Murdaugh Murders Podcast - Cup of Justice Bonus 6: Leading Up To The War

Episode Date: October 28, 2022

Could Judge Carmen Mullen's interference in a police matter have led to kidnapping charges? Why is Alex Murdaugh waiving his right to appear at all future pre-trial hearings in his murder case? And what was the “actual” reason Dick and Jim wanted to have that latest hearing? There’s a war coming and Mandy Matney, Liz Farrell and Eric Bland are getting ready. Join them as they discuss what’s happening inside the courtroom — and outside of it — in the lead up to Alex Murdaugh’s murder trial. 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: https://www.facebook.com/MurdaughPod/ https://www.instagram.com/murdaughmurderspod/ Twitter.com/mandymatney YouTube 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

Happy Friday MMP fans and welcome to the special Cup of Justice bonus episode of the Murdoch Murdoch's podcast. I think October might have been the best month of my life. And this week made it really extra amazing. On Sunday, we were on CNN. On Wednesday, we published one of my favorite episodes of the Murdoch Murdoch's podcast where we really shined a much-needed light on Judge Mullen and her history of alleged misconduct. And on Thursday, our crossover episode with My Favorite Murder Published, which I highly suggest y'all check out immediately. It might be my favorite interview ever.

And this episode of Cop of Justice also might be my favorite. We've had so much to report over the past few weeks that we weren't able to talk about Ellick Murdoch's latest pretrial hearing in Wednesday's episode of MMP. So I was really glad to be able to sit down with Liz Farrell and Eric Bland after the episode aired to talk about the hearing, which was wild.

But also, we were able to get Eric's thoughts on the shocking recordings that we shared with y'all from the 2017 incident involving Judge Carmen Mullen, which showed how she tried to manufacture a crime to get a man with psychiatric vulnerabilities arrested. Both Liz and I really appreciated getting Eric's insight on the judicial disciplinary system, as well as Dick and Jim's strategy,

and I think you all are going to find it really interesting as well. with co-host Liz Ferrell, our executive editor, and Eric Bland, attorney at law, aka the Jack Hammer of Justice, let's get into it. In last week's episode, you had mentioned a couple times that if we can trust the report, meaning the incident report from the deputy, and that stuck out to me because, of course, you know, as a journalist, the report is critical. And, you know, knowing that obviously the full story isn't always represented in those incident reports, but certainly you were, you were giving her.

sort of an out, like maybe this isn't, maybe the deputy's account. Maybe it wasn't exactly telling the full picture. But after listening to the recordings, how do you feel about that? I think the report was accurate. It was clear that she wanted him arrested. Now, her motives may have been good. Her motives may have been she wanted mental health treatment for Ernie. And what I do question, though, based on the report and based on the recordings is her judgment and execution of those motives. She clearly was using the power of her office to get a result. She could have sent her husband there, right? So she didn't have to go there. Let's say the scenario that she presented in her response to us was that they were driving by. They saw the cop cars. She dropped her daughter off

and went back with her husband. So the signal to me and her handling it and not having her husband handle it is that she had the full authority of the robe, I guess you would say. How do you say that, Eric, like she knew she was something special in that. Like, she had some authority. So she can't say she wasn't using it. No, she was using the authority of her office. If you and I had tried to do that and stopped our car and our spouses and I walked up the driveway, the officer would have asked us, what are we doing? We would have said, hey, we would like to give, you know, give you some information or whatever. And you would have said, hey, you're not law enforcement. Leave. Did something like that happened to you once in your past? Did you try to interfere in something with? Well, I have, I,

I've done that many a time. I mean, I was a bouncer in a bar in a number of bars, and we would get in a, you know, a scuffle with a patron who was unruly or drunk or creating a disturbance. And we'd send them out and notify law enforcement. And when so law enforcement came, I remember that I wanted to get in the middle and kind of tell the officer exactly what happened. And the officer said, you go back in the bar. When I want to talk to you, I will talk to you. So she didn't do that, obviously. No. She was having a curbside courtroom. And the other thing is that I just want to chime in. The other thing is I was thinking about this when she was saying she really wanted to help Ernie. And I understand the wants and need to help people who have mental problems. But she didn't need to be.

She had no role in all of that. It was not her house. It was not her property. She wasn't a victim. No, she wasn't. And you as a judge can't be driving around inserting yourself every time there's a mentally ill disturbance in your neighborhood and telling officers what to do. That is just wrong. Doesn't that go back to the appearance of impropriety?

