Statements

Episode Date: January 26, 2023

Disgraced lawyer Alex Murdaugh's family murder trial kicked off with opening statements Wednesday. The disbarred South Carolina attorney stands accused of murdering his wife and youngest son in June 2021. The Law&Crime Network's Jesse Weber breaks down the top 5 key moments from opening statements.LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Logan HarrisGuest 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. views 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. You're going to reach the inescapable conclusion that Alec murdered Maggie Paul, that he was the storm, that the storm was coming for them. And the storm arrived on June 7, 2021, just like the storms that are heading here right now. He didn't do it. He didn't kill butcher, his son and wife. We go over the top five moments from opening statements in the Alec Murdoch murder trial. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Long Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Opening statements have officially finished up in the Alec Murdoch case. A lot of eyeballs on this

trial. The trial of the former prominent South Carolina attorney accused of shooting to death his son Paul and wife Maggie on their property in June 2021. After jury selection, which I'll tell you, well, no easy task. I mean, you had 900 potential jurors who were summoned that it was not simple finding people that it didn't know about the Murdox or even more have informed unchangeable opinions about them. We actually got a jury relatively quickly, 12 jurors, six alternates, and now is the time

for opening statements. This is the chance for each side to present to the jury. what the evidence will show or what they believe the evidence will show. So first up was the prosecution's opening statement. And this was delivered by state prosecutor Creighton Waters. And he comes out swinging. On the evening of June 7th, 2021, by the defendant's property off Moselle Road in Colleton County.

His son Paul Murdoch is standing in a small feet room and some kennels. they had on the property. About 8.50 p.m. And the defendant over there, out of Murdoch, took a 12-stage shotgun and shot him in the shoulder, in 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 feed room. And just moments later, just moments later, he picked up a 300 blackout, which is the 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. Pout, two shots, adamant, in the leg, 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 instant. Even before he introduces himself, even before he introduces the team, he comes out and he paints. this very vivid and graphic picture of the killing, something that'll stay in the minds of the jury. I imagine what that was the goal there. And what is really interesting in this case are the two weapons, a shotgun, a rifle. Is it possible that Alec Murdoch used two different

firearms to commit the killings? Sure. Is it strange? Yes. Do we typically see that? No. Now, the defense has suggested that perhaps it was two perpetrators who did that. Now, I'll tell you the difficulty for the prosecution is that the rifle that he mentioned was never recovered. Now, what Waters said is that one of the ways that they will show Murdoch did this is by presenting evidence to show that these were the family weapons. How are they going to do that through ballistics, that they're going to show you that the spent casings that were fired previously on the property match the ammunition that killed Maggie and Paul.

Now, I will tell you, for me, that is not the strongest piece of evidence. Because where does my mind go immediately to an alternative possibility that couldn't someone have entered the house and taken these weapons? If we accept that these are the weapons, these family guns with murder weapons, couldn't somebody else have gone onto the property, taking the weapons and used them? How do we directly tie the weapons back to Alec Murdoch? How do we put the weapons in his hand? Well, that brings me to this bombshell piece of evidence presented by Mr. Waters. We're also going to hear evidence that about a week after the murders, Mr. Al Mernock's father had died, Mr. Randolph,

and about a week after the murders, he shows up early in the morning at his parents' home, where his mother still is in late stage Alzheimer's, on Almeda and Hampton. It's uncharacteristic for him to show up early, uncharacteristic for him to show up and all like that and he comes in and he's carrying something in a blue tarp and he takes it upstairs and eventually law enforcement finds out about that and they go upstairs and they find upstairs they find a wide-up very very large raincoat in a blue color could look like a tarp and you're going to hear evidence that it was coated

with gunshot residue on the inside. On the inside. That is significant. And that is significant because that is something that directly ties Murdoch to the shooting. Okay. The inside of this item of clothing, gunshot residue. I should tell you that the defense in their opening tried to dispute that. They're saying, well, you're going to hear from a witness who said that they had seen Murdochard

carry a blue tarp upstairs and said that that raincoat that he had looked nothing like it. And then there was an objection from the prosecution. It was sustained by the judge, basically are talking about testimony that hasn't even happened yet. So I understand why he wasn't allowed to further explore that. But there is more to the story about that key piece of evidence. And I think that is a really key piece of evidence. But I do want to move on to something else that was huge from the prosecution.

