Murdaugh Murders Podcast - Judge Newman Orders Full Stop On Dick's 'Carnival Court' (S01E59)

Episode Date: August 31, 2022

Monday’s pre-trial motion hearing in Alex Murdaugh's murder case was fiery and dramatic… even for this case. In Episode 59, Mandy, Liz  & David unpack all of the very complicated details that legacy media failed to mention. You'll also hear Mandy and Liz share some personal news about their recent departure from FITSNews and the team will tell you about some exciting plans on the horizon. Subscribe 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 upcoming SUNScription platform - CLICK HERE to learn more: https://bit.ly/3KBMJcP Special thanks to Eric Alan for capturing audio and video in support of this podcast. Check out Eric Alan's YouTube Channel here: https://bit.ly/3AIMtFB And subscribe to our MMP YouTube channel too! https://bit.ly/3cgP0xn 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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We did it! I still can't believe we got this project done so fast and so well. When I'm in New York, I'm in Chicago, and I'm in L.A., but we're making it happen in Miro. Together. Our best work just happens faster on Miro's collaborative online whiteboard. No more scheduling meeting after meeting for work that could happen from anywhere. After it's getting design feedback here, mapping timelines here.

Or brainstorming next steps here. It all just happens on the Miro board. Exactly, and it's nice not having to wait an entire day to get sign off from this guy. Hey! Well, it is true. See how Miro users save up to 80 hours every year by meeting less and doing more. Get on board at Miro.com. The first three boards are free, forever.

That's M-I-R-O.com. I don't know what kind of tricks Dick and Jim have up their sleeves as they defend Ellick Murdoch, who currently faces 90 charges, including the double homicide of his wife and son. But hidden within the theatrics of Monday's explosive hearing were several huge bombshells. Perhaps hinting at what we're in for as the cases creep closer to trial. My name is Mandy Matney. I have been investigating the Murdoch family for more than three and a half years now.

This is the Murdoch Murders Podcast with David Moses and Liz Farrell. Before we start, we want to make an announcement that we shared on social media Friday. Liz and I are no longer working for Fitznews, so that we can both focus on the Murdoch Murders Podcast in our own projects. Personally, I have always dreamed of owning my own company and working 100% for myself. And having the ability to do that as a journalist has always seemed so far out of reach. I want to thank you, our listeners and supporters, for helping make this crazy pipe dream of mine come to life.

I've worked for Fitznews for more than two years, and I am forever grateful for the opportunity in the platform to do great journalism that holds agencies accountable and keeps the powerful in check. I started this podcast in my free time as a passion project while I was working for Fitznews. After dedicating so much of my time and energy of researching the Murdoch family in the two years before the murders, I knew I had to share my reporting on a different platform. It was very clear early on that mainstream media was getting the story wrong, focusing on the boat crash victims for instance as potential murder suspects, which we knew was

so absurd. This podcast in Luna Shark Productions was created to expose the truth wherever it leads to get the story straight and give a voice to the victims. I never thought that this case or this podcast would expand to a full time job for not only me but others as well. I've said this before, but I honestly started with the goal of getting to 10 episodes and then getting back to my job in local journalism. But the case has multiplied, things changed, and we have done our best to adapt in all

of the chaos. In 59 episodes later, here we are. Also, on social media this weekend, we posted several pictures of Liz and I shooting a project with CNN. While we can't tell you too many details about it right now, I do realize that the Fitznews departure announcement, followed by the CNN photos, was confusing, so I want to clarify. We are not in any way shape or form selling out to CNN, but we are happy to participate

in this unique, non-political project that helps give a voice to the victims in this case, including Sandy Smith, Alana Plylar, and so many others. We will let you know more about the CNN show closer to when it airs. While we have been on this crazy roller coaster for the past 14 months, we've figured out a few things about where to dedicate our energy. What I was doing at the beginning of this podcast, chasing breaking news throughout the day, while podcasting and attempting deep dive analysis at night was not at all sustainable. Nor was it healthy for anyone's mental state to work like that, constantly tethered to

the computer, in fear of missing the next big thing. So we have really focused our mission here at MMP, to provide well researched, thought provoking deep dives into this case that can't be found anywhere else. Even when you're just hearing our voices in this podcast, it represents a swath of several sources gathered from years of experience so that we can provide the most accurate and effective reporting that aligns with our mission here at Lunashark Productions. So for instance, on Tuesday as we are putting this episode together, multiple sources told us that sled agents were searching an area of water near Randolph Murdoch III's old

home in Hampton County. But we don't know what that means exactly, and instead of speculating, we're going to just tell you that we promise to look into it and see what it means and get back to you. So bottom line, we aren't going anywhere. When we made our announcements last Friday, a few listeners panicked. No need to panic. First, there is so much more to uncover in the Murdoch case. Every week, we are pretty much dealing with the news in real time.

Both Mandy and I have so many areas of this case that we want to go deeper into, and now we'll be able to do that. Second, the Murdoch case has shown us how much damage can occur when widespread corruption goes unchecked. Without a corrupt system, these crimes could not have happened in such epic fashion. So now is as good a time as any for us to start thinking about throwing on the lights in other communities as well. Many of you have been eagerly awaiting news on what's next for the Lunashark and the Murdoch

Murders podcast team. There is only one way to ensure that you get that info first. Click the link in the episode description or visit MurdochMurdersPodcast.com and provide your email address so you can get the first alert on new shows, new platforms and new projects that expose the truth, give voice to victims, and get the story straight. But right away, we're excited to announce that we'll be publishing new bonus episodes of MMP exploring how we should all drink from the same cup of justice. Mandy, Liz, Eric Bland and others will be diving deeper into analysis with fascinating

stories from courtrooms and newsrooms. Our goal is to take all these complex legal topics and make them easy and entertaining to understand. But wait, there's more. We want you to know that we've heard you, from comments on social media to our listener surveys. We're going to offer you content beyond what you can get from just an amazing 45 minute podcast.

