Murdaugh Murders Podcast - Cup of Justice Bonus 10: Dick and Jim Win the Headline Game In Murder Hearing But What Really Happened?

Episode Date: December 12, 2022

 After hosting another spirited live-chat of Alex Murdaugh’s latest pretrial hearing in the double-murder case, Mandy Matney, Liz Farrell and Eric Bland break down the most interesting — and most irritating — moments of Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin’s efforts to shape the narrative surrounding the state’s evidence against Alex. In the meantime, an unshackled Alex had a good old time for himself in the courtroom, laughing and flirting with those around him. Click here to view the hearing with comments: https://bit.ly/3UUH05p With a community of MMP Premium Members, we intend to: Fund new researchers and journalists to help us shine the sunlight Build a new website and foster a community of sleuths Broadcast trials and hearings on YouTube LIVE to our biggest fans - Live Trial Coverage will soon only be available to MMP Premium "Soak Up The Sun" Members. Launch a new podcast focusing on where Crime meets Corruption in 2023 Launch Cup of Justice as its own weekly show in 2023 Build a platform for journalists to curate local stories directed at global audiences New content uploads near the 15th of every month, but here is what you can expect with your membership: Enhanced versions of Murdaugh Murders Podcast and Cup of Justice Early Access to video versions of Murdaugh Murders Podcast episodes MMP & COJ Transcripts Q&A’s with Mandy, Liz, David and other MMP contributors Access to Discord Community Page Ad-free email with updates on the cases and episode recaps Access to Premium Merchandise only available to MMP PREMIUM members And much more as we SHINE THE SUNLIGHT! In other BIG NEWS! since publishing this episode, Cup of Justice launched on its own feed and hit #1 on Apple on the first day!!! Please consider giving our newly launched Cup of Justice a 5 star review on Apple & Spotify to help us in our mission to expose the truth wherever it leads!! COJ on Apple: https://apple.co/3HHT9av COJ on Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3WMKkAI We all want to drink from the same Cup Of Justice — and it starts with learning about our legal system. What questions do y’all have for us? Email [e-mail] and we'll do our best to answer your questions in these bonus episodes. Consider joining our MMP Premium Membership community to help us SHINE THE SUNLIGHT! CLICK HERE to learn more: https://bit.ly/3BdUtOE What questions do y’all have for us? Email [e-mail] and we'll do our best to answer your questions in these bonus episodes. SUNscribe to our free email list to get alerts on bonus episodes, calls to action, new shows and updates. AND by sharing your email, we'll send details on exclusive content only available from our SUNScription email list - CLICK HERE to learn more: https://bit.ly/3KBMJcP And a special thank you to our sponsors: Microdose.com, VOURI, and others. Use promo code "MANDY" for a special offer! Find us on social media: Facebook.com/MurdaughPod/ Instagram.com/murdaughmurderspod/ Twitter.com/mandymatney YouTube.com/c/MurdaughMurders Support Our Podcast at: https://murdaughmurderspodcast.com/support-the-show Please consider sharing your support by leaving a review on Apple at the following link: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/murdaugh-murders-podcast/id1573560247 *The views expressed on the Cup of Justice bonus episodes do not constitute legal advice. Listeners desiring legal advice for any particular legal matter are urged to consult an attorney of their choosing who can provide legal advice based upon a full understanding of the facts and circumstances of their claim. The views expressed on the Cup of Justice episodes also do not express the views or opinions of Bland Richter, LLP, or its attorneys. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From the creative team behind the Brutalist and starring Academy Award nominee Amanda Seifred in a career best performance, Searchlight Pictures presents The Testament of Anne Lee. With rave reviews from the Venice Film Festival, this bold and magnetic musical epic tells the story inspired by a true legend. Anne Lee, founder of the radical religious movement, The Shakers, The Testament of Anne Lee. Exclusive Toronto engagement January 16th in theaters everywhere January 23rd. Hello and welcome. We have a really great Cup of Justice episode for you today. But before we get started, I wanted to tell you that we recorded this right after Elic Murdoch's latest pretrial hearing on Friday, December 9th. Later that evening, the Post and Courier reported on this same hearing with the headline, quote, S.E. Prosecutor's rethinking blood spatter evidence after defense pokes holes. That one. wasn't our immediate takeaway from the hearing.

And after re-watching the hearing over the weekend, we think that the Post and Courier's impression that the state is rethinking the blood spatter evidence is an overstatement as to what actually went down in the courtroom. The defense's issue with the spatter evidence is incredibly nuanced, and we'll get into this more in our next episode of M&P. There were a lot of noteworthy moments during the hearing,

and as always a lot to break down. First though, we have got to talk about Russell Lafitte's chances of reversing those six guilty verdicts. So here we go. Hey, guys. Hey, how are you? How are you? I haven't seen you guys in a while. I know, a long day, right?

This is good. I'm down here in Beaufort. It's great. It's good to have you here to do the live chatting during the free trial hearing. Yeah, I got a flat tire on my truck, my monster truck on the way down. that was a little unnerving. So since your year, we want to talk about real quick, because we have so much to talk about with Alex pre-trial hearing today.

But I want to talk about Russell's, yeah, they filed for a motion for a new trial. And I was reading through it, and I guess obviously we're all of agreement that Russell was guilty on all six counts. So we're with the jury on that one, right? Yes. Yeah, we are absolutely with the jury on that.

And I think everybody else in the courtroom we were with on that. Right. And the evidence. So the issue is that one of the major issues, I guess, is that the jury was deliberating for 10 hours. And then they got notes. And basically two of the jurors were like, we're out. We're getting bullied. One of them said we're getting bullied.