Go ahead. It speaks like from the rooftops and it's screaming as loud as possible that what she did when you listen to those tapes creates the. creates the appearance of impropriety. We can never have judges feel like that they are partial or they're committing something that's creating something that's not objective. And what she did was she brought the robe in question. And people who listen to that tape, the inescapable conclusion is that she wanted an outcome. And that outcome was to get Ernie arrested.

That is not an insignificant thing. Like she talks about, let's arrest them for trespass, or let's arrest them for breach of trust, or let's do this. Arrest is a permanent stain on somebody's reputation and record. It's not something that you can wipe away with an eraser. You have to get a lawyer. It's on your record forever. And it's not something to take lightly. And it's not a tool that you pull from your tool chest and you start to screw.

It's it's liberty. It's due process. It's it's constitutional stuff. It was so gross hearing how casual she was about it, you know, regardless of her motives, rather. But, you know, I don't know that I agree necessarily that the tapes or the recording show or prove that she was only there to help. I mean, I guess maybe she was, but it just doesn't, like for instance, when we talk about the part, you know, she's trying to say that she was there sort of. to protect Ernie from the deputies. And really all I heard were the deputies trying to protect Ernie from her. And her husband trying to protect Ernie from her. Right, right.

Don't forget her husband's role there. I know. He said, you know, he told her he has a right to be there because let's not forget. Ernie had a lease. And he had, that is his home. One thing I wanted to get your thoughts on Eric, there's a part where she's talking about how she, She wants to get Ernie in jail and then she would go in and give him a no bond. So she had sort of already decided, you know, and she's General Sessions. So I don't know that you're necessarily. General Sessions, judges aren't typically hearing bond for somebody arrested for disorderly conduct, right? I mean, isn't that more of a magistrate thing? This is a judge who already is saying what she's going to do before the prosecution makes an argument. The prosecution

is the state. They're the ones that bring the charge. It's the state versus Ernie the attorney, not Judge Mullen versus Ernie the attorney. And if she's telling a police officer, I'm already going to give him no bond, then she's not sitting as a judge that's blind. Remember, Lady Justice wears a blindfold. The judge should wear a blindfold. And also, our jails are not hotel rooms for tax. Like, I can't. Nobody wants to go spend the weekend. Nobody wants to. And that's not the process and that's illegal.

Like, our, we, and granted, this does open up a whole other can of worms that we won't even get into, which we need a lot more help for people that are mentally ill and a better process for where, where to put them, et cetera, et cetera. But at the end of the day, they do not need to be in our jail. and that is not the place for them and that is completely wrong. Our jails are not hotel rooms. But Mandy, she said that they love him there.

I know, and that he loves it. That's not fine. Whatever. That's not fine. That's horrible. I can't imagine it being a safe place safer than where he was living in Port Royal Plantation.

It's not a substitute for psychiatric treatment. Okay, jailers are not psychologists. They're not psychiatrists. They can't prescribe medicine. It's not a place that you send somebody that it has mental illness. She may have come with good motives. I don't know. I'm not inside her head. But what I can judge is how she executed those motives. And they were not the proper way that a judge does it. You don't spitball. How do we get somebody arrested? Is it A, let's make a deal. Monty Hall and we'll go behind door number one. If that doesn't work, is it door number two or door number three? It was wrong from the start. And the fact that her husband had to give her legal advice tells me everything we needed to know about that interaction. Yeah, absolutely. And actions speak louder than words. So I read the letter and I went back and listened to all the tapes again and again. And Mullen's purpose, she did not articulate her purpose of being there that she wanted

to help Ernie and tell the deputy that said, we're concerned about Ernie's safety. Then she said, yeah, yeah, yeah, I am too. But she did not articulate that at all, which I think after listening to the tapes, my overall conclusion that she was there to exert her power and that's that. And that's that. And she had a gross misunderstanding of the law and how it works. And that's the most concerning part. I talked to a solicitor, Mandy, who said that it's classic abuse of power, technically attempted kidnapping if they were going to take him to the gas station, just to suggest it was attempted kidnapping,

and interfering with the proper duties of a law enforcement officer at a minimum. With all the stories that we have heard connected to, to the Murdoch cases. At the core of a lot of them is an interference with law enforcement, right? So, you know, starting with the boat crash case, well, starting way before the boat crash case, but certainly with the boat crash case, they're interfering with the normal process, right, in order to get something, the outcome that they want. And so to see a judge, you know, where we sort of suspected that the Murdox have had, well, not just suspected, we know that the Murdox have had a very cozy relationship with judges, but then to see that one of those

judges that's been accused of having those kinds of cozy relationships with the Murdox sort of employ the same methods. Do you know what I'm saying? Like, Mandy, did that strike you at all? And I was thinking about this too. Another concerning part of this is, okay, if there were charges, just pretending like there would be, that would go to Duffy Stone. And that's a joke. This whole system is corrupt and wrong, and we have to fix it. Eric, what's the next step here? I mean, people are mad, people are angry. What's going on? Well, you know, to touch on your common thread, you start with the Stephen Smith murder. Alex and Randy show up. You start with the boating accident.