If you want to hear ad-free or music-free shows, dive deeper into these investigations and others, learn about Mandy and Liz's adventures in journalism, and hear from other journalists who believe in our mission, we invite you to participate in these investigations as we expose the truth. We are excited to shine the light on evildoers everywhere as we launch a new sun-scription service. Get it? It's like subscription, but sun in the coming weeks.

If you gave us your email at murdochmurderspodcast.com, you'll get first crack at joining a community that makes an impact. We stand for victims. We stand for truth, and we invite you to stand with us as we change journalism and our systems for the better. So if you believe in our mission, let us know by sharing your email. And stay tuned. On Monday, Elick Murdoch appeared in court in Colleton County, South Carolina before

Judge Clifton Newman, who ruled on two motions related to the double homicide case. The hearing was dramatic and heated, even for this case. And a special shout out again to videographer Eric Allen, who captured every second of this hearing on audio and video. And be sure to check out our YouTube channel to watch the entire hearing. And you can see our live chat commentary. Before we start playing clips from the hearing, a few things you need to know. The hearing focused on two particular motions related to the discovery phase in the double

homicide case. The first motion, filed by defense attorneys Dick Harputlian and Jim Griffin, was a motion to compel, asking Judge Newman to order that the state respond to their July 15th, Rule 5, discovery motion. As we explained in the last episode, the rule technically requires the state to respond within 30 days. And it does not necessarily say that prosecutors have to turn over all the evidence within 30 days, which by the way, defense attorneys in South Carolina say it almost never happens

that quickly. After Creighton Waters responded to the motion saying, hey look, we have the evidence, but we need some rules here about how we share it. So Creighton asked the court for a protective order on the evidence, which is why a hearing was necessary for Judge Newman to rule on one, Dick's motion to compel, asking for evidence and two, Creighton Waters motion for a protective order on some of the evidence. Before we get into it, here is what you need to know about the hearing. Have you ever seen someone grab another person's hand and then use that person's hand to hit

that person's face while yelling, stop hitting yourself? That is what Dick and Jim did here. The hearing was all for show. It was for Dick, the gaseous of gaslighters, to perform for the cameras and promote his narrative. I have no doubt that somewhere out there is a wrinkled list of talking points with Jim Griffin's check marks next to each item. There were things they clearly wanted to get on the public record Monday.

So the hearing, in summary, was a celebration of opposite day, in which Dick and Jim went from arguing for reinforced secrecy a month ago to against reinforced secrecy now. Now, the issue is this. As you'll remember, Creighton Waters and Dick and Jim were working on crafting a protective order for the evidence when Dick and Jim suddenly changed their minds because it allowed them to force the handover past August 15th, which would then allow them to cry foul. Why was a protective order necessary? To prevent leaks, which oddly Dick and Jim were also railing against, meaning the guys

yelling about the leaks were fighting the remedy for said leaks. That said, this protective order makes the motion to compel moot, meaning had they all just gone with plan A, had Dick and Jim not changed their minds about that, there would be no need for that motion to compel because again, the state was willing to hand it all over just with some restrictions attached. Dick and Jim went in with an agenda, but it wasn't about that motion to compel. Okay, so just to give you all a sense of how fiery this 50 minute hearing was from beginning to end, we want to play the first minute, which really set the stage for our pootly

and bombastic performance on Monday. All right, so listen to me like you're playing. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, guys. Good morning. We are at police accord. We're here this morning on a couple of motions in 2021 GS 15592, 593, 594, and 595.

Those are the two murder charges and possession of a firearm during commission of a violent crime charges against Alec Murdoch for the murders of Maggie and Paul Murdoch. We're here for the state's motion for a protective order. Subjection, Your Honor. We're not here for that. We're here for the defense motion to compel and I object to the state trying to hijack this proceeding by taking over and saying this is for their motion for protective order. We made a motion to compel weeks before they made their motion for protective order.

And I'd ask the court to allow us to go forward with a motion to compel. So that is state Senator Dick Harputlian interrupting prosecutor Creighton Waters before he can even get a few sentences in about what this hearing is about. You heard Creighton tell the judge that they were there for a couple of motions. He wasn't trying to make this all about the state's motion as Dick was trying to make it seem. Also, Dick says that he and Jim made their motion to compel, quote, weeks before the state's motion for a protective order.

Let's be clear on the timeline here. Late on Friday, August 12th, Creighton, Dick and Jim were working together on the protective order when Dick and Jim changed their minds. On Monday, August 15th, Creighton emailed Judge Newman to update him. In that email, Creighton let the judge know that he still believes a protective order is necessary. The day after that, Dick and Jim filed their motion to compel. Two days later, Creighton officially filed the state's motion for a protective order.

So how is that weeks before? We have to give Creighton Waters props here because he showed up as a different attorney from the previous bond hearing and he seemed ready for all the nonsense. Right out of the gate, he presented himself as a lawyer who wasn't going to be steamrolled by Dick and Jim. Finally, we saw a real prosecutor in the room. He continued. Your Honor, both motions are to be heard today and I think that if the motion to a protective

order is addressed, it makes any motion to compel a move because of course as the state has been clear from day one, we've been ready to provide this discovery but because of the sensitivity of the matters here, we think it's appropriate, I have months of caution to seek a reasonable and minimally intrusive protective order so that that discovery can be provided. In less than one minute and thirty seconds in, Dick interrupted Creighton again so that he could continue this false narrative that the state was intentionally withholding evidence from them.

Most importantly, Dick again lied about the timeline. On July 15th, the defense filed its discovery motion and even though the rule doesn't specify whether the state has thirty calendar days or thirty business days, Dick and Jim regarded August 15th as the deadline. So where are these weeks of non-compliance coming from? There is no need for motion to develop. If it leaves a court, Your Honor, we have a motion to compel, we file, we'd like to be heard on it and then if they want to respond, Your Honor, obviously we could hear that.

