Murdaugh Murders Podcast - Cup of Justice Bonus 12: What evidence will be allowed in the murder trial? + What the new charges could mean for Alex’s victims?

Episode Date: December 28, 2022

In the second of a two-part episode, Mandy Matney, Liz Farrell and everyone’s favorite attorney Eric Bland talk about the ongoing rumor that Maggie Murdaugh had consulted a divorce attorney before her murder, what part of the financial crimes Judge Newman might allow into evidence and why PMPED’s confrontation of Alex Murdaugh on the day of the murders stayed a secret for so long. Enjoy the show and join us for MMP back on schedule Wednesday, January 4th, 2023. 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

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from Luna Shark Productions. Since it is a holiday week, we are switching things up to give our team a little bit of a break but also give you all your Wednesday podcast fix. So today, we bring you Cup of Justice 12 and we will be back to regular scheduling next week with MMP on Wednesday. Also exciting, Liz Farrell, Eric Bland, and I will be on the MMP Premium Discord Channel tonight at 5.30pm EST, that's Wednesday, December 28th, to discuss this episode and take questions from y'all.

We have a lot of new fun things in store for this growing MMP Premium community, so be sure to go to MMP.supercast.com and sign up today. We are beyond thankful for every person who has joined this community and supported our work to change journalism and the justice system for the better. We hope y'all had an amazing time with your families and loved ones this week. And we hope y'all are as excited for the new year as we are, because January is going to be crazy. We could not let the year end without talking about the state's decision not to pursue

the death penalty against Ellick Murdock and what that could mean for his upcoming trial. Liz Farrell, Eric Bland, and I also will be talking about Ellick and Maggie's marriage, the likelihood of Judge Newman allowing the financial crimes to be entered into evidence and the reasons the PMPD confrontation with Ellick on the day of the murders remained so secret for so long. Something isn't right there. So let's get into it.

We wanted to pick your brain about the memorandum in response to Creighton's motion to include evidence of motive. Mandy and I were sort of wondering what your thoughts were. Do we think that Judge Newman is going to exclude the financial crimes in the murder trials? No. Why not? Because they do, I think, pass the acid test of Lyle.

I think the proximity of a lot of this happening right around that June 7th date, especially him being confronted by his law firm on that date, especially on June 8th, where he was supposed to, the collateral was supposed to be given for the Beach House. And then June 10th, where Mark Tinsley was going to have his hearing in front of Judge Hall on making Alex disclose his financial information, I think all of this is motive that they should be able to get into. I think otherwise it becomes a very isolated scientific sterile case of just looking at the circumstantial evidence that existed in Mazzell at the time of the murder.

I think he's going to let it in, whether he lets every single one of the financial crimes come in. The problem you get into is if you open that door and I understand Dick's concern, if you open that door, then you have a mini trial on every one of these financial crimes. And I think the judge is going to have to balance it. It's such a, he has to be Solomon like to make this decision because Liz, you can end up with 10 different trials before you ever get to the murder trial. Holy cow.

Which would really confuse the jury too. Really confuse the jury. So where do you come down on that, Mandy? Where do you think? I think that Newman will rule that the financial crimes can be let in. I think it does pass the acetate and everything, but a part of Dick and Jim's most recent motion that I think that they actually made a good point about has to do with the shooting, alleged shooting, whatever, at the suicide for hire.

Basically, Dick and Jim said in the state's theory, in Creighton's latest response, he is saying, Alex did all of these things for sympathy, that Alex did not want to die on September 4th. He just did that for sympathy and distraction. But in the meantime, there's still, Alex has been indicted by the state for staging his own suicide. And insurance fraud. And insurance fraud.

I think Newman may not let in every financial crime, but he's going to let in financial pressures. So whatever can fit in under financial pressures that doesn't create a complete trial within a trial, he may try to thread the needle. That's interesting. That actually makes a lot of sense to me. That does make sense. Eric, do you think that if the, you've always said that they should have done the financial

crimes first, would it be easier for Newman to make this decision if trials were already, if the financial trial, if the financial cases were already tried? Absolutely 100%. No question. He would be able to already say, he got a fair trial. He was convicted. It comes in, he's already convicted. Now he's not convicted of this now, wait though, but conviction doesn't matter.