One of them said, the other one needed antibiotics and said, I have to get home to get my antibiotics. Right. So what do we think? Do we think that they are going to get a new trial? Do you think that's a good argument? No, it is an argument. Usually the motion for a new trial is summarily denied because it's a prerequisite for an appeal. So everybody, it's perfunctory.

You make it. If you lose in a criminal trial, you make that motion, it's denied. Then you appeal it up to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. This does have some particular legs to it because the independence of the jury is important. And their argument is that the judge invaded the jury room. Once he turned that case over to the jury room, it's their case. And they make the decision on guilt or innocence. And the motion seems to indicate that Judge Gergel may have interfered with that by unseating two jurors,

one of which may have had an opinion that she was not going to vote for Guild of Russell. However, I think they're guilty of waiver because Judge Gergel, when the jury came back in, said to Bart Daniel, you agree to this. procedure of the substitution of the jurors. So ordinarily that might have some weight. It might resonate that the judge did invade that province of the juror. But in this case, I think it was totally appropriate because one of the jurors was not going to follow his instructions, which they're sworn to do. They swore an oath regardless of what your beliefs are. Two, that's why you have alternate jurors. If there is a medical reason, because sometimes jurors do the stress of the

deliberations creates medical issues and jurors are substituted. The brilliance of Judge Gergel is that he actually segregated these jurors and didn't release them. They didn't become infected by going on their phones or watching TV. And so that is the purpose for having alternative jurors. So I think that the motion will fail. And I think it should fail. But not just because they always fail. No, but in this particular case, I don't believe that he overstepped the line by invading the jury. The other thing I thought that was troubling to me is Bart impugned the character of the two replacement jurors by saying they just walked in and within 40 minutes made their verdict. They couldn't have deliberated. He said, well, the original panel deliberated for 10 hours.

So you then seated these two alternative jurors and 40 minutes later they got a We don't know what happened in that jury room. We don't know if they walked in in these jurors. They went through each charge and the jurors said, yeah, I heard all the evidence and they're guilty. So one of the things that I've heard is that they, they're problematic too because neither Matt nor Bart had objected or said made a motion for a mistrial. Yeah, made a motion for a mistrial. When the two jurors were unseated.

Now what does that mean? Like, what does that do for them? They would make a motion at that time to say, judge, this jury. has failed. They cannot reach an agreement. You've invaded the jury room. One juror's free agency was being taken away from her because she was being bullied supposedly by the other jurors. But the fact that they didn't make that motion, what does that do for you? It could be a procedural error on appeal when they argue it that the court would, you know, remember I told you about proffers that if a judge rules against you, sometimes you actually have to say, judge, I need

to put this on the record to protect my appeal. They did not do that. I'm not sure that's going to be the lynchpin on why the Fourth Circuit's going to deny this appeal. I just think Judge Gergel tried a real clean trial. How hard is it to reverse? Yeah. It's like less than a half a percent of the trials.

Really? Yeah. The federal judges are very good. They're very good. They really, they're methodical. They have a, if you notice every time that Judge Gergel, either rule or not. in favor of an objection or overruled, he gave his reason. And so the courts are not going to superimpose themselves from an appellate standpoint when Judge Gerkel is the one that's hearing the

evidence. And there's also a higher percentage of charges to convictions in federal court, right? It's like 99%. It's very high. Very high. And then so once you're, and once you're convicted. I think Russell bet on the wrong horse going to trial, and I think he's going to be, um, uh, he's going get a significant sentence. And I have talked to Emily Limehouse after the trial and we'll talk about that at a later time because we have more to cover. But I think at the sentencing of his trial, we're going to hear a lot about Russell TV. If I was a betting man, we didn't hear about it at the trial, but I think that she is going to really be advocating on Russell TV at the time of his sentencing that goes to his hubris. I'm excited. Season two.

That is. I hope there's a new episode out in the meantime Season two much better What did you guys think of what we watched today? I mean, it was quite a show I mean It was quite a show.

Mandy, do you want to give us a little bit What your thoughts were On just like setting the scene for people? What are some of the things you saw like almost right away? Okay, so setting the scene The most shocking, immediate thing That I noticed was that Alex looked completely different Than the last Alex that we saw

I see like we see like different versions of this guy every time, which is funny because that's kind of the person that he is too. I like that. I like that too. He looks, sometimes he looks real rough and tough like he really belongs in prison. And today was more of a clean-cutt lawyer. He looked like a businessman. He did. Well, he was unshackled.

Let's talk about that. No. First of all, yeah, walked in with no shackles. He did not have the Tommy Bahama Jim's son's clothes this time. He actually had a. A jacket. Yeah, a jacket. A jacket.

A buttoned down. Eyes out or something. And he had hair. His hair grew very fast. And it was well cut and well kept. Yeah. Very blonde. Also, no signs of being shot in the head last year.

It's still. But the other thing that I noticed was really weird about him and I'm going to go back and zoom in and I'm a big teeth person. I know it's teeth. Am I okay? Yours are great. Everybody here has. good teeth. Okay. There's a

but his teeth looked white. His teeth looked white and like fuller like he got dentures or something. Today his eyes scared me guys. There was a couple camera shots where he was glaring and it really had the glare of a scary person. Yeah he gave them like just completely. We talked about how deep set the eyes were and I don't recall that. Yeah. Very dark. Um, and he also just while he at some point it would like look over

to the media and looked very angry. He also seemed very nonchalant, laughing a lot. There was a lot of joking. Yeah, there was a lot of hand gesturing, did you see? Having a lot of whispering, laughing, ha-ha. And I thought that that was interesting, too. I think David pointed that out. If you are on trial for the murders of your wife and son, isn't it not a good look to

be laughing? Not a whole lot of time, I would think. Again, there was no one in the courtroom for him. there wasn't family for him there wasn't friends for him the buster portrait was yeah not in a living number well nobody that's got a pulse but you know i still focus on that where are the people that are standing up for him where are the people that are standing up for the victims that's the grossest part because i think you know i want to give some compassion to maggie's family obviously because we can't possibly know what they're going through but at the same time you and we're talking about this just a

little bit before we started recording, but it speaks to the power of the Murdox, not just Elek, but the Murdoch family itself, that there's hesitancy or what appears to be hesitancy on the part of the families to come into the courtroom because they're going to have to choose a side, right? Right. You either sit with the state or you sit with the defense. The defense. So they're going to have to openly, you know, either come out against him or openly support him.

