Murdaugh Murders Podcast - Cup of Justice Bonus 7: The Truth Behind True Crime Documentaries Plus Russell’s Revenge

Episode Date: November 4, 2022

Mandy Matney, Liz Farrell and Eric Bland get real about the dark world of true-crime documentaries in light of the new HBO Max series focused on this sordid saga and what it’s like when Hollywood descends on your neck of the woods.  Plus our hosts ponder some recent inactions and actions surrounding Judge Carmen Mullen and Russel Laffitte respectively. 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! **This episode was altered on 11/6/2022 to correct a statement. Stay tuned for next week's episodes to learn all about it! Find us on social media: https://www.facebook.com/MurdaughPod/ https://www.instagram.com/murdaughmurderspod/ Twitter.com/mandymatney YouTube.com/c/MurdaughMurders Support Our Podcast at: https://murdaughmurderspodcast.com/support-the-show Please consider sharing your support by leaving a review on Apple at the following link: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/murdaugh-murders-podcast/id1573560247 *The views expressed on the Cup of Justice bonus episodes do not constitute legal advice. Listeners desiring legal advice for any particular legal matter are urged to consult an attorney of their choosing who can provide legal advice based upon a full understanding of the facts and circumstances of their claim. The views expressed on the Cup of Justice episodes also do not express the views or opinions of Bland Richter, LLP, or its attorneys. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From the creative team behind the Brutalist and starring Academy Award nominee Amanda Seifred in a career best performance, Searchlight Pictures presents The Testament of Anne Lee. With rave reviews from the Venice Film Festival, this bold and magnetic musical epic tells the story inspired by a true legend. Anne Lee, founder of the radical religious movement, The Shakers, The Testament of Anne Lee. Exclusive Toronto engagement January 16th in theaters everywhere January 23rd. Happy Friday and hello, Murdoch Murders podcast fans. Welcome to our seventh cup of justice bonus episode with Liz Farrell and Jack Hammer of Justice attorney Eric Bland.

So this week, HBO Max dropped its true crime documentary series on the Murdoch murders, which is called Low Country, the Murdoch Dynasty. This is really the first big budget true crime doc on the Murdoch case. and there is a lot of buzz about it naturally. But to be honest, we're happy that we were not a part of it, and we will tell you why in today's episode. This week, Liz Eric and I talked about the behind-the-scenes buzz in the Judge Carmen Mullen scandal.

And real quick, I want to mention our call to action in this case. Liz and I need as many voices as we can to speak up and tell the South Carolina Supreme Court that we are done with the darkness. Liz and I want to see transparency and we want to see accountability when it comes to how judges are investigated after they're accused of corruption

or other bad behavior. Check out the Murdoch Murders podcast social media and our website for more information about how you can share your thoughts with our five South Carolina Supreme Court justices. There is strength and numbers. And right now, Liz and I need as much strength as we can muster so that we can see real change. Another thing that we talked about in this episode, in the last five days, there have been some shocking filings in the lead-up to Russell LaFeed's federal trial, which is set to begin next Monday.

It looks like Russell has decided to take no prisoners with PMPED and Palmetto State Bank. Can I just say we are here for that? So let's get into it. Hello, Eric. How are you doing? Hey there. Mandy, how are you? Hello. We're doing good. Good. I know that we've all been busy catching up on all the motions that have been

filed in the Russell Lafitte trial, which is set to start next week. But first, I wanted to talk to you guys about the HBO documentary that is going to air Thursday evening. Were you part of that, Eric? I was not. I had signed early on before I really was educated on this whole documentary process and what you should and should not do. I wouldn't say I was bullied into it, but I was convinced that this was the right thing to do,

and I ended up signing an exclusive that coveted me out of being in documentaries for an entire year. It's up this November of 2022. So I am only able to be in one documentary of a compete, a competitor of HBO. I can participate, obviously, in news programs and date lines in 2020 and in your podcasts, but I cannot be on a documentary. But Mandy, you have a lot of experience with what Eric said, because I feel like, especially before I jumped back into journalism, I got to see what you were going through, not only with the story breaking so quickly all the time, but

with sort of, we were calling them the vultures. You just had a lot of people come out of the woodwork and want you to participate in their documentaries. And then when you didn't ultimately, I think there were a lot of misconceptions just on social media about who you were signed with and what you were doing. So I want people to hear a little bit more about what you're thinking was there and sort of what it was like for you at that time with all those documentaries coming about and what that world is like because it is so different from the inside. Yeah, it's so much different than journalism.