Conviction doesn't. I understand. But it goes a long way. What we do have is the confession of judgment to Gloria Satterfield, where he admitted he stole her money. Now that is something that's strong. We have some of the confessions that he gave his brother and Johnny Parker. But as to the other charges, he's not admitted.

He's done anything wrong in Pickney. He's not admitted he did anything wrong in Badger. Eric, see what I'm not understanding here is, state VLAL, it does not matter if you were convicted or not because it does not. The issue is the prior bad acts, which means even if you had a long history of being convicted of similar type crimes, regardless of whether he was, if he was found guilty of all those financial crimes, the judge is still going to have to decide whether it's relevant and whether it's admissible.

It's the same two tests. It is and it isn't. A way to break down state VLAL is just to say, we want to be very careful that we're not convicting somebody of this crime because he's done all these other crimes. We want to make sure that if we're convicting him for this single crime, it rises and falls on what his criminal intent was, did it meet the elements of the crime charge. However, to show his propensity, to show that he had the mens re, these other acts are evidence of a habit or pattern to show that it fits into him doing this crime.

It's a very, you know, it's not an objective thing. It's very subjective state VLAL. It's not like, you know, I mix zinc with magnesium and I make this drug. It's sticky. It's icky. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. So state VLAL kind of feels that way too. Hey, this seems like it would be really relevant.

It's not totally prejudicial. It's very probative. Or you know what? If I let it in that he raped this person in this particular crime, boy, it's going to override his presumption of innocence. It's kind of a balancing test. I mean, it's going to be a tough decision. Well, it's funny.

So with state VLAL, it's not as simple as like, okay, this is a rape case and this guy's been convicted of rape before, been accused of rape before. It's not simply the act. It has to show that not only was he accused of rape before, but in this case, he raped a woman in the woods. And then the other case, he raped her in the woods. In this case, he went after a 15 year old with blonde hair. And this other case, he went after a 15 year old with blonde hair.

There has to be something that- Causal connection. Right. So, but here's the thing with ELIC that is confusing to me. We're not talking about a financial crime right now. We're talking about murders. So his financial crimes are not necessarily or his alleged financial crimes. We're not looking for a pattern of behavior there.

It seems like it's something different altogether. It's trying to show that what, like you said, like the financial pressures existed. It's not that there was a pattern of behavior or a common scheme in these financial crimes that had a bearing on how he allegedly perpetrated this current crime. It's that they existed in the first place. So is that something completely different than State v. Lowell or is that the appropriate avenue? Because that's what's been confusing me is that-

You're like my professor at the old school of Flanagan talking about State v. Lowell as you're an evidence, he was my evidence professor. It is right. You're right. It's how much is he going to open the door? Remember, once you crack that door, it could get busted wide open. And then what Newman doesn't want to do and what Creighton doesn't want to do is just create a total appellate mess that if he's convicted, it's going to be reversed because

too much went in and he was unfairly prejudiced by all these other charged but not convicted crimes. That's the fear that I have as a lawyer. We always want a clean trial. But if you make this such a clean sterile trial only on what happened on June 7th, it doesn't give any context on what was Alex thinking about. What was driving him to that breaking point. One of the things that we haven't talked about is, and everybody says, well, Maggie

never saw a divorce lawyer. I am getting private communications from some of our listeners. They're emailing me and messaging me that Maggie's sister knows who she saw. And she saw supposedly a female lawyer in Hilton Head to go over what her options are. Now whether that's true or not, a lawyer can come forward at this point. If it is true that Maggie did consult with a lawyer, a lawyer can come forward. That's not it breaking the attorney client privilege. Two, did the state look into Maggie's checkbook to see did she write a check to attorney

to an attorney? Does somebody know who gave her a recommendation on go see lawyer acts? So I'm starting to get these messages and I don't know whether you guys are completely off base and the people that are texting me and communicating with me. Do you think that Maggie was contemplating some kind of marital event, whether it was seeking advice, a separation or a divorce? I'm asking you guys that. Personally, no.

But. Okay. Yeah. Mandy? No. Well, I don't think so. But because everything that I know about Maggie Murdock, I do not think, I think that she would be miserable and I think that she would be separated from her husband.