We filed this motion weeks after they failed to comply with Rule 5 and Brady and to just ignore that I think does a disservice to this court and the criminal justice system. In less than two minutes into the hearing, Harputlian interrupted Waters for a third time. Remember, it wasn't even Harputlian's turn to speak yet. The only reason why there's been me done, if I could be heard, without being interrupted and hijacked by the state as they continue to try to hide the ball on this case, I'm sorry if I appear upset, but I can tell you that every time we turn around, they're trying

to hide something and if we could just have fifteen minutes to address the court and call a witness, we could get to it. So Harputlian is trying to create an alternate reality here, likely in the hopes that any potential jurors are listening. And yes, I have to point this out again, Harputlian, who just weeks ago was all, I want a gag order because I don't want the press tanning the jury, is absolutely performing for the court a public opinion here. Over the weekend, we talked with Eric Bland and he told us that he believes that the defense

is going to want people who don't trust the government on their jury. So by repeating words and phrases like hijack and hide the ball, when it's not even his turn to speak and portraying the state as a bully that won't even let the defense speak, Dick is already laying down a path to get that kind of jury. He wants to ensure that he puts that impression in the public's mind right out of the gate. He wants to portray Ellick as someone who has been unfairly targeted by the Attorney General's office. As a part of creating that narrative, he subpoenaed four sled agents connected to the Murdoch

investigations to testify on Monday. This is weird. Remember, the defense's motion was a motion to compel the state to hand over evidence. How exactly would these sled agents who have nothing to do with the AG's office producing evidence help make Dick's case? They wouldn't. That's the point. That's why Newman ultimately denied Dick's request.

Now, last week, we were hearing a lot of rumblings that Harputlian was planning to use the hearing Monday to point the finger at someone else in the double homicide. At the quote-unquote real killer. So it's possible that they were calling on sled agents to testify solely to create some kind of chaos like that. On Monday, though, Dick told the court that he needed the sled agents, or at least one sled agent, to testify that the alleged leak of information about the case was coming out of the AG's office.

Also, about five minutes before the hearing started, Dick and Jim filed a memo, which could be best described as bitchy, filled with outrage, accusing the state of playing to the gallery and the media and saying that the Attorney General lacks quote, stiffness of the spine. And by the way, the Attorney General, Alan Wilson, is the first signature on the state's filing, yet he never shows up to these hearings, nor does he ever hold press conferences about these matters. So maybe Dick and Jim are not wrong about that.

Alan Wilson does need to be a leader here. Anyways, after another minute, a back and forth between Creighton and Dick, in which Creighton boldly pointed out that it was actually Dick doing the interrupting, not him, Judge Newman stepped in and basically told them to tone it down and cut out the nonsense. The judge also made sure that Dick knew that submitting a memorandum five minutes before a hearing was not cool. Dick blamed the AG's office for his late filing and then went on to explain it. But it's suffice it to say, it points out all the things that we pointed out in our

initial motion compel. And that is, under Rule 5 and Brady, we're entitled to discover materials to prepare defense. The question is, who's going to make the decision on what we get? And Your Honor, we're going to be in this courtroom over and over and over again, if Your Honor enters the protective order, I'm not going to argue about that at this moment, but clearly, I've been involved in literally dozens, if not hundreds, of murder cases in my career.

I've never seen such a thing in a murder case. Now, statewide grand jury, certainly, there's a grand jury. There's protective orders in place. I get it. But this is not a statewide grand jury case. So why we don't have what we asked for seven weeks ago. The 30 days is not the minimum, it's the maximum, number one, number two. I'd like to put one witness on the stand and sort of explain where we are.

Judge Newman, remaining more calm than most of us, would be, asked Dick to explain why exactly he thinks it's appropriate to call sled captain Ryan Neal, who is one of the lead investigators in the Murdoch case, as a witness in this hearing. You don't need to explain to me who this witness is, and to lead for it, and be a witness. Yes. Ryan Neal, he is with Sled, he's been involved in this process and the gathering of the evidence, which I think would explain to the court how easy it is for this evidence to be produced. 10 minutes max.

Creighton responded by saying, hang on, there is no reason for the defense to call a witness to testify about the evidentiary process at a hearing that's meant to decide the terms of releasing that evidence. Your Honor, I don't see any need for a witness at this time. I don't think that there's any factual issue in the dispute for the purposes of this hearing as to the evidence that was gathered. These are legal issues as to whether or not a protective order is appropriate, and whether or not the defense's motion to be compelled should be granted.

And there's no reason to even get to factual, which he's failed to identify a viable factual issue that's in dispute. Prosecutor Creighton Waters then said, let's get to the real issues here. And by the way, the last thing the state wants is a mistrial right now. Dick continued begging again to interview sled agents, and hmm, why would he want to do that? If you please, Court Your Honor, this impacts the legal issue. We don't, we're not quite sure what we're asking for.

I think this would make it clear to you what we're asking for and whether or not it's easily available. Again, five minutes. So again, Dick is taking the issue at hand, which is the defense's manufactured claim that the state hasn't complied with the rule five discovery, and converting it to something else entirely. Maybe Dick's request would be appropriate in a case where the prosecution has egregiously delayed delivering the discovery.

But that is not what was happening here. From where we sit, it looks like the state has made a good faith effort to meet Dick's demands. In this summary, Judge Newman told Dick, no, I'm not going to allow you to call a state's witness to the stand so you can interrogate them about the investigation when all I have to do is say produce the evidence and the state is obligated to comply with that. And we'll be right back. Naturally, Dick had to interrupt the judge to make one more comment, and his one more

comment was to falsely insinuate that the state is planning to hide evidence from them. You're right. If I might make one comment, I'm not arguing with your decision. In the memorandum that we received on Friday, the state points out that they don't want other suspects who are interviewed disclosed. Well, if they interview other people that they consider to be suspects and excluded them, why aren't we entitled to that? To know who they suspected, why they suspected them, and on what basis they excluded?

Did you notice how Dick asked, why aren't we entitled to that two times? And the second time his voice got softer, that's called theatrics, and it's intentional. It seems like he's trying to give the impression that he's just a good guy asking for the bare minimum from a withholding bully, but he's again misstating what the state's position is here. So in rule 5 discovery, the state and defense are both allowed to ask the court to prevent the handover of certain pieces of evidence should they desire. This is sometimes done to protect witnesses and confidential informants, but they'd have

to make a motion to do that. Related to this hearing though, and in their memos to the court, the state is not arguing that there's evidence they don't want a handover. Even though this is what Dick is trying to insinuate, instead the state is arguing that some of the evidence contains personal identifying information, and that's why they need a protective order. Creighton states the obvious, which is that, yeah, duh, the state will give them their quote, other suspect evidence.