So I think a couple things that, like, I had no idea, I had no idea how any of this worked. I was completely, like Eric said, just completely oblivious to this documentary world. And it's very tough to navigate through. And I think what I came to realize is these companies are very used to dealing with people that have no idea what they're doing. And so they bully, they convince you that their way is. the only way they convince you that you will never be able to do anything on your own. You have to go with these big companies. And I almost signed up for HBO. I did. There was a point, I think, last summer, where, I mean, I thought it was the coolest thing in the world. HBO Max are making a

documentary and they want me to be a part of it and they want me to be a, I think it was a consulting producer or something like that. I feel like you should mention though, Mandy, how like you You are the biggest documentary nerd that I've ever met in my life. I am. Especially true crime. Yeah, I've watched all of them. So this was like a world that I always kind of wanted to be a part of and had no idea how it worked and was so excited when I was getting like these big name companies

emailing me. But what I found out was it was all just very, extremely competitive, extremely ugly, extremely cold-hearted, not victim-centered. And it's an entertainment business. It is not journalism. And they do not care about the outcomes of these cases. They care about the dollar signs. And that is with every company that I was exposed to and every company that offered me money.

Eric talked about exclusive agreements. And I thought that was just so weird because I personally would never go to a victim and say that they can only. tell their story with me. One time. One time. A victim's story is there everything. It's their currency. It's their ability to speak and advocate for themselves and go to whoever they want to. To stifle that so you can make money is disgusting. And that was something that I could not be a part of. The other thing that I just felt weird about and I could not participate in was as journalists, they hire you as a consultant, but they really want to pay you to get victims to get behind the camera,

but they can't pay victims to get behind the camera because that's unethical, according to them. They're the only ones that can make the money off of them. They'll pay you if you can give them photos. I always get, well, if you give us photos or you can give us a tape or a document, then we can put a value on that, and it can be anything from zero to whatever. But as far as appearances, we don't pay for that because we want, you know, unscripted, objective type of journalists. We don't want you to give anything slanted.

So, you know, I didn't have any knowledge of this things. And I, you know, for the first time in my life, I was a fish out of water. No one does. Yeah. And I have to say, like, a shout out to UTA. They saved my life there. I thank God was scooped up by a talent agency. And again, I thought like, I didn't know anything about any of this.

I thought like talent agencies would be the ones to just take all your money and take advantage of you. And David, David was my biggest advocate. And he took meetings with all these people when I didn't have time to. And David was the one that got us hooked up with UTA. It was like a friend of a friend of a friend. And they know what they're doing when it comes to negotiating and bullying these people back and making you get paid your worth. And at the end of the day, I mean, I would be open to do documentaries in the future, but the two ones that are going to come out in the next month,

I could not ethically be a part of. And the other thing about this HBO documentary, just a real quick story that like, what's the moment that I was like, I can't do this? Yeah, David was basically my agent there for a couple months, just making phone calls with all these people. And I was on the phone, David was on the phone with a couple of the main guys, the big executive producers of the project. And David asked them, so why do you want Mandy? And he said, I mean, I'll be honest with you. I just want to take her off the market. Wow. Which like, yeah, as a woman, as a woman who's dealt with like mentally abusive boyfriends, and like, it just triggered me. And all of the wrong way.

And I was just like, F this. I'm out. I'm out. I don't care how much to pay me. I can't do this. And then Liz said, Liz gave me the best advice in the world, which the podcast is the documentary. Go with it. Well, I have a confession to make.

And my confession is I'm probably, you know, Abraham Lincoln said anybody who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer. So I thought, okay, I'm a great negotiator. And, you know, I've been negotiating with my mouth. for 35 years, if I told you what I sold my exclusivity for, you would say you should lose your law license. I mean, I'm just thoroughly embarrassed. They had me to believe that, and at the time, I mean, I was just a name. Nobody really knew outside of the legal circles who I was. So they're like, you can't command anything. You're nobody. This will get you out there. We will make you into somebody.

I didn't have the advantage of having UTA. I had nobody. And so, you know, they said, well, we'll pay you $2,000 more than we ordinarily would pay somebody who's a nobody. And I sold myself, I sold my birthright for a bowl of porridge per year. Yeah. Wow. They make you feel terrible. They make you feel so terrible about yourself.

And that's where I was, too, of just being like, what? What if I'm ruining my career here by saying no to these people? What if I'm never going to be able to be anybody because I said no? Well, I'm thankful to you guys because Eric Bland would still be a nobody, even though I am a nobody. But you guys have given me a voice in a platform for the last year. But for you guys in a couple, you know, 2020, Good Morning America. I would not be able to tell the story for my clients and what happened here because I signed stupidly in exclusivity. that I should have never signed. And that, I mean, it's just, I just don't know how they can ever preach about ethics while also bullying victims into only telling their story with them.

There is no way that anybody could. It's not journalism. It's commerce. Yeah, it's entertainment. You're into journalism. And there's that conflict there that they want to make the most amount of money and say to the world. I got Mandy. She's the exclusive. She can't go anywhere else. Or I got Ginger Satterfield. Yeah. I got the Satterfield. I got these victims. I got these victims. Like that's what they were

trying to do. And it was like, this is so gross. And I'm out. They're at the heart of a lot of problems that I think looking back over the last year of like what stress was involved in covering the Murdox and covering all these cases, I think behind the scenes, the documentaries loomed larger than perhaps we even gave them credit for because as a result of Mandy, as a result of you turning those down, I feel like, you know, a lot of, I mean, frankly, slander was happening behind the scenes with you. And I think that it affected our relationships with, you know, certain people and not victims, not, you know, our sources who, you know, have known us and trust us. But certainly with other players in the game, coming at us from, you know, just.