But as far as drawing the papers and being officially divorced from the Murdock family, the status, the money, everything, I don't think she would do it. I tend to disagree. I think that putting aside whether there was marital discord over fidelity or what, and I don't know whether he was, you know, faithful to her or she was faithful to him. But I do believe that money does create pressure, a different kind of pressure and a man that is constantly taking money and putting the family of financial risk, especially when some of that money is Maggie's or property is Maggie or making Maggie sign on to something

or pledge her assets, that makes a woman rightfully nervous. So I tend to think there may be something there and then, and I'm sure the state's exploring it. Yeah. I think they have. I would say with the family that she came from and from the Murdock family, divorce is super frowned upon and it's not something that was even in her laxicon. But what I would say is with Randolph on his deathbed and Libby, she has dementia, Libby

Murdock, you know, Alex mom, there maybe would have been an avenue for her to suddenly seek that divorce and not feel that pressure from because that family loomed large in Maggie's life. Well, I'll tell you this. The person I think, I think the person that holds more keys than anybody is Buster Murdoch. I think if Buster ever decides he's going to talk, I think Buster knows a lot. If there was marital discord between his parents, I think Buster knows a lot of the answers on Gloria Satterfield.

I think Buster knows a lot of the answers on Stephen Smith. I think he holds the key and one day he may decide I want to no longer be associated with my father. Well, but I mean, I think I don't think there's a question of whether or not Alex and Maggie had a rough relationship. I've heard that from sources since 2019 and very good ones who are very close. Like they had a bad relationship. I'm fine with saying that.

Bad enough that they were living separate in the park? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, Maggie. But I think we have to understand that maybe he didn't like that. I think we have to understand their world, which like last year, I remember specifically talking to someone who really knew Ellick and knew the world that they were in, which is small town, but also very elite small town.

And it is their ideas of divorce, their ideas of marriage are completely different from what we think of the ideal marriage, the what's grounds for divorce, etc. The source that I was talking to specifically said, and that world, like you don't kill people because, how do I say this? You don't kill your spouse because of an affair because it's just so normalized. They just all have accepted that everybody has affairs and they've, there's no passion of like, you cheated on me, so I'm going to murder you. However, I think there's enough to show that Maggie was aware that things were, that the

kingdom was crumbling and unraveling. Yeah. Her checks were bouncing in those months before Russell was covering those checks. So why, why those few checks that Maggie did bounce, like why, why were those bounced? Why did it concern her? Well, I'm just saying, like this whole time they were just covering the bounce, they paid them, they honored them. Why, why all of a sudden were they not honoring them?

That's a good point. And I think that that's the point of this, that all of a sudden he had all of these systems of covering up this and that and this and that, and they all just kind of started to collapse in the months before the murders. And we'll be right back. I think the most important thing that happened is actually what was revealed in Russ's trial and that is the law firm confronting him on June 7th. Everything else he can deal with, he could talk Maggie down off a ledge.

He can deal with Paul. But the law firm, if they turn on him, that is his source of earning money, either legitimately or stealing. That's his lifeblood. His whole existence is that law firm. It provides him with his legitimate source of living. It provides him with his theft source of living. And he was confronted in a big way.

And I'm telling you, he went in a full state of panic. To me, that is the most important fact that I've heard about that would trip his wire and make him do something crazy. What you just said is really interesting, Eric, because we were talking about this earlier. Dick and Jim's response to the motion that Creighton had put forth on the motive, entering the motive into the record, it seemed to me like they were comparing apples and oranges because they were saying that that was, that's what the state was saying was that Elik was afraid the law firm was about to turn on him, and that's absurd and illogical and what

have you. And you're saying, obviously, no, that's not absurd and illogical, that makes perfect sense. Makes perfect sense. The state also isn't just saying that the PMPED thing was what motivated the murders of Maggie and Paul. The state is also saying that he was under an extreme amount of pressure beyond just PMPED.

Like this was the final straw, PMPED was the last straw to be on the camel's back. That's what broke him, but all this other stuff was piling up as well. So it's interesting to me that Dick and Jim chose only to highlight the part about the law firm and say that this is absurd, this doesn't make any sense. And you're saying isolated or not, like that little piece of information, that says it all right there. That's enough right there to understand the murders. To break him, remember to trip his wire, that he loses his temper in a way that it just

goes crazy. You could say something that could trip his wire. Yes, I do agree that Mark Tinsley being able to discover his finances three days later and the cat's out of the bag. Mark Tinsley would have been able to tell the world, Alex is in so much hawk and has no assets or whatever. But to me, it's the law firm because that is his entire existence. It provides his entire legitimate and illegitimate way of earning living.