Alex and his father show up at the scene and then in the hospital. Now you come to Judge Mullen and Ernie the attorney and she shows up. It is a common thread that law enforcement sometimes gets interfered with by people in power. it's a real problem. So what I think needs to happen is there needs to be a full investigation. Judge Mullen is entitled to all of the rights afforded to a judge that is being investigated. She has the right to tell her story. Her husband has the right to tell her story. And some objective investigator needs to look into this. I had a situation with a judge in the upstate in 2018 where that judge made some comments on Facebook in advance of a settlement hearing that I had for a very large settlement

involving an officer shooting of a young 19-year-old boy. And I notified the Supreme Court, and not kidding you, within 24 minutes, Chief Justice Justice Costa Poconis suspended that judge that quickly. In 24 minutes, he suspended that judge. Now, I don't know whether she should be suspended or not, somebody needs to look into that. But certainly with these past two weeks of what has been reported on, you Liz, breaking this story on the actual officer's report, Judge Mullen then writing a letter, which again was a very dangerous thing. You don't stake out your ground until you have all the facts. So she staked out her territory without knowing what the recording said. Now the recording comes out, it has to be investigated. This is on top of so many other things. Like,

there were so many other concerns about Mullen, even before all this Murdoch stuff started coming out, which she talked about on MMP this week. Like, this by itself is egregious enough, I believe, for a suspension. I agree. Eric, you filed a complaint against her. Yeah, I filed initially, the initial complaint was over her handling of the Satterfield matter. And since that complaint, two things have popped up. Not only this Ernie the attorney incident, but it turns out that she issued warrants apparently in connection with the murder investigation. I don't know why this woman wouldn't be a million miles away from anything having to do with Alex Murdo. I just don't know that. And so, you know, we made the complaint. It was a big step for David Pascoe and I to do this in the

spring of 2022. And we supplemented that complaint this week with what has transpired with these recordings in the police officers narrative. So, Eric, I heard from somebody who has a long history in covering Carmen Mullen in her career. And he had sort of warned me, you know, she has what he called sticking power. And he said, don't underestimate her sticking power. Do you think that we will see any action with this in the future? I mean, do you see any thing happening at all? I have never seen a circuit court judge face discipline. I know that Judge Anthony Russo, who was running for re-election out of Florence,

withdrew his nomination when certain things came out on the Internet when he made some statements that were pro-Trump and pro-religion. and you could tell that he was brought before the committee and they were questioning his judgment. If Anthony Russo, who was a sitting circuit court judge for 15 years, is basically run off the bench because he expressed political views and some religious views. And Judge Johns, who I got temporarily suspended because he expressed views as to motives of plaintiffs for suing, for money on the Facebook, I can't imagine that if you interfere with a law enforcement investigation or a law enforcement call and you're not party to it, you weren't invited to it,

and then you start to use the power of your office to shape an outcome, I don't know how this can go on address. But, you know, I'm not participating in it. They're not going to include me in it. They're not going to ask my opinion. It's not open investigation, it's not an open proceeding. So we won't know what the outcome is until there's an outcome. And that outcome may come and she still sits on the bench or the outcome may be that she resigned or the outcome may be that she doesn't run for re-election. I don't know. So I wanted to get one of you to talk about this because the deputies that were dealing with this were sort of put in a bad, not sort of, they were actually put in a bad position.

by what she was doing because isn't it kind of difficult for a deputy or any sort of law enforcement officer to go head to head or toe to toe with a judge given what their profession sort of relies on, which would be having to go before that judge in the future? Talk about a Hobsian choice. I mean, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he doesn't write this down, then it looks like he's secreting improper behavior by a judge. When he writes it down, he's pillory. because his law enforcement agency has to appear before this judge in probably 50% of the general

session cases that are in that circuit. And I give total credit to the Beaufort County Sheriff's Department, to the supervisor and to this deputy. That deputy was in a very hot, light situation. And he handled himself with a plumb. And then I give total credit to his supervisor. Because when he came back, that supervisor could have said, okay, let's sit down and determine what you're exactly going to say in your narrative report. And he didn't do this in a vacuum. That had to have been done in conjunction with his supervisor. And I give total credit to the Beaufort County Sheriff's Department for what they wrote in that

report. It, you know, we like to say our system's corrupt. We like to say that, you know, we have major problems, and we do. And at times it is. But when law enforcement does their job, I think it's incumbent upon us to give them credit. And I give full credit to the Beaufort County Sheriff's Department in that situation. They didn't knuckle under. They didn't succumb to her request to get this guy arrested.