I'll just say this. Like over the past year, I probably fielded maybe 50 to 100 phone calls of the most ridiculous accusations. And they almost always, you know, went back to the same person who was involved with the documentary world. And even yesterday and or this morning in Murdoch Murders podcast, we mentioned a video of Paul with the blackout rifle. And that video was the source of, you know, drama.

Because you had seen the video because of a personal relationship with a source. I'm not going to sell it. And that was it. That was the only reason you saw. It wasn't, you know, some big exclusive thing. And it turned into this. Yeah, exactly. And it's like, it's not ours.

It's not ours to sell. It's not ours to talk about. It's not ours. Like you were simply being a human being. It's ours to mention as, and it's ours to mention as important, relevant information to the case. But that's it. Yeah. And with permission, with the permission.

That's the thing that I think that, you know, people don't realize this. Yeah, you want to be respectful. Yeah, and I think, yeah. I'm going to disclose something here. I probably shouldn't, but I think you two should hear it. I actually was in possession of a tape of Alex Murdoch. And I got it through lawful means and nobody really knows that it exists. And I ended up transferring the rights to that tape to the.

this organization that's working on a documentary. The world would have loved to have heard Alex's voice all along the way. You know, they heard the 911 calls from Gloria Satterfield, obviously the murder 911 call, as well as the roadside shooting. So they've heard Alex's words kind of three times. But this was a tape of him describing how he made the claim in connection with Gloria Satterfield's death. And it was, you know, valuable monoeuvre.

monetarily, but also to educate the public on who he was and what his motives are, I should have never, ever transferred the IP to that, to this company. And to this day, I regret it. And, and I just didn't have enough knowledge. And, but November is up. November 22 is here. So I can start talking about it. But it, you're right, Mandy. I learned a hard lesson, a hard lesson. And I think it's big of you to admit that. And that's the thing, too. I mean, and I, and I, I would not be surprised by it. I mean, the manipulation, the gaslighting, the, I have text messages from directors that people would not believe. Like, and the other thing that people need to realize is that it's so different. And like Liz talks about all of the slander that went on with me behind the scenes from, because these people wanted to discredit me because I wasn't a part of their project. So they couldn't skip around that part where I exposed all. of this in their documentary. So they instead, and they didn't want to explain to people, go back to their bosses as to why they couldn't get me. And so instead, they tried to discredit me

behind the scenes. And it was really gross and disgusting. And again, really, uh, tear down what you covet. Yeah. And it was just, it just had a lot. It took a huge toll on my mental health. Liz was there for every step of the way. But like, I, I'm really glad that I kept going because there was a lot of times when I was just like, I'm out. I wanted to say that because of all, I mean, it was just gross. And the thing that people have to realize is these producers and not all of them, there's like, and I said this before, but one really nice HBO producer that went to, that was at my wedding because she came with Sandy Smith. They became such good friends.

And that's great. And I loved how they treated Sandy. And Aaron Lee Carr also, I have to mention, is a documentary producer who I love, and she's a really great friend of mine. This isn't all of them, but a lot of them, they come into a town, they extract all this pain and grossness and live in these towns for six months. Strip it, strip it like gold mining. Yeah, and they do not care who they destroy. They do not care, and they do not care that after their documentary comes out, a lot of them, not. not all, but they do not care what they make people feel like. Whereas Liz and I are going to be in

this until the end. We have to look victims in the eye and tell them this is what this is what's happening, blah, blah, blah. We live here. You live here. You're going to be here forever. You're going to see them at the grocery stores. You're going to see them at functions. I mean, you can't strip people of their dignity or make them give something up and then walk by the next day and see them and act like Nothing. And go back to New York. Yeah. And they all just go back to New York City and make their money and it's gross.

And like, have we mentioned the part where they make fun of the place too? I mean, I'm only staying in Savannah because it's the only decent. Like, get out of here. Just. Or they make fun of us. Oh, yeah. The amount of like, these country bumpkins. Yeah, exactly.

Or they call us bloggers. No, they call us bloggers. They don't call you guys journalists. They call me whatever they're going to call me. But you, you know, quote unquote bloggers never have gotten one thing wrong in anything having to do with Murdo. You never had to issue a retraction, nothing you ever printed or you spoke about, didn't happen or was wrong. And it's blowing traditional journalists wide open and minds wide open. Like, how can these two women, you know, who had a modest background in journalism, the local newspapers, working for the sheriff, how do they have these sources,

how are they always right? Why are they breaking the story first? And so what they do is they demean it or they're suggesting that we do something untoward to get the story. Right. That's true. And I will just say one last thing. I don't want to belabor it too much, but because I do plan to watch the documentary. I think the biggest tell for me was when they were trying to get me to sign on, not HBO, but the other guy. I feel like they made it so personal and, you know, they get in your head and they start to say things, you know, just the stereotypical things that you hear about Hollywood in general, which is like, you know, you don't, you don't really like Mandy, do you? Like, you know, it's just like making, and I'm like, they don't understand that they're coming in on like

a years-long friendship, like not just a friendship, but like a partnership where we, you know, had worked together and not, you know, this was a main source of what built that trust between us and, you know, understanding our working styles and stuff. So that just left a bad taste in my mouth in the very beginning. So the answer to them was always going to be no. But I got to see it while they were, you know, working it. I got to see it from the inside. And it just is sad.