They absolutely will be, Your Honor. Once we have the rules in place, we're the most up. And then again, falsely acting like the state is trying to withhold pieces of evidence, Dick Harputlian suggested something very on brand for his chaotic case protecting the good ol' boys. Listen carefully. Well the rules are in place, it's called rule 5 and Brady. So Your Honor, what I would say to you is this, I don't trust the state to honor the

rules. So far as we point out in our motion, I've asked the court to appoint a special master to supervise discovery, in this case, a number of retired judges have done this in the past, not because you can't do it, but because it would consume all of your time to do it. Someone like the retired justice chief, Chief Justice Toll, there are a number of them out there that do it in civil cases all the time. So I'd ask the court to consider appointing a master to supervise the state in reviewing, in assisting them in reviewing the documents, to make sure we get what we should get.

Thank you. So here we have another fun one for the potential jury, the old, I don't trust the state to honor the rules. Again, the state wasn't refusing to hand over evidence, it was asking the court to set some terms to protect sensitive information contained in the evidence, something Dick was arguing for just one month ago. Also, is Dick Harputlian really saying he wants his buddies to be in charge of the evidence? Now again, the state is asking the court for permission to withhold some evidence.

If that were the case, sure, set up a system that allows for an independent evaluation of whether it's appropriate to hold back the evidence in question. And it's also not lost on us that Dick is asking for retired justice Jean Toll to help make determinations in this imagine scenario. She is problematic and we will tell you about her in a future episode. It was at this point in the hearing that Creighton Waters really stepped up to the plate and started swinging. This is when he truly acted like a prosecutor in charge of one of the biggest cases in the

history of South Carolina. Your honor, Mr. Harputlian put in his latest filing that as your honor pointed out, we got five minutes before the hearing started, that he knows he's worked with me on a number of cases and knows I don't play fast and lose. They put that in their motion, knows that I'm not responsible for any leaks. They put that in that motion. They will get everything. Okay, I don't play fast and lose with discovery.

I would rather give them everything because I don't want to be down the line, you know, with anything that I had that they could potentially have found useful. That's how I play the game. And they both know this because they've had experience with me before. And as soon as we can get a ruling on the protective order because of the extreme sensitivity of this information, you know, this information, your honor, is probably worth six to seven figures. First, let's take a moment to appreciate the sanity here.

Crane is reminding the court again about the matter at hand. You can almost hear clapping emojis between his unspoken words. This hearing is about the protective order. Also, this was one of those ear cleaning moments where you're like, did I just hear what I think I heard? Is Crane and Water saying that they need a protective order in part because there's a monetary value to the evidence in the Murdoch case and that it could be a million dollars? Yeah, he is.

So in the state's memo to the court, which is referenced throughout the memo that Dick and Jim submitted five minutes before the hearing, the state argues that they're not saying that Dick or Jim would ever sell evidence photos, etc. But you know, better safe than sorry. Dick and Jim were not cool about the state making this point. Here's how they responded to that in their own memo. The state next argues a protective order is needed because, quote, this discovery is worth six if not seven figures to an unscrupulous person.

By this, the Attorney General means Defense Counsel Richard A. Harputlian and James M. Griffin would sell the discovery, in this case absent a court order prohibiting it. Lacking stiffness of spine to stand by his insult, the Attorney General unctuously hurries to claim that he, quote, does not cavalierly throw around ethical allegations. And his, quote, concern is not Defense Counsel. Of course, his concern is Defense Counsel. He is arguing against disclosure to Defense Counsel. To whom else could the Attorney General be referring?

So I'm just going to say the quiet part. We've heard from multiple sources that the Murdochs and their counsel have, over the past year, been dabbling in the old Hollywood pool. We heard they had optioned the rights to their story or were in talks to option the rights to their story. Again, the Murdoch team has a public relations firm helping them here. This is all just to say good for Creighton. To us, it seems like he knows something he's not saying and not for nothing, but two words,

Vicki Ward. She's the tabloid reporter who's allegedly got her hands on evidence photos and other confidential courtroom materials in the Mallory Beach boat crash case and used them in a documentary. Again, and we're sick of having to say this, but the state is not arguing against disclosing evidence. They're arguing that they want an order to protect this evidence from getting publicized. Frankly, it's surprising that Dick and Jim didn't think of the six and seven figure argument themselves in their attempts to paint Attorney General Allen Wilson as a leaky spigot.

Real quick, here's one more fun passage from their memo. The pattern of the leaks suggests that maybe someone who works or worked in Mr. Waters team wanted Murdoch to be charged, that Mr. Waters was reticent to bring a weak murder case, and that the leaks were a way to go over Mr. Waters head to an attorney general who always panders to public opinion. But regardless of how we got here, the state should not be permitted to gag the defense from responding to its leaks. It is past time for the state to stop bolstering its case in magazines and blogs, and to instead

provide Murdoch's lawyers whatever actual evidence it has. They're so indignant, I love it. So the leaks, let's talk about those leaks for a second. What leaks? The defense listed several stories in its memo and included several passages from those stories, most of them written by Mandy and me. They say those stories demonstrate that the AG's office was the quote unquote leak. Those stories only demonstrate that we're solid reporters, so thank you Dick and Jim.

That's so sweet of you to notice. Dick of all people knows how this works. There's no deep throat here. There's no mysterious single source whispering in an underground garage. This case has six or seven figures in moving parts, asking people, and we know a lot of them from all angles in this case, what are you hearing out there? Is a really effective starting point in reporting. You take what you learn from people, then you find out what can be confirmed.

Back to the hearing, here's Crichton explaining how he's not accusing Dick and Jim of being shady. I am not at all. I put this in my motion just by their recent response. I'm not at all worried about Dick or Jim Griffin selling this information. I'm not at all worried about that, but the problem is that inevitably a number of people, as the case is prepared, have to get access to that information, and the whole point is to have this not fall in the wrong hands.