Arguably, in my opinion, their most important piece of evidence. evidence, cell phone data, because they say that Alec Murdoch has always maintained that he wasn't at the dog kennels on the property where the family was shot. Now, Mr. Waters said that the shooting started at around 8.50 p.m. Okay. But then he says, Paul does something that really gives you insight into what may have happened. At 8.44 and 55 seconds. Paul recorded a video. He was down to the kennels because he had been talking to a friend of his, and you're going to hear from this friend

because his friend's dog was in the kennels and they thought there was something wrong with the tail. And Paul was recording a video of it to send to his friend. 8.44 and 55 seconds. And on that video, and you'll see that video and you'll hear from witnesses that identify Paul's voice

Maggie's voice and Alex's voice told anyone who would listen he was never there in 844 in 55 seconds there's a video the evidence will show that he was there

he was at the murder scene with the two victims and more than that just over three minutes later 8.49 and one second Paul's phone locks forever. Well, that is something. That is something. I mean, we heard rumblings about a recording. Now we see how central that recording is to their case, placing Murdoch at the scene minutes before when they say Maggie and Paul's phones locked. In other words,

when they were killed. But now, let's get into the defense. So the defense's position is that it makes no sense for Alec Murdoch to have killed his family. Little side note here, the prosecutors didn't really get into the motive in this case. One, because it is very convoluted. And two, because the judge didn't rule yet on how much the prosecution can show the motive. And what I'm talking about the motive here is that Murdoch's life was falling apart at the time of the killings, that his law firm realized he was allegedly misappropriating funds, that he had opioid addiction, he's charged separately with over 90 crimes in connection with stealing from clients, taking money from a legal sentiment, running a drug and money laundering scheme, tax evasion

fraud. And the theory goes that in order to distract authorities from unearthing everything that he was doing, all this illicit activity, he killed his wife and son to buy himself a little bit more time. You might say that's ridiculous. That's a ridiculous motive. But Murdoch is also accused of hiring a hitman to kill him so that his surviving son Buster could receive life insurance proceeds.

So what really is beyond the scope of believability here? Well, anyway, back to the defense. So the defense, they talked about cell phone video. The prosecution did. Now the defense did. And they pointed specifically to an important Snapchat. You're not going to hear a single witness say that their relationship, Maggie and Alex's relationship were anything other than loving.

You can hear about how they went to a baseball game the weekend. before. You're going to hear about their relationship. You're going to see text and emails indicating a loving relationship. Paul, the apple of his

eye. You're going to see a video somewhere between 7.30 and 8 o'clock the night of the murders. With Paul and Alec writing around looking at some trees they planted it's a Snapchat Paul sent to other people

because the trees were not planted very well they were cantilevering over they're laughing they're having a good time that would be about an hour before the Attorney General says he swatted them the gases from that shot

literally exploded his head like a watermelon hit with a sledgehammer All that was left was the front of his face. Everything else was gone. His brain exploded out of his head, hit the ceiling in the shed, and dropped to his feet. Horrendous, horrible, butchering.

So to find out Murdoch guilty of murdering his son, you're going to have to accept that within an hour of having him, having a extraordinarily bonding, you can see it in the Snapchat, that he executes him in a brutal fashion. That is a good point. Does it make sense that just an hour before he'd be happy and then brutally murder his son and his wife? Then again, we have seen cases of defendants where it comes out of the blue that they

kill their loved ones. It happens. But the defense, they did something else. They highlighted the weaknesses in their mind of the prosecution's case, other than a shaky motive they said how they're no fingerprints no confession no eyewitness no concrete forensics does it make sense for him to shoot paul then grab another gun to shoot maggie and do all of this in a matter of minutes especially considering one of their major points the blood or i should say the lack of blood that they presented was very interesting you're going to hear their witnesses

explain the catastrophic injuries to paul that his head literally exploded and whoever shot him with that shotgun was probably no more than three feet away maybe maybe closer maybe a little further away you his head exploded you would be covered in blood from head to foot in blood they seized his clothes that night sweat did and they test well first of all you're going to see in the videos from the the officers that arrived that night, there's no blood on him. They didn't find any blood on him. Sledged testing indicated 12 different places on his shirt and pants. No human blood detected, period. I mean, again, would he have had time to change? They never found bloody clothes. Look, at the end of the day,

there is a lot to dissect from these opening statements, but these are just opening statements. They are not evidence that the jury should consider. And I will tell you, I cover. a lot of trials. And sometimes in opening statements, I can get a sense of how each side or which side has the stronger case who might win this. Not here, in my opinion. Not here. Both sides have theories and interpretations of the evidence. I think we really need to let the evidence tell us about what may have happened. And that's all we have for you, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us here on Sidebar. 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 long crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.