That's something that I've learned that Liz and I have really learned with a lot. We call them Hollywood people, documentary people. They don't understand loyalty, like, at all. It is like a foreign concept to them. That's right. And that's so important to say, Mandy. because I think the loyalty issue is at the heart to of what, when we say, you know, this affected relationships and such, there were a lot of people who have changed significantly

or whose, you know, terrible side got exposed, I think largely because of the Hollywood aspect of this. But I think, you know, when it comes down to loyalty and like what our values are as friends, as partners, as journalists especially, we've never lost sight of that, neither of us. So I'm proud of us. I'll just say that. These people, it's like, these people are, it's like, Liz and I got sent to HR together at McClatchy. Like, we'd been together for it. We've been through a lot of shit. The only time I was sent to HR, I just want to point that out. Yeah, I was sent many times and we'll talk about that another time.

Nothing for nothing bad. Liz can back me up on that. It was always just crap. Yeah. But yeah. And then the other thing. that I want to say really quick before we move on is I'm not talking about 2020. I'm not talking about Dayline here. I think the way that those shows operated was a lot different. I chose 2020 and I'm sure Eric could say the same thing. I chose to work with 2020 because I really liked the producers and they did not act like they were swooping into town to just extract people from their pain. Like one of the producers of 2020 saw Sandy when she went to Florida and hung out.

out with her. Like, they are sweet. They're like, and I always, I judge people by how they treat Sandy. Like, date lines coming out Friday night with a two-hour special. It's a follow-up. I'll have some from the original. And I've kept in touch with Haley Barber, who's one of the co-producers. I liked Haley. You know, she's really invested in, in the Satterfield story. She came for the Gloria's gift ceremony. She's kept up with Sandy Smith. they have a real genuine interest, not only in the story, but in the people. They've developed personal relationships. And I'll get a phone call and she'll ask me about my daughter and in her surgical residency. So there is a qualitative difference between the documentary people

and then the news people. Yeah. And I just don't want people to confuse that. Like there was never money offered on the table with 2020. They just do things. way different and way closer to journalism than these big-time documentary news magazine, as I guess the term. So yeah, that's an excite. That was really good to get all that out there, by the way. I was going to say that was cathartic. It really was. I didn't actually think that the conversation was going to go in that direction, but I do. I'm so glad that we were able to talk about that because I think that, especially on social media, I don't think that people always understand where we're coming from or what the history of those relationships is. And I think now,

you know, I'm glad I'm glad that that's all out there. I don't want us to sound bitter. Just one last thing. Like, I don't, I know that people have been like, oh, Mandy and Liz just wanted to be the Mandy and Liz show and nobody else. No, we want as many people exposing this as possible. But we want everybody to do it the right way. And we will call them out if they're not doing it the right way. And the right way being with integrity. Ethics. Yeah, with integrity and adhering to ethics. Exactly.

And that's it. That's bottom line. We'll be right back. We probably should have talked about how exciting it is that Carmen Mullen is finally getting held accountable by the Supreme Court. It's not amazing, guys? Oh, I miss that. Yeah, me too.

I'm just kidding. Me too. I'm just kidding. Nothing's happened. Eric, what are you hearing on the street up in Colombia? I'm hearing people. are starting to move in a direction that I didn't expect, which is really starting the question, Judge Mullen's judgment, really what is the Supreme Court doing?

You know, I'm disappointed but not surprised that we haven't heard anything. It's, you know, our system is a dark system. Our process is a closed process. So I don't know if anything is happening. I know that I received a letter that says, that it would be assigned to somebody. It would really do the public some good and do the justice system some good if a statement was released to say, we receive the complaints against Carmen Mullen and they are being looked into. That's all they have to say. Something like that, just something

to give us hope that we have a system where people take it seriously. Look, they'll suspend a lawyer, Liz and Mandy, at the drop of a hat. When I tell you, if it's a DUI, God forbid, or if it's a domestic criminal domestic violence situation, your ticket the next day is pulled. You're surrendering it temporarily. They do it to magistrate judges. And again, I'm not advocating that anything happened to Judge Mullen, but I think it's time that we have a system that has sunlight and light in it,

like Georgia does, and that it's not just other judges or legislatures looking into it, but it maybe be a blue ribbon committee of legislators, lawyers, and citizens that would judge somebody's conduct in the situation of Judge Mullen and that the public would then have more confidence that it's being done equally. Remember, we're all about everybody drinking from the same cup of justice. That's why we started this podcast. And it seems like lawyers drink from a different cup of justice than judges do. The judges who are accused of doing improper things need to participate in a system where it's open and she needs due process. She has the right to defend herself. But we as the public need confidence to know it's being handled. And don't just tell me,