Well, they're going to have to do it at trial sooner or later, unless everybody's sequestered. I'm now not going to be able to attend the trial. in person because I have been subpoenaed as a witness. And what's going to happen is the same thing that happened in the Rusttried. Those that are under witness are sequestered, meaning that I can't be part of the trial. I can't hear about what's going on. It's going to be unusual. It does.

That really sucks. Yeah, that's going to be real weird. What do they want Eric Blaine to get on the stamp for you? I'm going to toast Alex Murdoch. I mean, I want to fry him. Well, so in the Russell, the Feed trial, they sequestered the witness. But after they testified, they were allowed to come into the apartment. Only one person did.

But you understand why they're going to call me now because he laid out his motive today, Greaten did, about the financial crimes. And I wouldn't be surprised if you guys ultimately get a subpoena. Would be interesting. I would not be happy. Yeah. Absolutely not. I wasn't happy.

By the way, I wasn't happy. I know it doesn't matter if you're happy or not. No. There's no. I don't care. I'm not complying because I'm not happy about it. nothing to do with it. We report from other people, so it would be all hearsay anyway. Yeah, but you've also report... I have no firsthand knowledge of...

You've dug up a lot of stuff in court records. Sure, well, maybe Creighton can present those documents. Yeah, exactly. No, I hear what you're saying. He's probably subpoenaed 100 people and all we put on 16. You know what I'm saying? Yeah, and I think we're getting real close to trial. It seems like it... It didn't seem like that there was a delay. It wasn't.

Like Dick said, well, we can't go forward because these experts aren't getting the material. Dick said we're five weeks away from trial. Let's go. Well, he asked for it. Yeah, right. And he keeps being like, your honor. Just like Russell asked for his trial, right? Be better careful what you ask for you. You may get it.

I know. And he keeps being like, we only have this amount of time for this and that. And it's like, why do you have that amount of time? You could be at the back of the line with everybody else. But you wanted to be here. So let's go. I thought I was in a time warp today when we're discussing Bill of Particulars. I remember in constitutional law, my first year of law school in 1988, you study how the law evolved from Marbury v. Madison in 1798 in the Supreme Court and all these old decisions.

I mean, bill of particulars are, it's a very antiquated procedure where you, as a defense, force the state before a trial. Tell me what your theory of the case is essentially. And I found that not only repugnant to me, but I was upset a little bit of Creighton. and that he fell for the bait because he revealed his theory, his entire theory, his mental impressions, and you usually wait. Well, it's start with the repugnant thing. I want to know. Why did you find it repugnant?

Because I just don't feel like that you as a defendant can force the state to open up and tell me what is your case going to be about? But you already have discovery. You have? Yeah, but it's limited. Like, it's not in civil cases. In civil cases, I would take your deposition. before trial. I would sit down and I'd be able to question you. Just like I did Judge Odom,

we did Judge Odom yesterday. We took her deposition. Yeah, how'd that go? It was awesome. She didn't mince words. I'm surprised that she wasn't called as a witness in the prosecution. She absolutely said she was deceived. She said if Russell had come to her and told her, I'm going to loan money to myself, I'm going to loan money to Alex, I'm going to loan money to Alex. When he's an overdraft, it's going to be unsecured. And I'm doing this to pay. off my own equity line and build a swimming pool, she would have said, get the hell out of my courtroom. And we'll be right back. So what did you guys think of today? Have you been able to process it? Do you think, who won today? Let's put it that way. We always like to talk winners and

Newder's last hearing crate and I thought was on fire, did a great job. Everybody was excited. What do you think today? What about today? Well, I think that yes, okay, like factually, Dick and Jim won. in that the judge approved their order for producing more documents. So they were basically asking. More documents about what? Why was that important? So they were asking for all the communications between SLED and the, I believe maybe the AG's office as well, but I'm not sure. And one of the experts that will be testifying about.

Now Dick and Jim like to say blood spatter, but from what we understand, it's high-velocity impact spatter. I don't know if blood spatter actually plays a part in it. the reason this is important, obviously, because if it's brain matter, that's a whole different thing. But what they wanted. Isn't that what Dick said? Well, Dick said, look, if they blew Paul's head off, there would be blood everywhere and there wasn't. Dick made that statement. Right, but I mean, Paul was found dead in the closet. So I don't know if that's because the shotgun blasts, like, threw him backward into it or if he was in there when he was killed. So I don't know if necessarily

you're going to see the same, like the forensic evidence might be bent a little. We just do not know the totality of evidence still at this point. Like you raised the issue, you said maybe they didn't test the right section of the shirt, and you gave me the example of that case you worked on with semen in the underwear where they didn't test the entirety of the underwear. Yeah, I'm going to say something really controversial right now, and I'm probably going to live to regret it. But I think that local law enforcement agencies in South Carolina can probably seek

I'm secretly attest to this. But the SLED forensic lab, yeah, I've got to be careful, I guess. But they're very, very backlogged. And as such... I think they're underfunded, too. They're underfunded. Fair.

As such, you know, and scientists are scientists. There's no emotion involved. They say, test this. That's what they test. They don't care whose case it is. They don't, you know, none of that's supposed to concern them. Garbage in garbage out. You give me this.