They gave Ernie every benefit of due process that he's entitled to. And I think we have an obligation to acknowledge that. And we'll be right back. I think now would be probably a good time for us to switch topics because there's, you know, in addition to the mall and stuff, we also had the hearing with Elyke Murdoch last week. And the three of us did a live chat. So if anyone wants to watch that hearing, it was a two-hour hearing. You can go to our YouTube channel and watch it.

And you can actually see the comments that we were making during the hearing. But I want to talk about this. I want to start at the end. Mandy, do you want to give like a little recap of how Ehrlich suddenly waived his rights for future appearances and just sort of how shocking that was? Well, I thought that was very interesting. To say the least, first of all, Dick, what did he say? They're bringing him in like an animal. Crossing him up like an animal.

Like he's Hannibal Lecter or something, getting rolled into the courtroom, which is far. from what that look like. But yeah, they, they, so Eric, what is waving the appearance really mean? Like, what does that mean? Alex Murdoch has to put his pants on the same way that any other charged murder suspect in our state has to do. So he doesn't get special license on how he's brought to court. It doesn't get brought, he doesn't get to brought to court in a Lincoln Continental. He goes to court the same way that every other person in a jail who's charged with murder and doesn't make bond comes the court. They have to get woken up at two o'clock in the morning because the state transport has to transport him. And he's a charged murderer. So under our law, he's considered a dangerous

person. So they have to cuff him. They have to foot chain him. He comes in a jumpsuit. He gets to wear civilian clothes until he's convicted. But I'm sorry, he comes to court and leaves the court the same way that everybody else does. Now, if he doesn't want to get woken up at three in the morning, that is prerogative. But Dick's explanation that he's spending every minute of the day being a paralegal going over reams and reams of documents rings hollow. What he really didn't want is for his client to have to turn around again in that courtroom and not see a family member there or friends to support him because journalists like Liz and Mandy would report. that. And the more it looks like that he's on an island and nobody supports him, the worse it is for

Dick. Alex has nobody. So I think Dick made a strategic motion. I don't think the reason was what he said, but I certainly understand that Alex doesn't want to get up at 2 o'clock in a morning and be handed off in a van to this van. You go from Columbia to Kershaw. It's another transport that you get out of that van but guess what don't get charged with murder and you won't have to go to court in that matter also don't steal 10 million dollars from clients um like yeah Alex Alex Murdoch created the the chaos in the courtroom like it's all his own doing so boo-hoo but yeah I mean this this whole thing is a circus because the Murdox have made it a circus and yeah self-induced self-induced self-imps That's the term.

Exactly. And I'm wondering if the reason why he waived his right to appear, and I'm wondering if he was giving his family like one last chance to show up. I wish that we had jailhouse phone calls to figure that out, but we do not because of whatever's going on there. But yeah, I mean, I think it speaks volumes. and it's so weird that Maggie's family has not showed up yet either. Well, they haven't staked out their ground yet. They don't know whether they want to be victims or supporters. But I do give, you know, Dick and Jim credit, you know,

from a journalist standpoint or a layman's standpoint, they see that motion that was made. They see Dick's arguments. And to the layperson, it's, you know, sound and fury signifying nothing. You know, it's Faulkner's idiot. That's not really what happened there. Dick did a masterful job because he educated Judge Newman on the shortcomings of the state's case. His job was to educate the judge so that the judge starts to get a little bit of doubt in his head. He's also educating the jurors, the potential jurors

of Cullet and County if they listen to it. Again, he's only trying to reach that one juror who's going to say, I'm not going to vote guilty so he can get a hung jury. And then the other thing, which is really inside baseball, is lawyers like me, the every opportunity I can get to hear my adverse counsel speak. He put Creighton Waters in a position where Creighton had to speak about his case, had to speak about what evidence that Creighton found to be overwhelming. And you learn. And so Creighton gave up a lot of his playbook in that hearing. So you're saying that's like the major strategy there, like the motion that they put, you know, to compel. Wasn't going to be granted. Right, right. So it's like a fact-finding mission is what you're saying. Right. Everybody, everybody left that hearing and every

newspaper journalist said motion denied. Well, Dick lost. He may have lost the battle, but he's trying to win the war. That wasn't what he was. He didn't expect to get a granted motion. What he did was, educate that judge. He put some doubt into Creighton because Creighton's got to go back to his office and scratch his head and say, now, wait a minute, maybe should we have cross-swabbed the DNA and swabbed Eddie and see if any of the DNA was on Alex's shirt? So Creighton goes back and starts to question his experts. It's Dick throwing everybody off balance. Remember what I said. He was starting fires in that courtroom. and everybody was getting their attention diverted to the smoke. It had nothing to do with really, hey, Alex, you were there.