I don't know if this is putting you on the spot or not, but Mandy and I have a question for you. We did not learn about, obviously we've said this before, but we did not learn about the June 7 confrontation from PMPD until Russell defeats trial. And like we've said many times before, like we've heard it all. We've heard nothing is usually surprising because we've heard it, even if it's years before, we've heard it in some form or another. Going back and talking to all of our sources, they hadn't heard it either.

So why do you- Why haven't we- Right. Why haven't we Eric? How did PMPD keep that quiet when it seems like, I mean, Hampton's so small. Can I add to that with, I was going through- That came from Emily. Why did Crate never mention that?

At bond hearings. I'm asking you. Why didn't he? Are you suggesting it was made up? I'm suggesting that there's a reason why it was kept under wraps for so long. And we're trying to figure that out. The other thing that I- Okay, wait.

He was charged with murder in July. Russell defeats trial was in November. Russell's trial was in November. I get it that they don't want to bring it out before he's charged with murder. Why was the Russell defeat trial the stage that they would put that play on? It's not just that they wouldn't want that out. It's that we want- We know stuff that they don't want out.

We know that stuff. Or some of it, at least the major stuff. Yeah, of course you do. You guys know a ton of stuff. Nobody did. And so I guess the question is, would there be- And I'm just going to throw this out there. Let's say it's true that there was a confrontation on June 7th.

Let's just accept that it's true. Is that something that, because the PMPD did not find the check until September 2nd, they did not allegedly find this check that- They were covering up for his murder. Is that what you're saying? I guess what I'm saying is that the ODC, it seems like- Do they have any obligation? Did they have any obligation?

Because if we find out that they did not tell that to sled. Disclose that. I also have to say this, I was looking through- Guys, you're going to a real dark place here, what you just said. I was looking through a lot of stuff from last summer and stumbled on the press release in the weeks after the murders when the Murdochs were putting up a reward, saying we're asking people for a hundred or anybody who has information on these murders, a hundred thousand dollars, and it will be administered through PMPD.

It says that on the press release. Which is weird, first of all, but second of all, it's really weird when you think about it that the most important information surrounding the course of the double homicide is information that PMPD had in that very moment, and they were a part of this reward. Right. What you're saying is, I think what you're trying to say is why didn't PMPD on June 8th call sled and say to sled, because you would have heard this from your sources over the last year and a half.

Why didn't they call and do their civic duty on June 8th? Look, we need to give you a bit of information that we confronted Alex yesterday morning before the murders happened and then questioned him on a check that should have come to the law firm. I don't know if it's relevant, but that's our civic duty in telling you. If they had done that, you guys would have heard about it. That's what you're telling me in this podcast, and you didn't hear about it. We would have heard about it.

Yeah. I think we would have heard about it. I think the financial crimes would have been discovered a lot sooner, because it did not seem, from my sources, nobody was looking into financial crimes until September 4th. This isn't to sound arrogant either. We're not saying that we're the end all via. It's just, like I said, nothing is surprising to us usually, because we have heard it in some capacity.

In this case, I find it wild that no one knew, but going back to the ODC aspect of this, when they discover this at first in May, I get it that they want to give their partner the benefit of the doubt and get to the bottom of it before they report it. Do they have an obligation at that point to tell the ODC that there's missing fees in their law firm and one of their partners, they're having trouble getting him to prove that it's in the place that he's saying it's in? Absolutely they do. We have a rule of professional conduct that lawyers have a duty to supervise each other

in their law firms. That duty to supervise requires us in dispensing our duty to report conduct, that it violates the rules of professional conduct, and if he diverted fees that belong to the law firm, to himself personally, that is a violation of the rules of professional conduct. Sure, but giving the benefit of the doubt, so they give them the benefit of the doubt they want to look into it themselves. Okay, fine, that gets you to May to June 7th. Please get me from June 7th to September 4th, Liz.

Okay, so that's the question then. So if you know that you've confronted him on June 7th, and if this has kept under wraps due to perhaps a lack of reporting of other things, or knowing that they're in deep doo doo with the ODC based on some of the things that are coming out to them. What do you mean deep doo doo? I guess my question is, did the June 7th thing get brought up out of desperation perhaps? And this is just speculation on my part, but to cover the story or fill in a gap in the story when it comes to the ODC and protecting the firm and all of that, because I don't

know how that wasn't right out of the gate known, and perhaps we're wrong about that. But it seems to me that that's newer information that was shared strategically when it needed to be. Does that make sense what I'm saying? It does. You're saying it's almost made up? No, not made up, but shared strategically. No one knows.