I'm going to give you what you ask for. Well, there have been incidences that I'm aware of in which they have tested a piece of the fabric that did not have the matter on it. So we're going to probably learn more about this in January when, you know, it goes to trial. But we don't know, like Mandy said, the totality of evidence. And we don't know what the circumstances about that test coming back without human. You raised such a good issue about experts. But in that lab.

If the lawyer pays for that expert, that expert's going to advocate pretty much with that lawyer. Which is why Dick and Jim want that shirt. Right. Yeah. And that shirt has been used up, you know, exalt. What do you mean you used up in and exhausted? What do you mean? It has no utility whatsoever now?

That's not true. And they don't know that. Yeah, so they want to test it themselves. I wanted to make a point before we really get into this is I think the thing that a lot of people aren't realizing is what I think that Dick and Jim wanted from putting this evidence on the record and putting bits and pieces also on the record. What was that motion? Like 96 pages? Yeah. And lots of them were just completely blacked out.

So we don't know what was in the redacted parts. Right. But he got the headlines out there that he wanted to, which, and today, I'm sure he got the headlines that he wanted to. Which are blood analysis changes his story. Expert that's giving conflicting opinions. Yeah, blah, blah, blah. today I saw a headline saying Dick and Jim won their motion, even though I don't think it was... They won their motion, but the thing I guess I was going to say...

They won their motion because it was the word granted would use, but it's not winning in the ordinary parlance. But why wouldn't they win it? Like, their benefit of the doubt is going to be given to the defendant, right? So the judge is going to... If the defendant is coming and saying, you're not giving me all the evidence, I want to see more... Give me more of the evidence to the state. I don't think the judge has any choice, but... to say...

Turn it over. Turn it over. And I think that's the issue. And that's what happened the last time, too. Yeah. It was like... Emotion to compel for evidence. And he was like, yeah, get with you.

All he's saying is, let's have a fair trial. Yeah. So, State, if you have evidence, turn it over. Sure. If it's, if it's producible evidence, turn it over. He's not saying, well, this evidence is so important and this evidence is not. He's not passing any judgment on. He's just saying, put all your chips on the table, and then we'll try this case on

January 17th, right? Yeah. But I think where things change for Dick and Jim, momentum change, as you always talk about momentum. As soon as Creighton started talking about the bill of particulars and the, and... It was comical. It was comical. Newman had a good laugh in the corner.

Why? What do you mean? But why was it comical? You tell me. He couldn't, Newman could not get through it without laughing because he was saying, this is literally from the 1800s, Dick. The early 1800s. But there.

But just so you know, old law can be good law. Sure. We have old law. Yeah, the Constitution's old. Right. But what he's saying is the modern criminal procedure has evolved where we have different ways of preparing for a trial than putting crate and wooders almost on the witness stand, making them raise his hand to tell the truth and say, tell me what's in your brain. What is your theory going to be on how you try this case? Can we talk about how they were laughing, how Dick, Jim, Margaret Fox, and Ehrlich himself were laughing while Newman was laughing at the ridiculousness of the motion itself.

I didn't see that. What is going on here? Like, why are you guys laughing? They're laughing at you. My pink fingers. What do you think is funny? I think it's just the absurdity of the whole thing was brought up and they had to acknowledge their own absurdity. But again, like the absurdity, maybe it goes, did it?

Yeah, Creighton got up and told the theory in the case. Okay. And that troubled. That response. Okay, so let's talk about that. We need to be clear with people because this gets some real muddled. But there's a couple of things happening. One is the motions to produce the evidence, right?

So Creighton, there's a tail of two Creightons, right? So we love Big Creighton energy. We love it when Creighton shows. He's six feet tall and not five feet. Yeah. Like he doesn't let Dick go run into his side of the room. You know, he's just like, I'm going to. There was too chummy today.

Today was chummy before the hearing. Chummy after the hearing. I didn't like that. He stood a little taller. during the when he's talking about the motive. Yeah, so he comes... So let's talk about motive.

So we'll be. So he comes out the first thing in defending the motion to compel. He's a little frazzled. What was his argument about that? Did you understand? I think it was I need more time. Yeah.

So what? To determine whether the T-shirt is going to be used? Essentially, Dick and Jim found a reference to a PowerPoint presentation and they found... And it was misfiled, right? Something like that.

And there were some photos that were they say were photoshopped and maybe they were. I assume they were. Like Photoshop doesn't mean fabricated necessarily means. It could means cropped. Yeah, it could exactly. Zoomed in and cropped. Exactly.

Okay. But they want the original. Yeah, not altered. People use the term Photoshop for all sorts of different. And also, again, back to the headlines. Right. He wanted the headline saying, SLED is photoshopping evidence. Right.

And that's what people did. Absolutely. And Crane didn't help the argument because in arguing the states, you know, why haven't they given that over. In his argument, I'll be honest with it. Yeah. I will be honest with you. Yeah, I have to.

It could have been stronger. It could have been. I thought his motive argument was clear and cozy. He was very prepared for that. Yeah, so then we go into the bill of particulars. Now, the tale of two cratons, this was big cratin energy. So we had little Creighton energy to begin with and we're a little nervous. Then he came out of the gates.

Little, little craten energy, little nervous, big craten energy comes out. He's gesticulating. He's pointing out the alleged murderer. He said he killed his wife and son. Yeah. He killed. Those were powerful words. He killed, not murder, he killed his wife and son.

So in South Carolina, you don't have to prove motive when, or the prosecution does not have to prove motive when it comes to proving whether somebody murdered another person. In the bill of particulars that Dick and Jim were asking for was essentially motive as a part of that, right? Right. And why do they were asking for motive? The reality is motive is in every trial. It should be. Because you're as a juror.