It's clear you were there. You weren't somewhere else at your father's hospital room. Your alibi is blown to crap. Well, let's talk about one of the bigger things, you know, before the hearing happened after the motion to compel was filed. the main thing that seemed to Mandy and me, like the main goal seemed to be to get the headlines to say that Curtis Eddie Smith was the possible murderer. And Mandy, do you think that was an effective strategy for Dick and Jim?

It's hard to say because it's interesting. Eric's takeaway from this is different from mine, which is I thought Dick and Jim looked terrible last week. I totally see Eric's point of, I thought Creighton showed up. But I thought the evidence that Creighton presented, in my opinion, was overwhelming and could absolutely convince a jury. But back to Eddie, I'm kind of surprised that that is the fall guy because, circling back to last September in the alleged shooting, if Alex Murdoch had any sort of bone in his body

that maybe thought Eddie killed his wife and son. He would not ask that man to shoot him on the side of the road for insurance money for his son. I laugh because it's so insane. I think that the pinning it on Eddie would have worked if the roadside shooting never existed. Unless Eddie was with him and they jointly killed his wife and his son. Why would they point to you?

You wouldn't say it wasn't me. It was the guy I did it with. Yeah, but it. Because Eddie's like Mike. You don't point to an accomplice. You guys are probably wrong. Eddie's got a lot of taint on him. So if you're going to blame somebody, blame Eddie.

Well, I think that's interesting, too, you know, the motion included some visual aids in the way of a photo of Eddie sitting for the polygraph. And then a close up of the polygrapers laptop. It showed like a spike. So it's essentially like a cartoon version of a polygraph. And the funny thing is in the hearing, Creighton is like, you guys know that's not how a polygraph works. Like taking that little isolated spike and trying to present that, because they're trying to say,

Dick and Jim are trying to say, this is the moment he was asked if he killed Maggie and Paul or if he was there when Maggie and Paul were killed. It's called a Perry Mason moment. A Perry Mason. That's what he was looking for. Right. And like, I mean, they know that polygraphs are, you know,

not admissible. They know that this is complete and total red herring. But it was funny just to see it's almost like, you know, Eric, you say this all the time that like Dick is, you know, magic in the courtroom and, and, you know. I didn't say magic. What do you say? You use the word magic. I use the word magic. What would you say? Like,

what's the compliment you give them? Effective. Okay. Effective. Yeah. So is it effective to set it up so that somebody like Creighton could come back and be like, actually, yeah, you're right. Okay, we didn't give you that. But here's all the other stuff that the public doesn't know or didn't know before now.

And I thought what Mandy said was that, you know, I really agree with that because there's, do you think that they banked on Creighton coming back with even more details about the murders that had not been released before? Yes, I think that that hearing was designed to get Creighton to speak. And Creighton did a wonderful job. Look, I've certainly leveled my criticism at him and Alan Wilson at different times throughout this process. But that guy was prepared and he basically had enough of Dick. Enough of Dick's pretrial statements in the press, enough of the grandstanding.

And he went toe to toe with Dick, which is unusual. And Dick, as you saw, got red-faced at times. What was that about? That was because Creighton was coming back at him. That was why he got red-faced. Dick, listen, Dick's a bully, and the only way you deal with a bully is you slap him in the face. And when you slap Dick in the face, he did stand down.

He didn't fight back. You know, Dick's got an acid tongue, and he can lay you out. But if you slap him hard enough or you make him look like he is unprepared or he's wrong, he gets flustered just like any other human being. And he got flustered in there. Creighton did his job. But at the end of the day, they learned a lot. The defense learned a lot about what the case is that the prosecution is going to bring.

And Dick is earning his money. So does that mean that Creighton fell for it? Or does it mean that Creighton went for it? He had to respond. He had to respond to where this, you know, if he stood idle and mute, the judge could have ruled in Dick's favor. But he was very clear and concise. We've turned this over now. We've turned this over before.