We're not telling anyone about the June 7th confrontation until we need to. Until they had to. When do you think they told Emily Limehouse? They had to tell somebody, whether it's the ODC investigators or whether it's. They told Emily, they didn't tell Creighton. I'm not saying they didn't tell Creighton, but my question is just, is it possible? I mean, I guess anything's possible, but I don't mean to put myself in a knot over this, but is there any benefit to saying that we did confront Elec?

We were on top of this, in fact, on June 7th, we confronted him. So is it not until they need to pull that out of their pocket and be like, well, actually we did confront him and actually we were doing the right thing and we were giving him the benefit of the doubt to prove this to him and in fact, it happened on June 7th. So I guess that's what I'm saying is that is, is this possible that what we're seeing and not really understanding right now is the, the late revelation of that information that June 7th confrontation is actually representative of something possibly potentially more cropped, which is that that information was kept secret until it was needed to be pulled out to protect

the partners at the firm. Could it have been a trade of information? But you don't know when they told them. We don't know the date that somebody from the law firm. We don't, but we also know that these places are very leaky sieves and we've never heard that and sources we know have never heard that. It came out for most people during the Russell trial. So which is stunning to me because I would think that sled immediately on June 8th, 9th,

would have gone to the law firm to question the managing partner, whether it would be Johnny Park or Ronnie Crosby or Mark Ball to say, tell me about Alex's behavior on the 7th. That, to me, that would be a normal investigative question. They would send an investigator who was law firm, his, his friends, whatever. And this, this sled agent would walk in and say to Ronnie Crosby, Hey man, what was June 7th like? Was it the normal day for Alex? Did anything happen?

You would think they would say, well, it was an unusual day because we actually did confront them. I would like to know if sled is ever going to reveal the date. I want to know that date. Is this possible or is this the movie? Because the movie situation of this would be somebody at PMPED goes to Emily Limehouse or Creighton and says, I have good information that I'll help you on the murders, bro, but we need protection. I can't comment on that.

Could that, could that be a thing? To me, it, yeah. I mean, it could it. That's, I mean, that's realistically, that's what happens in these worlds, right? Scary. It's scary. It's just, it just seems to me, the natural evolution would be the first place they're going to go to sled the day after the murders is his law firm. And they're going to ask, did Alex act unusual on June 7th?

Did anything happen? Was he confronted by a client? Did something happen? And they're going to have to say, well, to be honest with you, we actually confronted him about a missing check. Correct? That didn't happen though. I mean, I will say, obviously, I don't know 100% whether that happened.

Why didn't that happen? But just going back. I don't think it happened. Yeah. Yeah. The likelihood of us not hearing that is. It's crazy to me. I also don't think Chris Wilson said a word until September, which that guy should have said a lot.

Do you believe sled on June 8th went to that law firm? I do. I think I would guess. Yes. Yeah. Of course they would. It's the first place they're going to go to. And you're telling me that you don't think they told him that?

It doesn't appear. That's what I'll say. It doesn't. It doesn't appear. Okay. Doesn't appear. And it's very interesting that Creighton is, that all of this came out in the Russell Lafitte trial.

Yeah. The first time Creighton talked about it was. After that. After that in the last hearing. But why did it come out in the Russell Lafitte trial? It came out because they were trying to show like they needed it. They needed that fact to be there to show that like the walls were closing in on Russell. Because PMP and then PMPD needed that to be out there because it showed them as being this responsible

but clueless group of people that were like, what is this? Oh no, you better look into it. So that's why it came out. Yeah. I mean, from Russell's standpoint, he needed to know that because that show that he wasn't going to get repaid because the income source was drying up. And we'll be right back. I think we've learned what a very delicate dance all of this is.