trust us. We're done trusting. The trust us anymore is over. Oh, yeah, that's over. It's way over. Yeah. And Alex wasn't an outlier. Like, I think they need to stop being like, oh, Alex was the one that just slipped through the cracks. And it's like, no, this is a system of problems because there's no transparency. And because all we're left to wonder at, we all have to assume at this point that they just hope that we stop talking about it and everybody moves on. Yes. The point of keeping this alive is because we need to show them that that is not happening. One of the things that I think came clear, even more clear to me over the past week since we

revealed all that, the ones that are the holdouts that are saying like, well, she was helping Ernie the attorney. I think it's more clear to me after listening to the tapes that this wasn't about Ernie, as much it was, about her relationship with her friend Moose. And that's important because this goes back to judges and their motivations and helping friends and such. So I hope that the Supreme Court or somebody who's friends with any member of the Supreme Court is listening.

to this because that needs to be driven home. This isn't, you know, that excuse is great. Like, you were helping, you wanted to help a guy. That's fine. But the person you were helping wasn't the person at that house. The person you were helping was your friend in your circle on Hilton Head Island. And that person has, you know, a certain amount of influence and a certain amount of power. So that's all I wanted to say about that. Is there any more to the story, Liz? Do you think we'll, we'll hear more from the Beaufort County Sheriff's Department, even the deputy himself whose character was impugned. I think ultimately, from what I'm hearing, people, there's a different buzz in the air

because this is unavoidable. There's just really no option but to hold her accountable, in my opinion. As far as, you know, the sheriff's office, I don't know if Moore's going to come out, but, you know, I would be interested to know if she, you know, tried to mitigate this in any way. Like, what did she do? What do you mean about that? What do you mean about that? Like, in 2017, she had to have known that this was going to end up on camera,

and in a report, did she do anything? Did she try to stop that from coming out in any way? So I hope that investigators with the ODC or Supreme Court or whoever will definitely ask that question because I find it hard to believe that she would just let that happen or have that happen and not wake up the next day and be like, hmm, I wonder if that's going to be written down. Sounds like you had a bee in your ear buzzing. Is that what I'm hearing, possibly? I, you know, sometimes in journalism when you have a bee buzzing in your ear,

and you can't definitively say something, you just say, I wonder. I certainly hope that people are looking into this. Yeah, I wonder. I wonder. Yeah, I wonder. So we have the trial coming up in Charleston next week, assuming that the trial's going to come forward or go forward.

And it's the federal trial, U.S. versus Russell, Lucius Lefitte. And going back to what Mandy said about, you know, Ehrlich Murdoch being not the only guy. He didn't slip through the system here. He wasn't, you know, the shining example. I mean, he might be the shining example of corruption, but he's certainly not a solitary actor here.

There were a lot of filings this week in the case, especially from the defense. And it seems like they are about to take a match to a gasoline-soaked building right now because, Eric, did you get a chance to read that one motion referring to what's called now the Harris report? report. Russ Lafitte is saying that apparently when all this stuff started to come out and everyone was panicking, the bank hired an attorney named Greg Harris to put together a report.

Good friend of mine. Yeah, I want to hear about this guy. But he, so what Greg Harris did, he's a former federal prosecutor, and he put together a report that assesses, I believe, the criminality from what it sounds like, the potential criminality or the criminal exposure that PSB, had in particular with the $680,000 check or at least references that. And it sounds like they might have interviewed people with P&PD or certainly lots of people with the board. I don't have to reread that. But it sounds to me like they're willing to take it all down.

But first, why don't you tell me about Greg Harris first? Greg's a good friend of mine. He is an excellent attorney, but he's a 100% criminal attorney. So that should clue everybody in that this bank was concerned not only about the criminal behavior of Russ Lafee, but of the criminal behavior of the enterprise itself, those four walls of the bank that you talk about that they're taking a flame to. You know, Liz, I was wondering when we were at that bond hearing, I remember I told you, I said, hey, that's my friend Greg Harris. I wonder what he was doing here. And it didn't dawn on me until last night when you sent me those reports.

I saw the Harris report. I was thinking, well, these, is this the Volachi papers? Who's Harris? And then I saw Greg Harris and I said, oh, my goodness, now I'm putting the dots together. Right. And I don't think, Liz, that they were just looking at the $680,000 joint transaction that was done with PMPED to replenish that client account that was rated. I think Greg was doing something a lot larger and broader. I think he was looking at systemic transactions and systemic transactions and system.