We don't have to do this until we get back these tests. He gave dates of when he was asked for the information, and he kept saying, Jim, isn't that right? Jim, didn't I give you this? Jim, didn't we meet? And Jim Griffin, to his credit, did acknowledge that Creighton was complying with his discovery obligations. Look, Dick is, again, screaming from the rooftops. And the more he says it, the louder he says. He's hoping that people will believe it's true.

Speaking, though, of Jim, I want, Mandy, what did you make of Jim during that hearing? The first time, my overall conclusion was that he was stumbling and fumbling a lot. And again, I think it kind of goes back to, I don't think Dick and Jim expected Creighton to fire back in the way that he did. again I I now understand more that the point of the hearing was to get Creighton to lay out his cards on the table but I think there was several times where Creighton laid out the cards and Jim would immediately change the subject and he would say like oh and he would just kind of get quiet and then say well next motion is blah blah blah and I thought that was very telling because, I mean, with Jim, I'm wondering if something is going on with him about, I'm wondering

if he is thinking maybe my client is actually guilty and maybe I have put all of my, what is it, marbles in the wrong basket. Like, I think he has invested so much and believed in Alex. And I get it, Alex was his friend for a really long time. And I can't imagine the thought of one of your good friends murdering your wife and son. You have to believe, you don't want to believe that they could possibly do that. We cannot. As lawyers do that, we cannot because then we lose our objectivity. Remember, we have to be 100% focused and 100% dedicated to our client. So what happens, Eric, then when you see evidence that your client is guilty as a defense attorney? Like what happens? Jim's job is to make the government prove its case. Now, Jim is on the Dick train. Jim has hitched his wagon a dick for a lot of

years. They do a lot of cases together. They're extremely close. And Jim thinks that Dick will be able to pull that rabbit out of the hat, the proverbial rabbit out of the hat. But again, what Dick did worked to some extent. But Dick cried wolf. And it's the second time he's cried wolf with this judge. The first time was when he had a press conference and then went to the court and said they're not turning over discovery. And I want them to be sanctioned. It's a violation. I served this 30 days ago. We haven't gotten anything. Craying Waters came in and explained to the judge in early September or late August, whenever it was. This is where we are. I turned over this. This is. coming and Judge Newman didn't sanctioned, didn't grant the motion then.

Now we have this hearing last week. Dick again. Oh, it's a polygraph. We didn't get it. My client's improperly charged. They're committing discovery violations. They're not giving us Brady material. Again, Judge Newman heard everything and denied.

So what you're starting to see from Dick is he's crying wolf. Do you think Judge Newman's getting annoyed by that? Yes. Yeah. Yes. Now you're starting to get to the core of it. You can't do that over and over again to the trial judge who's going to sit there and listen to the case. Because remember, the judge works for the state.

And the judge is only going to take so much of dick saying that the prosecutor are abusing their discretion or doing something in violation of the rules of professional conduct, the rules of criminal procedure, or being unethical. The judge is only going to take that so much. Remember, Creighton Wooders, at the end of the day, is a public servant. He's a public servant. And he's representing the state. But Creighton Wooders wants to be a public servant. And he's doing a good job. And the fact of the matter is, Dick can only make these kind of motions a couple times before the judge is going to say, Mr. Harpoon, why don't you get ready for this trial and I'll see you in January? We'll be right back. From the creative team behind the Brutelist 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 16th.

I want to go back to what Mandy was saying too about Jim's personal connection with the Murdoch family, or at least with Ehrlich, because I do think that Jim has taken a role as sort of the softer of the two in the sense of, I think he, I mean, it's clear from the jailhouse tapes that he is the liaison for the family in terms of, you know, there are a couple times that you would hear Elex say, well, did you talk to Jim, called Jim, did you talk to Jim? So I think, you know, he and you think about Buster, I mean, he's left with nothing right now, right?

He has no family, direct family anyway. And I wonder if in some sense Jim has been providing that role. Sorry, Luna is, I'm sorry, Luna is like crying into the microphone.

Oh, I didn't know what that was. She's going, oh. So let me just get her. Well, I'm going to give you some break. breaking news after you're done. Well, we want to hear that breaking news now. Go ahead, Eric. Sorry.

Well, you just mentioned Buster, you know, poor Buster. He's facing the prospect of going forward in life without a mother, without a brother, and a father that could be in jail for the rest of his life and a name that's a pariah. He's also going forward without any money because I learned last week that Alex is going to totally deplete his IRA. and at his age at 54 years old, there's a 50% penalty when you take your entire IRA out. And he's going to give a lot of that money with the consent of the receiver to Dick and Jim for attorney's fees and costs. And by the way, the cost in this kind of case are exorbitant. The expert witness costs alone will be $200,000 or more.