Because you've got so many elements. You've got the bank, you've got PMPD and you've got ELEC and you've got Russell. You've got all these people who could harm each other through mutual. Sure. In their self-destruction or what have you. And then they've got to be careful about how far they go with one point because of where it takes them on another point. So going back, I mean, this is probably a good point where we could talk about the latest

things that are happening in the Russell Lafitte case. Eric, do you want to kind of give us a run down of where we're at with the Russell Lafitte case? Yep. Emily Limehouse just filed a large opus response to the motion for a new trial. And she hit head on the three subject matters that they're focusing on. And that is the impropriety of Judge Gergel in ceding two new jurors. Judge Gergel not charging the jury and letting evidence come in on the reasonable advice of counsel defense. And number three, that he limited the ability of the defense to show that Russell was a victim

by not letting Bart Daniels show how PMPD was fooled by the Ford scandal. That even his own lawyers that he practiced with didn't see it coming. So if they didn't see it coming, how'd he expect Russell? So those were the three major subject matters of her brief. And she did a resounding job in showing that there's no way that Judge Gergel is going to grant this motion for a new trial. So, you know, obviously we don't think we're going to see a new trial for Russell Lafitte under these six charges.

But do you think we'll see more charges coming his way? I can't imagine that you're not going to charge him with income tax evasion. I would do it right now. I would impanel a grand jury. There is no question that he didn't report $450,000 worth of conservator and PR fees. And the only time he amended his returns to do that was when the FBI and SLEV was knocking at his door. It's clear.

It's the easiest low hanging fruit. And it'll put more pressure on Russell to finally turn and talk. I don't know why they're not doing that. This is a stupid question. But I take it that means if you don't pay your taxes and then years later you were like, oopsie, and then pay them, you can still be charged. To me, or you can't be charged. I mean, I think it's two rules of law.

I just, I don't understand it. I have so much respect for our US Attorney's Office and God knows how much respect I have for Emily. I don't understand. To me, it is blatant income tax fraud. And that is a lot of money. There are people that listen to our podcast that don't make $450,000 in five years or 10 years, let alone to have that be discretionary money that you don't even have to report.

Well, to be clear, first of all, I wasn't, sorry, Eric, to correct you here, but it was on $450,000 and this is important because he reported some of it. He reported the Plyler's money, it sounded like, which was a good portion of the $400,000, but what he didn't report was the money that they allegedly, and I think some would argue clearly, were intending to steal all, just outright steal. So with the Plyler's, he didn't outright steal it in the traditional sense. It was more that what is the nature of these loans and what have you. But with Arthur Badger, with Pinkney, with the other cases, these Thomas, Natasha Thomas,

these are people of color, and he didn't report the fees that he took for doing nothing to quote Emily in these cases, but he knew better. And I think the point is that showing that you knew to report your fees that you were getting because you did it with the Plyler's, but you didn't report it with the Badgers, the Thomas's, the Pinkney's, you didn't report those fees because why? And that I think is such a core question and when we're looking at like back to Russell, whether he knew what he was doing or not, that money gets just allegedly outright stolen by Alec. So were those payoffs to look the other way and that's been the core question.

So yeah, why aren't they charging him with income tax fraud evasion or whatever? And why has it taken so long to charge Alex? I get it that on the state level, on the federal level, they don't want to do it because they don't want him to march down and plea. But why did the state wait so long in charging him on the eight and a half million dollars of unreported income? That's an easy charge. That felt like Creighton was like twisting the knife a little on Dick and Jim. So maybe he was saving that to be like, yeah, like, Merry Christmas jerks. Yeah, well, there's more where that came from.

Right. And the other question I had about the tax evasion, a couple listeners asked me this and I wasn't sure. What does that do as far as the victims who want money from Alex? When now that Alex owes officially on the record like 400 and some odd dollars in taxes, what does that do? Federal government takes precedence. Is that right? Unfortunately, it does. Yeah. Oh my God. They do. So you're saying that the beach family who got this receiver appointed to go through Alex finances

to make sure that the assets were preserved and not wasted, you're telling me that the government can then come in. So they went through all this trouble. John T. Lay, Amy Hill rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in billable hours. And now the government can be like tap them on the shoulder and be like, actually ours first. Thank you for collecting it. As long as they get their lien and judgment and in priority first. Okay. So he has not been convicted yet of anything. Alex, there's not a judgment. I hold the judgment. I hold the only judgment so far. But there is a solid argument that the government's

obligation to collect tax takes preference over a private judgment creditor in collecting their judgment. It's going to be a fight. It's complicating. Which is maddening. It's maddening. Makes me so angry because it's. It's just victimizing victims all over again. There you go again and again. And if the government did their jobs to begin again and again. Well, wait a minute. Wait, are you saying that the government should have known that he was

committing income tax fraud? How are they going to figure that out? I think they should have figured all of this out a long time ago. I don't think that it should. Who? The law firm or the government? The government, everybody. This should not have taken years. He's following tax returns on $6 million income. Not just the taxes, everything. Like Alex Murdoch wasn't this mysterious two-character person that was like, everybody believed was a legitimate lawyer. Everybody knew he was sketchy.