systemic ways of doing business. So I don't think the Harris report is just limited to the 680. I think it's a bigger, more descriptive report. I should mention this about the Harris report. Russell wants it introduced, it sounds like, because there's something in there that he feels like is going to exonerate him. And I think that's interesting. I know that it sounds like the, with a $680,000 check, and this goes back to what we were talking about in an earlier episode about the super secret tapes. It sounds like, you know, Russell is saying that he had the board's approval to pay PMPD for that half of the $1.36 million that was stolen from Arthur Badger. Now, speaking of Badger, the Harris report when I was reading it, that was the first thing

that came to mind was like, this Harris report is something I'm going to guarantee that Mark Tinsley, who is representing Arthur Badger is probably going to want. considering what kind of information is in it. But right now it seems like the bank is fighting the release of it. Based on two doctrines. Right. They're attorney client privilege doctrine and the work product privilege doctrine. Okay. The attorney client privilege is a harder privilege to peers. The work product privilege is a little bit easier. Work product only is the bank knows that it's in a situation where it's a target, whether it's in civil litigation or criminal. And they hire an attorney who decides through his mental impressions, I want to do some kind of investigation or some kind of work,

and I'm going to tell the bank to assemble things for me, and I'm going to write a report. That's work product, but it also contains his mental impressions, which makes it attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege is almost inviolate. It's very difficult to break into that privilege. It can be done of one of three ways. waiver where the client who owns the privilege and the client, PSB is the only one that can waive that privilege, agrees to waive it. And they argue, Russell argues that that's already been waived because they gave the report to law enforcement and they gave it to the FDIC, the governing

federal agency that regulates back. So they argued first, we get the report because you already waived it. You gave it away. The second thing they argue is, well, there's an implied waiver, meaning that, well, you gave it to Russell. Russell knows about it. He's entitled to it, and he needs it to exonerate himself and present a defense. The third, which is the most difficult, is the crime fraud exception, which says, you brought an attorney in, whether that attorney, maybe Trenton Walker or Thomas Grisette or some other lawyer, you brought this lawyer in to kind of put that cloak of attorney-client

privilege around it to keep it secret. When really all it is is it's the bank trying to commit a fraud, get away with it, and then keep it silent. And they've argued that the bank is part of a crime fraud that would let the court order the production of the Harris report because the attorney-client privilege is being used as a shield to shield criminal conduct. And so Russell Afit, believe it or not, against his own family bank, is arguing the bank is committing crimes and frauds. This is the former president, CEO, saying, chief executive officer, this bank commits crime and fraud. So the first thing I did today, believe it or not, when I woke up, thank you for sending me that, is I did the same document request in the Plyler lawsuit and sent out asking for the same. same thing. Learned about the Harris report. You did? Yes, it was gold. And I'm not kidding,

we parroted exactly what Russell LaFeed asked for, the FDIC documents, the watch reports, the audit reports, every single thing. That is wild. Now, I've heard several times that there are at least more than, there's more than two dozen victims, people that we don't even know the names of right now. And on top of that, there are rules of professional conduct that you have to follow when it comes to malpractice, meaning that if something happens at your practice, you can't just tell, like, we're going to, we'll solve this, here's a check, now go on your way, this problem's over. What are some of the things that you have to do for your client, you know, by the rules? Exactly. So the rules prevent me from putting my interests at any time over the client's interest.

So if I discover that I've done something wrong, whether I've missed a statute of limitations or I missed a filing of an answer in the 30-day time period and it causes damage to the client, I have a duty immediately to come clean and advise that client. And I can't negotiate my own fix with the client. I have to tell the client, I am no longer your attorney that you can trust is giving you 100% unvarnished advice that doesn't help me personally. I have to advise you, you need to get another attorney, believe it or not, who can advise you is what I'm saying to you in your best interest or is there any of it that's really in Eric's best interest? So if I'm going to say to you, hey, Liz, it's my fault. I cost you your ability to file this lawsuit and you're going to recover X dollars. I'll give you $30,000. It's my duty to say, well, before you take that $30,000, you've got to go get independent counsel.

And I need to talk to them because they're going to say, you know what, $30,000 isn't enough, Eric, because when you wrote your demand letter to the other side, you've got to the other side, you said the case was worth $500,000. And now, in bringing up back home to PMPED, they would just send out checks to Client A. Client A, we've discovered that Alex took a certain amount of money from you. So he took $100,000 from you. But you would have had to pay us a 40% legal fee.

So here's a check for $60,000. And so they say, you know, you don't get your legal fee, but we'll give you 60. And they made voluntary payments. And evidently in their arguments, they were saying, well, we can use the fact that we paid you

and then you negotiated the check. That released us of liability. That is not the case. Just because you made payment to somebody doesn't mean the obligations are released. But what they didn't do, thank God they didn't send the payment with a release agreement.

But what they didn't do is tell the people before you accept that payment and negotiate the check, we're going to try to make an argument that that's a release. You need to get independent counsel. So what's going to end up happening is there's going to be arguments from some people, and I'm part of it, that, well, thank you for making that little down payment deposit against that case, but that's not the end all and be all. Okay, so on Monday, Russell filed a response to Palmetto State Bank's refusal to turn over. they want to quash the Harris report and the secret tapes. And in that motion or sorry, that response, there's something very interesting.