This case is unique. It's unprecedented in South Carolina history, and as much as it combines violent crime with alleged corruption of someone's law license on a scale that's never been seen before, in your honor, if not this case, what case would a protective order be appropriate with the intense media interest that there's there? None of this is to preclude a public trial. Everything will come out in the open. All this is meant to do is have it come out when it's supposed to, and that's in this

courtroom. And then Crichton briefly gave the public an idea of how much evidence we're talking about here, and why there needs to be a protection order. And your honor, I think in this particular case, we have in this evidence is chock full of such information that should be protected. There are phone dumps from a number of people, from victims, from witnesses. Those phone dumps are complete. They have all kinds of communications with people.

Their contact information is in there. Who may have nothing to do with this case, but we're just contacting that phone. But I would not want to get into the process, which would take forever, I might add, your honor, of sitting there and trying to separate the wheat from the trap and the phone dumps before it was provided to the defense, which then they would complain that the state is withholding discovery. I'd rather them have the whole thing, because I don't know what they may see in there that they think is relevant to their defense, which is their right, which is why I don't

want to be separating wheat from the job. Let them look at all of it and decide what they think is relevant. That's how I play the game, and they know this. Your honor, there is information in there. There's tons of personal identifying information in there that a protective order would satisfy any issues as it goes to that. And then, of course, I did mention there's excluded suspects. That premature disclosure of which would be damaging, but none of that is to preclude

them from having that. They are entitled to it. They're entitled to vet that themselves and to raise those issues if legally appropriate. They can do that all they want to, but it is appropriate that those people's identities be protected under a protective order unless and until those issues become relevant in trial. And that could be, after your honor rules on various legal issues relevant to that. That's a huge right of a third party.

And then, of course, most of the witnesses in this case who have their MOIs, memorandums of interview, their recordings of their interview, all the rest of them, they don't want to be in the news unless and until a trial happens. And that's their right. That's important something to protect, your honor, that they don't need to have intense media focus on them until and unless their testimony becomes relevant in the trial. These are all very valid concerns alone to justify a protective order. And again, my concern is not Dick Harpoonly and it's not Jim Griffin.

I've worked with both of these people, and they both said the same thing about me. But inevitably, whether when it's not authorized, it's not directed, inevitably, though, this information could end up down the line as the case is prepared in the hands of people whose motives aren't as pure. And all of this is done is to protect that because this information literally is probably worth over a million dollars to an unscrupulous hands. And I think we have to protect it for that reason. So listening to Creighton, it's crazy to remember that just one month ago, Dick was

standing in that same courtroom arguing about the importance of a gag order in this case. The gag order was an extra thing, right? These guys are already bound to the rules of professional conduct in what they disclose to the public ahead of a trial. The gag order would have reinforced those rules. Dick and Jim wanted the extra. The protective order is sort of the same concept, and yet Dick and Jim are now arguing that extra equals overboard.

I can't even imagine how much private information is contained in this investigation. We want to see everyone who has played a role in these crimes to be held accountable, but we also know how highly personal investigatory files can be. In South Carolina, body camera footage is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The main rationale of that was to protect people's privacy. Law enforcement often deal with people on their worst days. They go into people's houses. They learn intimate and horrifying details of their lives.

Similarly, investigatory files can be just as invasive, especially when taken out of context. So it's understandable that the state would seek extra protections. And we're for them as long as the driving factor here isn't to protect the guilty. What I mean is there are probably a lot of interesting names in those files. Come to think of it, Creighton's assertion that these files could be worth over a million dollars might not even be about Hollywood. This is South Carolina.

It could just be about good old fashioned, good old boy on good old boy blackmail opportunities. Back to those alleged leaks. I am not aware of anyone who's leaked any substantive evidence or any violated rule 3.6 in this map. Okay? Do nothing but provide, make it look amateurish, make it look messy, and provide a strategic opportunity for the defense. Those who know how to handle a high profile case don't leak because it does no good whatsoever.

You're on. And the only thing I am aware of are two indiscretions about procedural issues that were immediately addressed. And both in both of those instances, it was just simply about a step in the process and both of those were unauthorized, undirected, and were immediately addressed and had nothing to do with any substantive evidence, nothing to do with any state grand jury evidence and nothing like that. Two indiscretions about procedural issues that were immediately addressed?

Wonder what those were. Let's be clear here. When you have an investigation that takes 13 months and involves hundreds of people and there's no public communication from either law enforcement agency, information will get out. That's a fact. There's no way to contain it, but that's not really a quote unquote leak. There are no secret documents being passed around.

No one is purporting to have seen the evidence. That's just normal human beings being normal human beings. And not for nothing. This investigation took 13 months for two reasons, Dick and Jim. If Ellick couldn't afford Dick and Jim, he would have been arrested the second sled had probable cause against him, which for all we know could have been immediately. One interesting thing about Dick and Jim's last minute memorandum is that they don't mention any stories from the state newspaper or the post and courier to papers that seem

to have some very pro-ellick Murdoch anonymous sources. Nope, it's just us and People Magazine. What I'm about to say is not an accusation, but rather amusing. People Magazine referred to an unnamed source who referred to a quote, mountain of evidence against Ellick Murdoch, a phrase that a source had used with us months earlier. Now, is it possible the People Magazine reporter had the same source as us? No. I'm not being arrogant here.

I just know what I know and I'm saying what I can say. We still have to protect our sources. That said, the People Magazine articles also contained information about the investigation we're told was not accurate. This made Mandy and I wonder, what was going on with that? Is it possible the magazine's source was just repeating what they read in our stories and not always getting it right? Maybe.

Is it possible that the magazine's source wanted a large national platform to spread an anti-ellick Murdoch message that could then be pinned on someone else? Again, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm just saying that the assertions in the People Magazine articles certainly helped bolster certain messages about leaks and alleged prosecutorial misconduct, etc. Here's Crichton very accurately pointing out the truth about these so-called leaks. In the same way, even in their motion right here, they discussed that as well. They pointed out some Fitznews article from June calling out the fact that no indictments

had been issued when they were expected. They were expected. They were expected. Well, that was it. Everybody was looking for when the next Colletin Grand Jury date was and expecting indictments, but nothing happened. So why in the world would the state be leaking that? We have no motive to do that.