Nobody said anything because they were afraid of him. Wait a minute. He was president of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association. What? I'm just going to be honest. Look at that list. Wait a minute. I didn't know him. So you guys that were educating me, I didn't know him up until July, September. So you know facts that I don't know. So tell me, all these people knew that he was not a legitimate lawyer all along the way. I didn't know that. No, not to the extent where he was stealing from clients like that, but I think.

I think they all had reasons. I think everybody this entire time had plenty of reasons to be like, huh, to do all the same thing Liz and I have been doing, which is, huh, there's something up here. Maybe this guy should be looked into or maybe we should take a step back from this guy. And instead, a lot of people ignored it and they enabled his behavior. And I don't think that. Well, I agree on that. I agree on that. And the reason why it got to the extent that it did and he lasted so long was because he knew that he had the protection of law enforcement, of his father, of the 14th Circuit, of he had layers and layers of protection.

Well, let me ask you two these questions because you know the answers and I don't, because I didn't, again, know of Alex Murdoch at all until September of 2021. Was he considered a joke as a lawyer or a non serious lawyer from 2005 to 2020? Or was he considered a good lawyer? I'm asking you. I think he was considered a lazy lawyer who did the absolute minimum. I don't think he was seen as smart. Lived off of his dad's name. Yeah, I lived off his dad's name, but I think what Mandy's saying is that like, it's a death by a thousand paper cuts and you can look back and say like, oh, there's,

you know, we should have reported all those paper cuts and but maybe we just didn't see them. But it's, you don't see the individual acts that led, you know, that sort of reveal this big one. But in the low country, you did see those individual acts. You did see each of those paper cuts, whether it's like cutting a corner over and over and over again, whether it's like asking a law enforcement officer, you know, allegedly to look the other way over and over and over again. There are smaller acts that happen in a corrupt system that add up to the larger corruption, right? And so what I think we're saying is that, yeah, the government can't obviously know somebody's just, you know, filing, they're filing their taxes, but they don't know they're taking you

out your word for the most part. But I would say that people down here down in the low country knew that Alec was somebody who cut corners and pushed the limits and did things in a way that no other person could get away with, perhaps. No question, no question. And that stuff should have been called out. That stuff should have been mitigated as it was happening, but instead because of the power and because of his connections. And because it's just the way things are, they didn't. And here we are. Amazing. Yeah. And I think that if the government treated Alex Murdock like they treat a lot of people of color, a lot of people with no power, with the same amount of scrutiny, there's no way that

Alex would have gotten away with what he got away with. Well, let me ask you this question, guys. What do you think about the decision of the state not to seek the death penalty? I think it was a smart decision. I'm not pro-death penalty generally, but there's a small part of me that wanted to see him scared for his life and to be housed with the alleged worst of the worst. Those were two things that were very appealing to me, but I can see the expediency of choosing. I mean, I think the death penalty needs to go anyway. So I think it was smart overall. Mandy? I think it was smart, ultimately. And the reason being is because

every day I realize how much, how complicated this murder trial is and is going to be. And I think the death penalty just takes that to another level of complication and that worries me with yours. I think this keeps a very complex case a little bit more simple. And I think that that's the right decision. I think you guys have hit it on the head. I think if you look at the rustle of feet trial, we had three jurors that almost didn't even reach a deliberation on a civil case. So now you start to deal with life behind bars and now walk with life without parole or you get into the death penalty and then you start getting in religious situations. For me, though,

it just complicates a very circumstantial evidence case because it triggers a whole bunch of funding that the state has to do for Dick and Jim to give them money for experts. It creates a whole bunch of hearings that have to take place before a trial that you don't have to have those hearings. It creates a whole bunch of different appellate situations and these victims and the victims now are Maggie's family and Alex's family, to an extent, and Buster live this forever with the constant hearings before habeas corpus bringing me before federal court and the liberty and goes up before the Supreme Court and the countdowns on yada yada. To me, this is not a clean-cut murder case. If it was a clean-cut murder case, absolutely. No, I'm not an advocate every day of the death