But I'm just going to read it real quick here. It says, because the bank may have been facilitating a fraud committed by Peters Murdoch on its client, the crime fraud exception replies. As explained in its previous briefing and exhibits provided to the court, the $680,000 that is referenced in count four of the indictment was a payment to reimburse a Peters Murdoch for funds stolen by Elyke Murdoch. Unlike a normal settlement, however, Peters Murdoch could not get such a release from its client without having the client engage in independent counsel, as you just said. So the bank relied on counsel at Peters Murdoch to seek a de facto release through payment, similar to how Peters Murdoch

had treated other firm clients who had lost money. So, Eric, does this mean that Russell, in addition to going after Palmetto State Bank and saying that they were perpetuating a crime or part of a crime? This is a sign that they're going after PMPED, right? Well, yeah, he's saying what PMPED did was violate the rules of professional conduct and abuse their fiduciary relationships with their client. PMPED gave some of the money, along with the PMPED money with PNPED money with PSB, they put it together, each put in 680, and then they gave it to the client without telling the

client, go get independent counsel, we need to actually sit down with you. Remember, if I'm going to come clean, I have to totally come clean. So did they sit down with those clients together? PSB, did PSB say what was our role if it was the Arthur Badger money was stolen? Did PMPD sit down with the client and say this was our role in what happened? And you can't just give a little bits and pieces. You can't cut around the edges. Why do you think people haven't come up against PMPD as hard as they maybe could have up into this point?

Like, you know, I get why Russell has been federally indicted. I get why he's, you know, facing several state counts. But why is PMPD? Like, why have they been spared? Mandy, do you have any thoughts on that? Well, something that we have to remember. Kara Henderson, who is the daughter of Danny Henderson, works kind of in the U.S. Attorney's office.

Is she in the U.S. Attorney's Office? Because she has that weird in-between job. So, Danny Henderson is a partner. Yeah, we should say this. So Danny Henderson is a partner. Yeah. So there's a P&PED. There's a big P&PED connection at the U.S. Attorney's office.

Let's put it that way. that's the way to say that yes there is and this person is so danny henderson's daughter and we've mentioned her before she is a liaison for the u.s. attorney's office so she doesn't work for the u.s. attorney she works for the 14th circuit which as we know is murbach country all day long so a very interesting decision on the part of duffy stone years ago was to put this person Kara henderson as the liaison for the U.S. Attorney's Office ostensibly to help the county, I guess, or the county, the circuit to give the full force of the law for certain crimes that were happening within the 14th Circuit. But the alternate take on that is that Kara was put in her position to be

the eyes and ears, whether she was realizing it or not, for PMPD. Because I think we've seen a lot of evidence over the last year, especially, of PMPADs, that relationship benefiting PMPAD to a certain extent. So that is one of the questions that we raised in an MMP episode, which is, you know, is Russell? Certainly you and I have our opinions on Russell. That said, you know, when we're looking at the grand spectrum of things, PMPED reigns large, right? So MAD are excited to sort of see Russell maybe turn a corner here and be the one to take on? I hope to take on PMPED, maybe. Maybe I'm reading too much into this. I'll just say this. If we're going to sit in a two-week trial, I hope that someone else gets exposed besides Russell. We all know where Russell is in this. We all know he's probably

not going to be able to get out of all of these charges. However, what will be interesting and what most people close to this have been kind of so curious about in waiting for is where does PMPED if where does PMPED fit in all of this and will they be held accountable if we find out that they were involved in a lot of shady stuff too. And it does seem like PMPED has a big network of people protecting them, including the ODC, the South Carolina Supreme. I, with the stuff that I heard that went down last fall with how they were trying to clean up Alex's mess, I'll just put it this way. I'm very shocked that not a single other attorney besides Alex has at least been suspended

pending an investigation. and I don't know. I'm just very eager and I think that this case next week could be very big, and I think a lot of people are kind of keeping one eye open at night in the next couple weeks worried about being exposed. Manti and I will often, or at least we haven't said it in a while, but certainly in the early stages of looking into the Murdoch stuff is you can't, can't find what you don't look for. So if the FBI and SLED are treating PMPED with kid gloves for whatever reason, we hope that stops, of course, but I still, I'm not quite understanding why PMPED has the influence that they do in general. Eric, do you want to speak to that?

It's like taking on Notre Dame. I mean, they're a Citadel. They have a golden dome, You know, it's not easy to take on Notre Dame. It's not easy to take on, you know, a law firm and a dynasty of 100 years. And I certainly understand the reticence of people. Look, the fact that Ronnie and I and maybe two other people are the only people in South Carolina that are willing to sue other lawyers. Can you imagine what it would take to take down a citadel of a law firm like PMPED? I think when you peel back the layers of how did I, Alex Murdoch become Alex Murdoch and how did he get so cocky and to the point where he was in,

and how did he get so comfortable with sloppily stealing millions of dollars? And as a lawyer, I think if we really want to restore faith in the justice system and if we really want to restore faith in lawyers in South Carolina, Alex's law firm has to be held accountable in some way. One of the first conversations that we had when you got all the documents in the Satterfield case and you emailed me. It was like super late at night and you were walking me through it. We were both just like, oh my God, this is like for millions of dollars. Like think about all the things that people do that add up to stealing millions of dollars.

and this guy just made this forge account, but at the end of the day, we have it is not enough to hear PMPED say, oopsies, we miss that. No. And we'll be right back. I think they would have to be willfully blind.