I've seen it without. You're a juror. You're going to want to know, what would be the motive for him? do that. The girl who was killed in the fake Uber case in Columbia last year in the U.S. there was no mention of motive throughout that entire case and they got a guilty verdict. Wow. Okay. That was the only case I've ever seen were no motive.

Yeah, why. So, it was evident. Did you like, did you guys like the motive that was articulated by the state? I think the motive was obvious if we're in it. I mean, we could have guessed and we not. We didn't guess. We didn't guess. We knew because, we knew from our great sources. Right. But that was what they were saying all along, but it was, it was validated to hear it, see it on the record. But we did learn two facts in the, in the Russell Lafee case that we never knew, and Crayton never said it came out of Emily's mouth, which was the, on the day of the murders, he was confronted by Gene and Ronnie Crosby about the money, and then also the fact that Maggie

would not assign over, according to Alec, wouldn't assign over her interest in the beach house. Yeah. To me, that was. way I look at that is that Ehrlich kept away the appraisers from the bank from appraising the beach house and he blamed it on Maggie. But that, like you said, could also be motive for killing her because according to himself and his story, she was standing in the way of the sale of that. Craent felt that the most important fact was Mark Tinsley suing Alex and his financial, the financial statements and financial documents hearing was going to be on June 10th

where he was going to have to finally produce. He had stood Mark down for years and years of not turning over financial information. And he, Creighton said that to him was very powerful that Alex didn't want Mark Tinsley to know he was either broke or had money or not money. I think it's a combination of not only him being sued, but Paul is on trial for a felony DUI. So he's got that pressure. He's got the pressure.

It seems there may have been some estrangement between him and Matt. Maggie, we don't know the extent of it. And now his law firm's breathing down his back. Another thing that we learned, not from the Russell defeat trial, but from the state's response to the bill of particulars, is that on the day of the murders, not only was he confronted by his law firm about stealing money, but he was apparently working on his financial disclosures for the boat crash case, which I think, I need to go back and make sure. But I'm pretty sure he said, Creighton said that it was handwritten.

He was made, no, Jim said this. Jim said he was working on a handwritten financial document. I'm good, turn that over to a back and see if you ever get any money. And he said, and he said, Mark Hensley getting an index card with money. And Alex has, Alex Werner Finance. You know, two acres of a swap-lap. One billion dollars.

And we will be right back. The chilling thing to me was when Creighton said, He killed his wife and son so he could get sympathy to stop the train that was coming at him from his law firm in a whole different places. That is so dark guys. And it worked. It's dark. So I have a source who knows Ehrlich really well. And right after the murders, one of the things he said was that this was about sympathy, that Ehrlich killed Malie and Paul because he wanted sympathy.

How dark is that, Liz? It's crazy. The darker thing is that I've never. never questioned that. Same. You guys know? No, we never. So many people.

It always made sense ever since. We heard of it. For sympathy. And then he said he did it again on Labor Day to get sympathy again. I didn't think of that. Yeah. So that's clicked for us for a long time. And that's another thing that has really convinced me that Alex is a narcissist.

That is able to manipulate and control people around him and does not care. Well, now he's a socialian. Now you're into the sociopath. I mean, under the MMPI, this guy will break the book. He'll qualify for every single thing in the world. You saw him laughing and flirting today, which is one of them more disturbing things. Yes, it was. Happened, him flirting with.

And don't kid yourself, Judge Newman noticed that, and Judge Newman's law clerk noticed that. And the clerk of court noticed that. What do you think is going to help me out of? And they'll talk about it when they go back in chambers, somebody's going to mention that. So what does that like? I think the solemnness. the seriousness of these proceedings a judge does not like that yeah it's one of the most horrific homicides in our history Susan Smith is the only other one I can

think about this one there's lots of horrible homicides but like a wife and son is just so it's hard for people to believe that I think that's the number one thing try to go open it right now try to goop that it's hard to even swallow yeah and then to be laughing and again it's like You have to think of a normal guy sitting there and how pissed off and angry you would be. Yeah, you've got the wrong guy. You got the wrong guy. Go find whoever.

Has those words ever come out of his mouth? He doesn't come off as angry or worried or scared or... He gives his dumb little glare over to the... Media. Yeah, to the media. Is that who he was looking at you? Yeah, because the media sits in that jury box. Yeah.

So they sat in the jury box. Yeah, so that's who he's looking at. And that's right. at the camera and then he you know grumpily looked at Creighton a little bit but I don't think we he talked to Creighton I think at one of the breaks where he was sitting there while they were all talking I thought I saw at that five minute break there was a five minute recess yeah it's god but yeah you just seemed way to real comfortable but I also think that Dick and Jim are trying to make him look like this everyday guy that like women can sit next to and flirt with and

he's nothing to be afraid of. He's just a, he's just an old frat boy. I don't know what was going on with Jim Griffin's associate. Maggie Fox, she is a bright, bright woman. What the heck is she doing? She writes. I understand that. But why is she sitting there looking like that?

The same thing that Phil was there. They're legal scholars. They, they toil. I'm not, I think. Eric, she was applying lipstick. Look, I am the first to say that I hate it when people criticize the way that women are acting. and looking and a lot of nine times out of ten people say that women are flirting when they aren't right but this was something like it seemed intentional to me it seemed like somebody told her to

sit there and smile and humanize them she she's not that kind of she's not that kind of i know her well she she won't she's not someone who you would let to be window dressing she may have made a judgment error doing lipstick but she is a real serious lawyer i will say that i don't doubt that at at all. I guess what I'm saying is maybe this goes back to the large. There were too many bad visuals today. Yeah, so many bad visuals. That's a great way. And also if your wife just died a year,

if your wife has just murdered a year ago, you should not just be giggling. You raise such an important issue for lawyers about good look. Visuals, man. We talk about it all the time with our clients. When you're sitting at the table,

do not react if something's good or something's bad. Do not feverishly right because the jury will notice that. The judge will notice that. Everything has choreographed, believe it or not, in a trial. You saw in Russell's trial where that went bad. Russell's body language wasn't good. He was dismissive.