penalty, but if somebody's going to do a direct crime and kill a wife and kid, then possibly there is that the basis for it. But in this case, it's so circumstantial. And look, we're acting like we're Judge Newman and we're trying to fit this lial argument and we've kind of rested and come to the conclusion, well, we're going to admit pressures. We may not admit all these other crimes, but we're going to try to fit everything into what the pressures Alex were under. Just look how hard that was to reach a conclusion on it. When you add the death penalty to it, it just further complicates it. I think it's the one smart thing that Attorney General Wilson has done. You know what? He actually is dead. Like when we think about the death penalty, that has occurred

through accountability already. So the Alec Murdoch who existed before is dead. The Alex that he thought he was or anybody associated with him or his law firm, he managed to single-handedly kill himself, kill his family, kill a legacy and kill a law firm. He did it all. So I think you're right. I think the death penalty has already been put in place. So now that we're closing and we're coming into the holidays and we're talking about good cheer and we're coming into the new year. Obviously, you're coming into a new year as a married woman. And Liz, you're coming in. You got a whole new career that you're starting. You're writing books. You're doing podcasting. You're branching out. And obviously, I'm doing this. Let's all talk

about what our new year cheer is going to be. Liz? I'm going to speak for Mandy really quickly here for both of us. We do need some cheer because I think we try as much as possible to be joyful and what have you. But it does take a lot out of you when you're covering something so dark. It's been a really dark year for me. So I think my cheer is I wish cheer for Mandy because I know how with your sibling, only you and your sibling know what it's like having your parents as parents. So there's something that you share. I think Mandy and I in some ways are Murdoch siblings in that we both know what it's like to do the story in the way that it's been for us for the last few years. So I wish my good cheer is for Mandy to feel good cheer and

for me to feel good cheer. Anyone's so selfish, but it's been a dark year. And I see some light at the end of the tunnel knowing that there's going to be some justice no matter how it turns out. So I'm just hopeful for that. I'm hopeful that there's so many good things that we have in our lives and so many good things moving forward. But we have so much work that we want to do moving forward. And Alec isn't the only bad guy out there. Mandy? Yeah. And I'll add to that, Liz, I wish for you cheer as well because you deserve that too. And I think that January could be the end of a dark chapter in the beginning of a brighter chapter for us and a lot of people. I think for the last year and a half I've just been waiting and waiting for a moment that I

would feel different and I've just been in this dark place and I've wanted a moment of relief and happiness and change. And we're still in this. I mean, it's still going. I thought the murder charges would be more validating. Everything has been validating and things, but it's all building to this. We've just been in it for so long and I'm just, but that's also to say that we're not done. I mean, nobody's walking away. So we have to all realize that like we've done our jobs. The Alec Smartock that the world knew is now dead and that's because he's been exposed. And so I have to find some peace in that. Also looking for a new puppy still. So that will be cheer. Hopefully a puppy. David doesn't want a puppy. He wants a dog. Yeah, what's your cheer?

Well, I can say as a casual observer, I do wish you guys peace because the audience doesn't realize it. And I take it for granted at times. You guys are embedded journalists. You still are. And it's not like you're just getting your story from court filings. You're still talking to people on the inside and you really are living this drama every day. And Mandy, you can't really enjoy being a newlywed because you're trying to get the story and get it out and make sure it's being told correctly and educating the public. And we have an obligation now to our listeners to give them objective journalism and objective opinions. And so I do wish you guys peace. I also wish nothing but great cheer to the listeners that we have to our army of MMP and COJ people. You

motivate me. You've given me a new lease on life. You've given me a new hope. You make me feel good about myself. You make my wife feel good. And I'm so grateful that you stick up for us and that you tell us things that are provocative that we want to talk about. So I just wish everybody health. I wish happiness. I wish financial security. I wish physical security for everybody. And just I wish everybody nothing but a happy new year and great blessings. Thank you, Eric. Agreed. And David, David, thank you for all you did. I'm very thankful for David. And yeah, we couldn't do without him. And that's my cheer for him too. One cheer for everybody. Yeah. Happy New Year to everybody. And we love you. And we'll see you next year.

This Cup of Justice bonus episode of the Murdoch Murders podcast is created and hosted by me, Manny Matney, with co-host Liz Farrell, our executive editor and Eric Bland, attorney at law, a.k.a. the Jack Hammer of Justice from Luna Shark Productions.