And the remaining money is going to go to the Victims Fund that I'm a part of for, the clients that I represent. So he's now depleting his entire IRA. All the other savings are gone. Yes, there's a trust that his father put in place. But poor Buster is going through life now without a father, without a mother, without a brother, a name is a pariah, and all the family money being washed away in attorney's fees and costs. This is what Alex Murdof did to his son. forget the not forgetting what he may have done to paul and what he may have done to his wife but this is what he did to his living son right and i i think i will say i mean from what our sources are told us buster does have a trust fund that was set up for him and it's one i think it's a irrevocable trust

so he does get you know money to live off of and what have you but okay i didn't know your your point is well taken though circling back to something that was said earlier this kind of just popped in my had as a light bulb moment. Isn't it funny that at the beginning of all of this, several times in court, Dick described Alex as this poor. What word did he use for poor? In pecunius. In pecunius. And man, and he hasn't said that in a really long time. Isn't that funny? I would love to be in Pecunius with a $4 million trust fund. Yeah. And again, tell that to the mother that's working three jobs that's, you know, driving in a car that doesn't have a muffler. Or any of the people he stole from. Right. Or exactly. Tell that to majority of Hampton County. I think it's very telling.

I think Dick kind of learned his lesson there and backed off because we kept calling him out on that. I think you raised the most poignant thing that I've heard in months, which is if he knew that Eddie killed his wife and son, why would he ever associate with him again? Why would he continue to give him checks after June 7th of 2021. Why would he continue to associate with him and get him to shoot him for insurance on Labor Day? I think that's the most brilliant thing I've heard in months. And think about it too. I mean, Eric, if somebody shot Renee and your son. I'd kill him. But think about your mindset in those months afterwards. You would just be, but you would constantly be suspicious of everyone around you, right? I'd kill them. I know you would kill them. I know you would kill

them. I would lose my mind. You would think you would just be night and day. Could it be that guy? Could it be that guy? And you'd think you'd have a list in your head of the super sketchy people that you are around and the possibility of them. Pardon me. Why didn't Dick and Jim beginning with in the fall of 2021, why didn't they start saying it's Eddie? I feel like they're tempting fate with Eddie. They're attempting fate with him, right? Because how many times can you say Eddie did something before Eddie's like, well, you know what? I got some truth to tell. Yeah, I've had enough. Well, obviously he's been talking, but he hasn't been talking to the extent that the state wants him to, or he's so infected that even if he's telling the truth, it's never going to resonate in court because he's got so much that,

you know, he could be cross-examined on. Dick knows that Eddie was such a woven, intricate part of Alex's life that nobody's going to believe that Eddie just decided I'm going to drive out to Ms. Elle when Alex is somewhere else and I'm just going to take out his wife and kid. Right. It's not believable. Why would he do that? He was get, wait a minute, stop. He was getting paid $10,000 to $20,000 a week with checks. I know. The week, the checks, he got a check the week before. And no one was looking at any of that. And he got checks after.

So why is he going to do that? What would make it? So it's not like the checks were drying up and he, you know, took it out on. Yeah. They kept coming. No. Yeah. And let's be real here.

If it was somebody like Eddie or anybody of a lower status than the Murdox, this thing would have been signed sealed and delivered a long time ago with like charge it. Like, I really believe that we would have had charges brought a heck of a lot sooner. And the ball would have been rolling a long time ago. Because somebody like Eddie would have been real, a lot sloppier. And, I mean, it just does not make any sense. I mean, granted... Are we missing something?

Are we all missing something? Because I have this nagging question and I keep asking myself. Dick Harputtly and did not need to do this. Jim Griffin did not need to do this. I get it that Dick is drawn to the light just like a moth is to the flame. Whenever there's cameras, he's got to be there. I get it that this has such purient interest to the world

and he wants to be part of it. But if he loses, if he loses this trial, if Alex goes down for every single financial crime, Dick Harputley's last, last legal, memory in the public will wipe out 40 years of amazing work. Why is he doing it? I can't get an answer to that. I have realized something about a lot of powerful people and good old boys, quote unquote, in the last year. And that is they double down on their bad decisions, typically. I think it's very, very hard for a person like Dick Harputian to realize that they are wrong.

Because they're not used to, they're not used to being wrong. And B, they're not used to being called out on it. Yeah, no doubt. So they don't know what to do. And their instincts are to keep going in the same direction. You're a sharp, you're a sharp man, you came up with really good things today. But it's crazy. I mean.