He became combative. You are so right about the choreography of hearings. And that's what I think I'm saying with the Maggie Fox thing. It's just it seemed part of a very intentional effort. And maybe that's why we were all here today. Maybe that is why that hearing existed in the first place so that we could get those visuals. Because when you look at the motion to unshackle Ehrlich, most of it is about how murder suspects are not shackled during trial. Well, that's irrelevant because this is pretrial hearing.

Yeah, what does it mean? And during pretrial hearings. And so at the end, Dick and Jim are like, the state's going to argue that during pretrial hearings, it is the acceptable norm to shackle a defendant. But the media is there, and because of the nature of this case, we think he should be unshackled. Why shouldn't he be shackled? He's not under bond. He is in jail. He should be treated just like everybody else.

I don't believe he should be unshackled. Well, he was unshackled. So the visual of that. But when you look at the argument they were making, it was because of the look of it. It's not, you know, just that he's not a danger. It's that the media is there and we want him unshackled. And they said specifically, yeah, we know. know that most other murderers are shackled, but most of the murderers don't have TV cameras.

Yeah, but most of the other murders are reported by when you guys are journalists, you would go to a murder trial and report it. I just think that we, again, we're back to the same cup of justice. Are we going to have one, or we're going to have two? We didn't have a different one for Alex in this murder trial. Look, something happened at the end of the hearing, which is Alex's grandbathers on the wall, the portrait. We got to take it down. You know, we don't want him staring at the jury. I mean, that's almost threatening in a way, isn't? Yeah, it's creepy. It is creepy. It's weird, too, that they haven't taken those down already. Like, the dynasty has fallen, they've been exposed. It is time for those paintings to go. It is a new era in South

Carolina. I was in Mark's courtroom in Allendale, and one of them is sitting there with a cigar in his hand. That's the portrait. Can you imagine that? It's not like usually you see it. judge he's very propped probably whiskey in the other you know with a robe on or you see a lawyer they're standing he's sitting there with a cigar like this like I'm the badass

Buster Murdoch was known to smoke cigars in the courtroom right but back to the But that's power again isn't it? Yeah it's power but back to the visuals and back to who's winning and who's losing here I think that it could

be argued that they do not like with their visuals that I think a jury, if a jury was sitting there today and watching Alex and their team and their interactions, I think from that, and those are things that stick with a jury, right? Like, a jury sits all day and gets all these random facts thrown at them. Blood's better and it's...

But one little slip up could stick in their head. But a visual in front of them and just an overall impression is so big, and huge and I don't think that Dick and Jim are taking that seriously. I don't. Jurors have 24 years and 24 eyes. And there's one or two jurors that are watching Dick, watching Jim, watch Maggie, watch Alex, and they'll go back in that juror room. They won't talk about the testimony.

And they'll say, did you see the way that Alex was grinning? Or did you see the way that Dick smirked? And it sticks like cement. And they'll say things like he doesn't look like a guy who's mourning the life, the loss of his wife. Guys, we're going to see a different ELEC during the trial. Let's face it. Boatide. Right now it's for the media. It's to be dismissive of Creighton during his argument. It's to, you know, like during when Creighton's talking, Ehrlich and Dick are whispering.

You know, Liz and I today kind of had a gulped while you were talking to David. We kind of gulped a little bit and said, geez, after our experience in the Russell trial with the two jurors, we could possibly see something like that happening in this trial that there could be, you know, not, I don't think any chance of a not guilty verdict, but there could be one or two jurors that could decide that the state isn't going to prove. Now, let me ask you this. Obviously, Russell, he testified and obviously Bart forced him into it because he said a pack of wild horses in his opening statement couldn't keep Russell off the stand.

so he had to put him on the stand. You think he forced his client to go on the stand? No, no. I think it was that Ronnie and I think it was the dumbest opening statement that we've ever heard. Meaning he painted him into that corner. He painted himself that he didn't have the flexibility if the state didn't prove the case, not to rustle up. So my question to you guys is, will Alex testify? I do not think so.

I think Dick is always the lawyer that says he wins his case on cross-examination. the state's witnesses and then says the state didn't prove this case, we rest. Can I quote something for you right now? Yes. Your Honor, I've been exercising and everything's great. You should let me out on bond. Do we not remember the first hearing with Judge Allison? He talked for eight minutes about himself.

He never once apologized. He hinted out an apology. Your Honor, I just want to say to my son's friend. And again, he was invoking sympathy too. Except there's so much cross-examination material on him. And the lesson to be learned from Russ is don't open your mouth and let people think that, you know, know how stupid you are. Keep it close and let people just think about it. Do you think, I just don't think he is smart enough to say I should shut up.

I think that he's going to say, put me in to coach. I got this long. Russell was able to bulldog Bart and Matt to say him. testifying, Dick Carputely, and nobody pushes him. If he doesn't want Alex to testify, I'm telling you, he will not put Alex on... Everyone, and I think even you said that that eight-minute speech that he gave, and unfortunately, we don't have a record of it because Judge Allison Lee didn't allow cameras. Wait a minute. So you are saying there's a possibility you think that Alex could testify. But you don't remember your thoughts then when you were like, why did they let Alex talk? And it

wasn't, it didn't help his chance at a bond whatsoever. It was the stupidest thing. It was so dumb. Yeah. And he was also... And it made Lee mad. Yes. Yeah. It made her very mad. Made her mad. And that's when she gave a huge bond. It was like, let's make it bigger or whatever.