All it does is undermine our case and undermine the process. I'll say that again, Your Honor. I only want to try this case once. The evidence can come out in the courtroom, and that's the place where it needs to come out. And all the protective order does is ensure or tries its best to ensure that that's the case. Thank you, John.

Crichton made a good point here. It doesn't take a super sleuth to figure out the murder charges were coming in July. We knew they were coming based off of our previous reporting. We knew that the Colletin County Grand Jury was going to be handling the murder charges because that's where the murders happened. Harputlian fired back and said the general protective order is going to prohibit him from interviewing witnesses in the case if the state redacts names and contact information. And then, Mr. I Don't Know What Geofencing Is gave us a long explanation about why he

wants the totality of specific electronic data. We are entitled, as Your Honor has already indicated, to limit it to what we get, although I think we're going to be litigating a lot about that because I think there's plenty of ESI information, plenty of ESI information. That is, in terms of braiding, let me give you an example. Sled has, nobody does paper anymore. Everybody does electronics. So when they prepare an instant report, it goes in and then it may be changed.

And when it's changed, there's metadata that shows how it was changed. And we ought to be aware of what those changes were to see if it made any substantive difference in what they're saying today. That's why we want the ESI. We want all their electronic data so that we can do that analysis. And I'll be happy to enter into some sort of limited protective order on the ESI data so that we can have that analysis as number one. Ben, Harputlian brought up something interesting about why he wanted to call Ryan Neal to the

stand. Number two, I have not accused and will not accuse Mr. Waters of leaking anything ever, ever. The reason I wanted to call Captain Neal was when he met with the family, prior to indictments, they were outraged that it was already in the paper. And Captain Neal, according to the family, indicated that the Attorney General's Office, some low-level person, the Attorney General's Office, have leaked it. Now, I trust Mr. Waters.

I don't trust the rest of his office. I just want to make that clear, because these leaks, some of them were accurate. Apparently, of course, we don't have the discovery, we don't know. But I would ask you, if you're going to issue a protective order, make it only protective as to what we consent to at this point without a specific showing under D1. And D1 requires them to tell you it needs to be protected because of this. And if they're worried about somebody getting the autopsy photos or getting the crime scene photos and trying to crop it off of them, we will not be a part of that, and we would

consent to any sort of protective order you want to put in place. As to phone data, as to any other reports, as to ESI, there's no protective order needed except on a very limited circumstance. But again, Dick Harputlian, we have to point out the elephant in the room here. He seems so concerned about leaks and the potential of someone selling autopsy photos. But yet, he fails to mention that Vicki Ward, the tabloid reporter accused of obtaining photos of Mallory Beach's body and using it to sell a documentary, reported that Alec Murdoch was going to be charged with murder just minutes after sled agents told the family

back in July. So Harputlian is putting on a big show about how he's so worried about leaks when the most concerning and apparent leaks look like they're coming from the defense. Speaking of leaks from the defense, we also have to talk about another recent story that Harputlian failed to mention in his motion. What we notice is that he only really mentioned the leaks, which is really just reporting, that happened to make his client look bad. For instance, last week, after our last episode aired, veteran reporter John Monk, who we

have pointed out, tends to write headlines in favor of the defense, published a story in the state newspaper with the headline, Paul Murdoch's cell phone depicts happy family before the killings, source says. Again, like we mentioned in the last episode, reporters make a series of choices on how to frame stories. And yet this is yet another example of mainstream press making those decisions in favor of Ellick and his attorneys. The story appeared to be an attempt from the Murdoch camp to change the narrative surrounding

the video evidence capturing Ellick Murdoch at the scene right before the murders. Before the story published, Harputlian announced in a press conference that sled had recently shown the Murdoch family the video, and then, a few days later, magically, a reporter who tends to side with the good ol' boys gets a source and prints a whole story about how the whole family was getting along great right before the murders, and the rest of us are just getting this whole video thing wrong. Hmm, who could possibly have leaked that information? I point this out because it is important, the leaks have been coming from both directions.

Harputlian just wants to control the narrative. We'll be right back. During the hearing, Dick made a big show out of wanting to see court orders that allowed the state grand jury to share evidence with the Colleton County Grand Jury. In his argument, he referenced a request that he and Jim apparently made a year ago for those orders. A year ago? Here's what we know about what happened a year ago.

Last August, after a lot of public outrage and criticism, 14-circuit solicitor Duffy Stone finally recused himself from the murder case. Remember, Duffy is who the Murdochs put in place in 2006 to take over for Randolph III when he retired, and he was also LX boss right up into the Labor Day shooting. Also, around the same time last year, I received a tip from Liz, actually, that the Colleton County Grand Jury was about to indict Elec for double murder. Liz had heard this from an old reliable source of hers. Obviously, this didn't turn out to be the case, but we still believe there was some

truth to that at the time. We believe that law enforcement might have been ready to indict, but something might have caused them to pull back at the last minute and then decide to reinforce its case before indicting Elec. What Dick said in the courtroom Monday about asking for the order a year ago. Could this mean that Elec was actually about to be indicted right before his Labor Day shooting meltdown, or maybe he thought he was going to be indicted? Creighton told the court that whatever order Dick asked for back then wasn't available

back then. And then he said, look, Dick is jumping the gun here. We're proving that this case is unprecedented. These are all claims that are premature, trying to act like that something's happened when it hasn't. There has been no violation. There has been no misconduct by the state. There's been none of that.

They're just trying to create that before it's happened. Let's get through step one. And if they're unhappy, we'll talk. And if they're still unhappy, they can come to your honor and make whatever motion they want to. But that's not why we're here today. And then Dick had to jump in and make his comments for the record again. We're here today because seven weeks ago, we asked him for discovery.