On Eddie, you're right. Ego-meniacs double down on bad decisions. Yeah, and they think that they can get out of it. They believe that because their entire lives they have. Dick has gotten out of every mess that he's gotten himself into. And I think they also kind of like get a rise out of getting out of things like this. I think Dick thinks it's a challenge. And I think that he's too far in to duck out.

And again, like I really learned. and I don't want to make this about me or anything, but, like, I was, I couldn't believe the amount of people last year when he made those sexist comments about me in court. I mean, I would say a thousand people reached out to him in some way, which is Twitter, Instagram, whatever, and said, like, what are you doing? Apologize, apologize, apologize. Because you're a heroine to so many people, Mandy, you?

Well, I have. I appreciate that, but he does not care. No, Dick does not care. But I stood there. I was thinking, like, why doesn't this guy just call me on the phone and say that he's sorry? And, like, that's that. And what I learned from that is, again, he's never had to apologize in his entire life, and he's not going to learn now.

And he sees it as a sign of weakness, too, so. He sees it as a sign of weakness. Whereas I see apologies as a sign of strength. If somebody admits that they're wrong, I have way more respect for them. For sure. It's a lot harder to admit that you're wrong than to double down on the wrong thing, if that makes sense. I think you're right. And I think in wrapping this up, I wanted to say, you know, I went to ask you, Eric,

have you ever seen a hearing like this before? I mean, I think that the word that Dick and Jim put out on the street is that, you know, every hearing they have is going to be, you're going to want to be there because it's going to be dramatic. I mean, is this unusual or is like you as a lawyer? No, no, I had, I tried a murder case with Greg Harris and Johnny Gasser, who used to be the solicitor of Fifth Circuit, was the solicitor. And you make motions like this all the time. You know, you constantly want to accuse the state of not turning over all the evidence. And again, it's not like discovery in a civil case where I ask specific questions, turn over the tax returns.

I need you to turn over your financial statements. I need you to turn over your cell phone records. They're not specific requests. You're basically asking the state to turn over their entire file of exculpatory information that could benefit our client, that could benefit our client, and inculpatory information that could show that our client's guilty. And the standard isn't what evidence is admissible. The standard is, does it lead to admissible evidence?

So just because they're turning it over doesn't mean it's admissible in a court of law, but it could lead to the discovery of evidence that becomes admissible. So it's not a precise method of turning documents over. It's kind of like an art. And so there's always this give and take. The defense says you're not turning over enough. The state, just like Creighton says, we're overproducing. We're being cautious and we're producing stuff that ordinarily we don't want to produce.

And what ends up happening, it's like a funneling process. And you get all of this information and you dump it in a funnel. And then it gets skinny down to the bottom and the judge determines what comes in. And so that's what this process is. It's leading up to the war. So I'm going to leave this. You know, I know we're wrapping it up. I'm going to ask this question.

We asked it about Russ Lafitte. Do you think the trial's going to go forward? It looks like it is. I'm going to ask you. Do you think Alex is ever going to plead guilty or is this gone this robbery? I think we go back to, yep. Yeah, we go back to ego, right? Good old boys double down.

Yep. And I think that... If he pleads, Dick's going to look awful foolish, right? Oh, absolutely. And I don't think that... I think that all of them still think that they can get out of this. I think that they believe that they can worm their way out of this. It's crazy, but for the rest of us, but...

Alex thinks he's going to worm his way out of the financial crimes? You never know with them. But, I mean, I... I think he thinks he thinks. he's going to get a nice deal for sure. Yeah. And I would give it like maybe a 2% chance of him possibly pleading. To murder, you mean? To the to the murder. Yeah. What do you think, Liz? I absolutely don't think he's going to plead to murder because I think in hearing the jailhouse calls, this man has convinced himself that he did not murder them if he did murder them. I guess with

allegedly, I guess how do you say that? Like if he did murder them, he certainly seems like he has convinced himself that he didn't. So I just don't see him pleading guilty. And that would be awful for Buster, right? Like, he would be admitting that he did basically the worst thing that someone could do. All I can tell you is, and I'm biased, but I represent Alainianna Spahn and Hannah Plyler, and they're going to be witnesses in Russ Lafitte's trial. I'm just telling you, that girl is gold, that girl's articulate, that girl has a story to tell,

and that girl's going to connect with the jury. That's all I can tell you. This Cup of Justice bonus episode of the Murdoch murders podcast 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. Produced by Luna Shark Productions.