It was like... Seven million? 10%. No, not 10 million. Just pull 7 million. Seven million. Yeah. And Dick grew up.

And he got so mad. Yeah, he got pissed. Well, that's what I'm saying. I don't think... You know, as much as you that, I know that Dick Harpooh has this reputation, but even today, I mean, he didn't seem like he was on his game, right? No, he was not as forceful and sarcastic. He was all over the place.

He said, um, a lot and was very, he's usually pretty fast with his words and faster to getting to the point. Coherent. It's not one giant sentence for seven minutes. Didn't one of our listeners say, yeah, one of our listeners is saying that there's zero punctuation. It's just la la, la, um, um, um. La La La. He wasn't energetic. He wasn't... I thought he looked better today physically in the face than he did in prior hearings. And he looked good in his suit. You know, I can say that for a 73-year-old guy.

I thought Jim was not... His little mafia suit? I didn't think Jim was as crisp as he usually was in his arguments. Today, we were talking about this earlier, but he just seemed like a sixth grader. He didn't do his homework. And he was shuffling through papers. I thought today it was going to be more fireworks because of 96th. page motion and accusations of destroying evidence. I mean, if you have a defense attorney and you have that kind of argument, I mean, that's rafter stuff that you scream from the rafters.

I didn't see a lot of punch on both sides today. At times, yes, but not a consistent overwhelming force. I would say if there was a, like the peaks, the peaks in valleys of today, like the highest peak where it was like the most emotional and. And you could see the tension. I think was when Creighton was talking about Alex trying to pin the murders within 30 seconds. And that was a big fact that we heard for the first time this week. Oh, yeah, it was Alex's own words.

I didn't know that. And that's the reason why all this is coming back to him. Let's explain that. Folks, you realize that Creighton said that within 30 seconds of the police officers showing up after he made his nine, on one call, he said, these people did it because of the Mallory Beach boating accent. Like, where did that come from? So essentially that blew the defense's argument because they're saying that we, you know, one of the elements that's coming into play here is State v. Lyle, which is prior bad acts.

So basically. It's Rule 404 of the Rules of Evidence. So explain, why can't you, if I'm on trial, why can't you admit that, you know, I was jumped off the, you know, a roof and I beat people up in college and everything. because why? It's prejudicial. People will make conclusions based on my other acts and not, and in future. Well, if it speaks to your character. So basically, if you're, you know, this person's a bad person doesn't necessarily mean you did the crime at hand. Right. Right. So we don't want

to convict somebody just from other bad acts. So there's specific set of circumstances under which you can get evidence of prior bad acts admitted. And obviously that will be, you know, another hearing that will be held in the future. That would be Rule 403 instead of Rule 404 if it becomes habit. It has to be probative. It has to speak to the crime at hand. Now, yes, the probative nature, though, can't be unduly prejudicial. If it's too prejudicial, it still may be probative, but the court may hold by introducing it, it prejudices the charges at hand. So it's a real analysis that has to be done. And that judge was not willing to do that today. No, that's coming, though, because it's going to be important. So essentially, the state is saying that because of

Ehrlich because he is the one within 30 seconds of the police arriving there who introduced the element of the boat crash case and the boat crash victims, you know, trying to pin it on them. He opened that door. So now they have to explain why would that be significant? And what does that mean? And where, exactly. And so they made their motion to include that evidence. And obviously that would get hurt in the future.

But that is significant because now it introduces all the financial crimes and what kind of man he was. And Mandy, I think that was one of the more interesting things was when he was talking about the different, like you had mentioned earlier, the different types of Alex that there are. How many personalities does he have? How many personalities does he have? Is he civil? Yeah, how many people? It's one of the coldest things, Liz and I were talking about this earlier, that, I mean, really kind of took my breath away when I was thinking about it. He was trying to blame one of the most brutal homicides.

in the state's history, one of the most horrific crimes, on his son's friends. The same people he tried to blame on the boat crash. To blame somebody else that was driving a boat, not his own. And that's how his mind works. It's immediately I messed up or somebody that I have to protect messed up. And I'm not used to getting caught for anything. So I'm going to point the finger and start and I know how to cover it up. And everything has worked in my favor.

Like, because why would, I mean, to the rest of us that wouldn't think of that in a million years to blame it on a friend? That's essentially you're doing. Like, and children. Friends with these people. And their parents. Yeah, and he's known these kids his whole life. He probably knew them as babies. He coached them in baseball.

Could you imagine knowing a little kid that you threw a t-ball to when he was five years old and trying to pin a murder on him? Isn't that what Mr. Cook said in one? of those HBO specials. He said, I coached baseball with the guy and then I'm all of a sudden realizing as we're talking, hey, he's about to blame my son. We've spoken with enough people that knew Alex now, and knew him, and knew them in college and high school and stuff. And that is a pattern of blaming it on friends and getting out of it and no one being able to say or speak up and say, this is not, I didn't do that, or maybe taking the blame because that's just what you do around the Murdox. This week I heard, God,

that there was possible offers of plea made by the state that we they would if he pled to the financial crimes they would do 30 years and we would do the murder

is there any validity of what those discussions were because it was leaked either by the defense or somebody leaked it I think it was the defense it had to have been because it works in the defense's favor

because it looks like the state doesn't have a case and it looks like it makes you don't think there's any validity that they've never seen them I'm not so unequivocally. The attorney general's office never does that. They never comment saying that something is false.

And they did hear. And they did. They said, unequivocally. Unequivocally. They said, we never offered a plea deal in any allegations. And then in their response, they had a footnote talking about how they planned to seek life for the financial crimes alone. So that answers the question. The life, yeah, Elwap, life without parole.