We still don't have it. And by the way, under their order, we can't leave discovery with our eye at the jail to read. No, no, just wait just one minute. Typically, he's dealing with a bunch of drug defendants, I understand, that have co-defendants down at the jail. They don't want to share it. So one defendant claims, why can't we, why can't he have the time to examine the case

and the data at the jail? Now that's where they want him. That's where he's kept. We can't. We have to sit down there with him and read it with him every day. This is ludicrous. What's ludicrous? That two men who are being paid many hundreds of dollars an hour to defend a murder suspect

can't be bothered to go to the jail and sit with him so he can look at the evidence in his case? Totally agree, Dick. And again, what are we protecting it from? Well, who are we protecting it from? We agree. He says everything needs to be protected. We agree.

Certain things perhaps need to be protected. We don't have a problem with it. But Dick has lots of problems with this. He went on to restate what he said earlier about the grand jury stepping out of line to investigate the murder case. One other thing I'd like to say is this, they charged him with murder. What they're telling us today is they're still investigating it. They're still investigating the murder.

They've charged him with. They didn't have enough when they charged him. Again, your aunt, this is some sort of game that's going on here, and he used the word game. That's not my word. This is not a game. It's his life. It's justice.

It's the quality of justice in this courtroom, in this state, and it ain't a game. It's actually very standard for investigations to continue after an arrest. Dick knows this. You know how I know he knows? In September 1982, a man named Rudolph Tyner was killed by a fellow inmate in South Carolina. That inmate was Dick's claim to fame, Peewee Gaskins. Peewee was a disgusting serial killer who was on death row until the late 1970s when his sentence was overturned and converted to several life sentences.

Dick is the man who put Peewee back on death row. Peewee was charged with Tyner's murder a few weeks later in October 1982. His selection for the trial started in February 1983. In March 1983, Peewee was found guilty. Quite the accelerated timeline, right? Dick apparently likes to keep things short. Anyway, one month before the trial started, one month, Dick, who was the prosecutor in the case, was still investigating the case.

One month, one month before the trial started, he was looking for a handwriting sample from Peewee so he could compare it to an incriminating letter purportedly written by Peewee. That is the beauty of law, I guess, high priced opportunistic hypocrisy. If anyone at USC School of Law is listening, by the way, I have an idea for a mock trial. The 1983 Peewee Gaskins case with Dick Harputlian as the prosecution and Dick Harputlian as the defense. Dick on Dick justice, I would love to see which version of Dick emerges as the victor. Back to the hearing, Creighton hammers home how much he really doesn't want crime scene

photos floating around Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center. Your Honor, ultimately as it relates to Alvin S. Glenn, what better example of what I'm talking about with information that's worth six if not seven figures than the idea of leaving that information in Alvin S. Glenn? We're not going to leave all of the photos or claim them photos at the jail, Your Honor. We're not going to do that. And so, in the past, in cases like this with like, bloods and hell's angels and Mr. Griffin, I'm sure is familiar with this.

Can I finish? I'm sorry. I apologize. I'm losing my... Creighton then said, look, I'm happy to set up something like a secured laptop for evidence viewing. And then, Jim Griffin chimed in and said something very important. Listen carefully.

There are routinely in federal court protectable that in mostly multi-descendant drug cases and is mostly for security purposes or retaliation against witnesses and snitches and things of that sort. And so, and there are restrictions in those cases, it's not every federal case, but in those type cases where the defendant is not permitted to have the material at the jail. If I can tell you, Your Honor, that Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center no longer houses federal inmates because they had a problem making their clients accessible to the federal public defendants.

And every... As my understanding, every federal defendant has been, the pretrial detainee has been removed from the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center, I think they moved them down to Bamberg because the visitation is so restrictive. They have gotten better, but it's still one hour at a time and you're in a room with other lawyers. You're in a pod, open pod with other lawyers and you get an hour at a time. And there's a bulk of information that Mr. Murdoch, who is a lawyer, who can help us

and he has time to review it in his cell that we would certainly not... He doesn't want to see crime scene photo of you, that's the last thing in the world he wants to see, but he needs to assist us in the defense of his case. And the conditions that Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center are not conducive to that. If we have to meet with him for one hour to look at some discovery and then wait, you have to get a 48 hour notice to schedule an appointment. It's just not conducive to that. So we listened to this several times and what it sounds like to us is that they want to

get L.A. Murdoch moved from Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center. This is another little nugget that they threw out in court on Monday, but Creighton wasn't having this and snapped back. Your Honor, first of all, he was a lawyer. Secondly, the fact that he's an Alvin S. Glenn, while that might provide some complication, it's not the state's fault, that's his fault and that's on him. But I'm happy to facilitate whatever I can to provide a reasonable review mechanism, but if it's in them convenience, to some extent, to some extent, that's not on the state,

that's all on the conduct of the defense. Well, as Mr. Murdoch and Alvin S. Glenn, what was the call with the county? He's currently there on the $7 million state grand jury bond. State grand jury defendants are typically housed at Alvin S. Glenn, which is where the As Your Honor is aware, it's the location of the state grand jury judge is, who's also the Fifth Circuit GS admin, and so that's why he is housed at Alvin S. Glenn. But again, I'm happy to make whatever calls or add my voice to whatever needs to be added to put in place a reasonable measures at the jail so that the defendant can review his materials

with minimal reasonable impositions on defense counsel. And again, Harputlian stressed how Alvin S. Glenn isn't good for his client because of his ridiculous timeline, which he proposed. We asked for a speedy fraud over November. I believe we agreed on a January fraud. So this is going to take time and we can make motions and maybe we get an hour here and an hour there. It's just not conducive to getting this matter resolved. And this matter needs to resolve. He wants it resolved to select you to go find the person that really did this. Ah, finally, Harputlian drove home his point about why he needed this murder trial to be

done in such a timely manner to find the real killers of Maggie and Paul Murdoch. This is something we have to point out that the defense doesn't say nearly enough to be convincing. Especially considering the fact that in Ellick Murdoch's jailhouse phone calls, he seemed to be significantly more worried about his canteen account running low in a scheme to get his son back in law school than he was about finding Maggie and Paul's real killers. Judge Newman, staying calm, cool and collected, then issued his ruling. First, he laid out the facts, bringing us back to reality. The rules provide that the prosecution shall respond to the defendant's request for disclosure