And that goes for, right from the assistant to the accountant who I believe is even related to Susie seconder. I think that their CFO is related to Russell Lefeet. Russell's sister-in-law. Yeah. I think it's Russell's sister-in-law.

Yeah, it is. It's Russell's sister-in-law. So I think, yeah, you look at all of that. You look at the, you know, write down to the paralegals. And that's not to cast aspersions necessarily on them, but to say that, like, their roles, you can't, again, you can't find what you don't look for. Just so it's clear, I'm not advocating that PMPED, the, um, the, um, sanctioned prosecuted, that attorneys get sanctioned or prosecuted, but people need to understand how this happened and educate the bar so that it never happens again. This needs to be a life

lesson for lawyers here. Yeah, exactly. And I mean, at the end of the day, if you were willfully blind that your own partner was able to get away with all of this, should you be a lawyer? Like if you're if you're that bad and if you miss that much, how can you say that you can look out for your clients and I just don't think that you can do both? Oh, you can. In all fairness, you have a law firm of 20 people and lawyers who are representing their clients. And like I've said all along, there are some really great lawyers in that law firm. I mean, and a lot of times these lawyers, are trusting their accounting department, you know, they're not going to go,

they don't have the time to go behind every single settlement that Alex does, but the accounting department does. And the accountants, outside accounts, and the CFO of a law firm does. I don't want to put that burden on the lawyers, but you have to have a structure in place that there is double entry accounting

and checking behind the checker. So like I say, trust and verify. I trust. everybody except the devil inside everybody and if you have a good safe organization with that mentality you'll never lose money i noticed that there were there was a sealed motion that was filed yesterday in this case and a lot of uh actions surrounding whatever the sealed motion is and apparently whatever it is they're going to hear it on monday before the trial starts so Eric, have you seen, I don't know what this motion is, but have you seen a sealed motion this close to, like, I guess on the eve of the indictments, I guess. I don't know how to say it.

It can mean only one of two things, that there was some type of prosecutorial misconduct, which infected the indictments against Russell, or two, that there has been something that's being done by third parties that impedes Russell's ability. to confront witnesses at trial properly cross-examine them and advance his constitutional right of, I am not guilty until, you know, you prove my guilt. So, or innocent until not guilty. I think in this particular case, it's explosive. Russell certainly has a right to defend himself. And with the analysis that Judge Gergel's going to do on Monday is he's going to,

one, he's all. he's always has in the forefront, boy, that attorney-client privilege has a lot of good steel walls around it. Am I really going to be the judge that wants to open that up? Okay, before I open it up, are there other ways that Russell can prove what he's trying to prove or advance what he's trying to prove without me giving him the Harris report? Are there witnesses that can come forward that aren't privileged witnesses that could testify that what was said in a particular means? if an attorney wasn't there. So Richard Gergel, Judge Richard Gergel, is going to explore other ways

of trying to get to that same point. If it comes down to, though, there's no other way to prove it. There's no other way to get it other than letting them see the Harris report. What is going to happen is they're going to produce the Harris report to Judge Gergel. Judge Gergel, what's called in-camera

or in chambers, is going to read that report. And he's going to, you know, the lawyers are going to say, it's explosive, it's dynamite, it's earth-shattering, it's Dick Harputley and saying, I'm going to show you who the killer is. And then Judge Gergoe may read it and it may be a dud. And he may then say, sure, turn it over. Or if it is highly explosive, he's going to have to balance Alex's right, I mean, excuse me, Russell's rights to defend himself properly, the bank's right to hold a privilege, and also the government's right. to continue to prove Russell's guilt. So he's got a Solomon job. I don't envy him. He's going to make sad people or enemies out of a number of people when he makes his decision. But I have a feeling the

Harris report is going to end up coming in in one shape, form or another. And once that Harris report's released, Mark Tinsley's going to be doing skips down his street in front of his office. And Eric Blan and Ronnie Richter are going to also be pretty excited. I want to end on some personal good cheer. One, I want to give a shout out to the Phillies that seem to be doing great. The Eagles are doing great. And I also want to give a little shout out to everybody without putting my own personal spin on it.

Tuesday's coming up. Get out and vote. Vote your conscience. Yeah, absolutely. And vote for the person, not for the party. That's my thing. One little thing I wanted to mention that a lot of people have asked me and it's hard to explain. So covering this trial is going to be very tricky because of the federal law of not being able to, of journalists not being able to use basically any technology in the courtroom.

So we cannot record. We cannot bring in our cell phones. We cannot live tweet. So it's going to be extremely tricky. But we're going to do our best. We're going to get the best note takers. And this is going to be a challenge for us. And it's very stupid.

Just going to point that out. It is so stupid. It is 2022. Let's allow cameras in the courtroom. Transparency, transparency, transparency, transparency. This Cop of Justice bonus episode of the Murdoch Murders podcast is created and hosted by me, Mandy, Matney, with co-host Liz Pharrell, our executive editor, and Eric Bland, attorney at law,

aka the Jack Hammer of Justice. From Lunar Shark Productions.