Yeah. But what about life, obviously life on the murder charge? There's not going to be a death penalty. We don't know. They don't have to tell you until, is it. 30 days before trial? For death penalty? Yeah.

Really? Yeah. We don't know yet. But that would be too weeks. That's still possibly on the table. But I think, too, if there's ever a case for, I'm not an advocate for the death penalty, but if there's ever a case for one, I think. I think a father that kills a wife and son deserves a death penalty if he did it.

This particular case, I'm troubled by the lack of direct evidence. But we don't know all the evidence. We know all the stuff that Dick and Jim have leaked. But we know it's a circumstantial evidence case. We know we don't have witnesses. To a point. To a point. But there are witnesses.

There's very few murder cases that have actual witnesses. You're right. Except bar room fights or something. And even if you have a video, you know better with all those DUIs in the state and how they, even though you have a video of the guy being drunk on camera. They could throw that out. Yeah, exactly. About a month ago, we all said we didn't think the trial would go forward in January.

Now I'm starting a waiver on that. Well, I would say you are. You got subpoenaed. Right. Yeah, but it still doesn't mean. I think to, the closer that we get to the trial, the more expensive it is going to be for the state to move everything, right? That's a good point. They have to set up and schedule out all these resources. Right. That's a good point.

And they're going to be pissed off if they have to move it. Right now, we're looking at big game of chicken. And because the state waited a year to charge him, something that we've been really critical about, the state sort of has a head start, would you think, or no? Do you think that they were really spending? their time to cement a case in encase it in cement for a year? Yeah. You do? I do. I think they were. Do you think they were working that hard on a year or were they working more on the financial crimes? No, I think they were really. I don't know if they have the resources to do both, to be honest. They hired a lot of people. Yeah, they did. And I mean, I don't know. That's a criticism actually,

frankly. Yeah. And I think it's going to be. Of hiring a lot of people? Well, what about all the other murders? And, you know, and we're happy, obviously, like, we want to see a justice served here, and whatever thought may be, it might be absolutely, you know, might be that he didn't do this, okay? But he, I mean, there are other murders. There are other families that are deserving of the time and efforts and resources. Where are all these people sitting in jail? Why does Russ and Alex get their trial within six months? I don't understand it.

It's people's ambitions, right? So you have this major case. It's the biggest case in your career. Has Creighton tried a murder case before? I don't think I've heard he hasn't. Has the state A.G's had a murder case. case I've heard they haven't. No, right.

So these are big things for Emily Limehouse. That's a big win. That is a maybe, you know, exactly. That's a career defining. And by the way, she had lost her previous trial. She had not guilty verdict. So she had told me she was absolutely nervous. Yeah, so this is ambition to a certain extent.

She wasn't as confident on the inside as she appeared and portrayed on the outside. Well, she's good. She was really great. Yeah. Not at all. I thought she was, I was actually jealous of how calm and collected. Yeah, for sure. Well, today, Eric Allen, who thank you, Eric Allen for an amazing videography,

Eric sent us a printout that they were apparently passing around to media in Colleton County advertising Airbnbs for the trial. Passing it around in the courthouse. This is like the event of the century in Walterborough. We've heard from fans of the show that they have already rented their hotel room or a book Are you kidding me? Yeah, people are coming down for like girls' weekends. I'm not kidding you.

Wow. Yeah. It's crazy, but I think every day that we get closer, especially in the next couple weeks, I feel like nothing's, nothing really happens around Christmas time, usually. So it is going to go. I think it's going and I, I can't believe it,

but here we are. And I think it's just going to be unpredictable, just the craziest few weeks of our lives. You know what? I do feel bad for. And I know that there's probably good and bad about it. But I just, you know, having a father, I feel bad for Buster. I feel bad that it's Christmas time. He doesn't have a mother.

His father did it to himself and is in jail. He doesn't have a brother. The family name's destroyed. I just, there is a part of my heart that does go out to a boy, a boy like that. It just does. Yeah. Yeah. It's sad.

It's sad all the way around. It's horrible what Alex Murdoch did to his family because Maggie and Paul right now don't have a single person in the courtroom for them because of Alex's intimidation of people. Yeah. And because Alex puts that fear inside of people that if you go against me, you're going to pay for it. I want to talk about, you know, wrap this up with one of our, I think, favorite moments during the hearing, which was what Creighton said about Elie. and not being able to kill all the victims, which was a stunning, stunning moment because his point was that Ehrlich had to kill Maggie and Paul. That was the more effective way to get sympathy than to kill everyone he had screwed over since 2011.

He said he couldn't kill all those people. Oh, and he said that what did he, did we know that every single year he stole from? That was new. Did he say a different victim every single year? From 2011 to 2020? 21. Yeah. That was a new fact.

For 11 years, there's never a gap in time when he wasn't stealing from somebody. I couldn't believe, like when Creighton said he couldn't kill all of them. I also think that that is speaking to the tone

of what we're going to see in the next month, which is this guy is capable of anything. It was chilling. Thank you guys for joining us. We had a lot of fun today and we have a lot of fun talking to you every time we are on Cup of Justice.

Yeah, I'm real appreciative. I hope everybody's enjoying the holiday season and getting ready for Christmas and Hanukkah and whatever you want to celebrate. And I thought it was neat today. Interactive again. It really is humbling when we do that. It lets us know that we have some special people. And people all over the world. I know.

I've seen England and Scotland and sometimes Australia pops in there. It's really exciting. Awesome. World tour someday. Thanks, guys. Thank you guys. Thank you. This Cup of Justice bonus episode of the Murdoch Murdoch Murdo's podcast is.

is created and hosted by me, Mandy Matney. With co-host Liz Farrell, our executive editor, and Eric Bland, attorney at law, aka the Jack Hammer of Justice. From Luna Shark Productions.