no later than 30 days after the request is made or within such other time as may be ordered by the court. In this case, on the 30th day, the parties entered into discussions, negotiations regarding an agreement as to a protective order. The parties could not agree and immediately thereafter, the defense filed a motion to compel the state, then filed a response indicating that disclosure was delayed based on the party's inability to enter into a protective order. So in essence, both matters are merged into one in a sense. Now, the state must provide discovery and the state has indicated a willingness to provide

discovery. Of course, it's automatic that the state must provide discovery. And as the Attorney General indicates, he's prepared to push the send button and provide the discovery requested, provided that some reasonable limitations be made in connection with the dissemination of information that should be protected, information that typically would be restricted in a high-profile case and other sensitive information. Judge Newman then acknowledged the absurd drama in the courtroom. In a case such as this, the court has the responsibility to an independent responsibility and an obligation to avoid the creation of a,

as some court said, a carnival type atmosphere in a case of this nature. And I will do all that I can to limit that. But in this case, we've gone from the parties seeking an agreement regarding, in effect, a gag order just several weeks ago to being at extreme odds at this point claiming various violations and rules. Extrajudicial statements are permitted. Then he put some restrictions on Dick and Jim and how they're allowed to share the evidence. Therefore, in this instance, I am ordering the state to compel with discovery, comply with discovery, forthwith. I'm also issuing a temporary protective order, restricting the defense from disseminating any information provided until

the court has issued a more formal, more permanent order. But this is a case that cries out for the issuance of the protective order, not a blanket protective order, but one that addresses the issues most relevant in this instance. Harpoolian then asked about the unsealing of search warrants. If you're on one of the matters, as part of this is, if you're on a note, all the search warrants in this case are sealed. We've been indicated to us that the prosecution would unseal the search warrants so that we could see what the affidavit looked like. And even though the Suspente order issued by your honor and others only govern the affidavit, we've never seen the results of any of the search warrants. So you also order the state to give us the unsealed

search warrants? Yes, sir. Obviously, and the state has been clear from day one, we get the protective order request, which of course your honor just did, and we're happy also to agree that the search warrants should be unsealed pursuant to the protections of the protective order, as your honor just says. And your honor, would you get us that direct to that protective order by closing business today or first thing tomorrow morning so we can get the show on the road? Glad to, your honor. And the court orders the unsealing of search warrants to include the providing of affidavits and returns to the search warrants. Listen carefully to this next part. In your honor, they were not only issued by you, but

for instance, Judge Mullen issued some, other matters that issued some. We're talking about all search warrants. Okay, so first of all, this is the second time Dick Harputlian has brought up Judge Carmen Mullen's name in court in the double homicide case. Remember, Mullen is the judge who was accused of signing several documents in the Satterfield case, which were full of red flags, carving a clear and easy path for Ellic to steal millions of dollars from Gloria's family. Mullen is still ruling from the bench despite several public outcries asking for these allegations to be investigated. We bring this up over and over again because it's at the very core as to why the system is on trial here. How can we trust the system to rid itself of all of this rot and

corruption when a judge who holds one of the most powerful positions in that system is still ruling from the bench and appears to have dodged all accountability for her association with this case? Mullen, by the way, recused herself in the Boe Crash case in 2019 due to her relationship with the Murdoch family. She did this one month before her alleged participation in the Satterfield case. So the question is, if she recused herself from the Boe Crash case because of her relationship with the Murdoch family, and she's also facing other serious accusations about her involvement with the Satterfield case, why on earth was this judge signing warrants in the double homicide case? This is yet another example of how loose our system is with conflict of interest roles.

And why does Dick Harputlian feel a need to mention these search warrants and make sure the ones that she signed are unsealed? I won't lie, the conspiracy theory lightbulbs went off big time in my head when I heard this. What is Dick trying to get at here? Dick said in the hearing that it is not his job to quote, create a PR storm out there. But isn't that exactly what this whole hearing was about? If his job wasn't about PR, then why is NP Strat, a PR firm, still handling the communications for the defense? To us, it looked like Harputlian had a grand plan for this hearing. To call sled agents to the stand, perhaps, to cast doubt on their investigation, and maybe attempt to point the finger at other suspects. But Newman, once again,

shut down that grand plan. So the question is, why did he make a point to bring up Judge Mullen's specific search warrants? What if he's bringing Mullen up to remind the public that the whole system is corrupt here, trying to make a case for the feds to take over, a strategy to get his client into clubbed as they call it, the federal prison instead of the much less desirable state prisons, considering the chances of Ellic Murdoch spending the rest of his life behind bars are very high right now. Or what if he wants those search warrants unsealed because he knows Mullen signed some warrants in the double homicide investigation that pointed to other suspects, and he wants to ensure that information gets out so he can finally get some momentum on as

someone else did this spin. While it is Dick's duty to defend his client, it is our duty to report the truth, give a voice to the victims and get the story straight. In the story that legacy media isn't telling you is absolutely about public corruption and a growing amount of concerns that need to be addressed, starting with Carmen Mullen, who wasn't mentioned in any mainstream coverage of this week's hearing. Letting Mullen continue to rule from the bench without offering the public an explanation for the Satterfield case is absolutely fueling Dick's chaos here. In officials in South Carolina have got to realize that. Ultimately, the defense lost Monday's hearing, but this was never about the outcome. The hearing was just a vehicle for Dick's theatrics,

which we expect to continue throughout the case. Don't believe me? Here's what Dick said in a 1985 story in the Columbia record about lawyers and their flair for the dramatic. Whether I'm trying a murder case or a driving under the influence case, I'm going to give that jury a show. That's the way to keep their attention. When they come in on jury duty, they're expecting Perry Mason or Gregory Peck. They're expecting the verdict, and by God, I'm there to give it to them. Entertain a clown and you become part of the circus. We have so much more to unpack in this saga. More news, more deep dives, more investigations, and more episodes. Stay tuned. The Murdoch Murders podcast is created by me, Manny Matney, and my fiance, David Moses.

Our executive editor is Liz Farrell. Produced by Luna Shark Productions.