Murdaugh Murders Podcast - MMP #52 - Alex Murdaugh To Be Charged With Killing Wife Maggie And Son Paul

Starting point is 00:00:02 I think I know who might have killed Maggie and Paul Murdoch. And while these details are hard to fathom, and it's been a long time coming, Elyke Murdoch should be facing murder charges soon. And this week, we should be closer than ever to the truth of what happened on June 7, 2021. My name is Mandy Matney. I have been investigating the Murdoch family for more than three years now. This is the Mardock murders podcast with David Moses and Liz Farrell. So, we're back.

Starting point is 00:00:51 And as always, when we take time off, it has been a baptism by fire coming home. I won't lie and say that it was a huge surprise coming home to news that murder charges were finally coming against Elyke Murdoch. About a month ago, we were told that the Colleton County grand jury was set to hear evidence against Elyke Murdoch and the double. homicide of Maggie and Paul Murdoch this July. We were initially told it was going to happen last week. So Liz, David, and I packed up our podcast studio and were fully prepared to break the news. Then, while living my best life, frolicking around a Jamaican pool with a cold pineapple drink in hand, I got a text from my best source in this case, saying something along the lines of, enjoy your vacation. It isn't happening this week. So the universe gave us the break that we really

Starting point is 00:01:45 needed. Agents from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, also known as you all know by now, are scheduled to present evidence against Elyke Murdoch in the double homicide of Maggie and Paul Murdoch this Thursday, July 14th, 2022. And that is a big deal. But like we said, this news has been a long time coming. We all feel like we've been waiting forever for this. Shortly before the story about the upcoming grand jury presentation Tuesday

Starting point is 00:02:16 morning, law enforcement had informed the families about what was coming. Within two hours, legacy media began publishing their own reports. We knew they could not have gotten the story from the same source as we did, so we immediately figured it was coming from the Murdoch camp,

Starting point is 00:02:32 which is exactly right. John Marvin Murdoch told the posting courier that he been visited by SLED. Jim Griffin finally put himself on the record on Tuesday afternoon, telling Fox Carolina that Ehrlich plans to ask for a bond hearing so that law enforcement will have to lay out the evidence against him. I don't want to dwell too much on this, but definitely want you guys to understand that when we point out how legacy media does this stuff, it's because they have been a huge part of why the Murdox were so protected for so long. They continue to use the very same sources who obviously want to spend the story.

Starting point is 00:03:06 in a way that allows them to keep and grow their power. So back to John Marvin. Why did Sled feel the need to alert him and Elex's other siblings about the upcoming charges? This is a good question. South Carolina has a victim's bill of rights, which includes a victim's right to be reasonably informed about an arrest being made in their case. But is John Marvin a victim? I don't mean to minimize this pain here because I know he cared about Maggie and deeply love Paul. To our mind though, the direct victims in this are Maggie's

Starting point is 00:03:36 family and Buster. To alert the Murdoch family to Ehrlich's impending indictment seems really tricky to us, because once again, law enforcement seems to be factoring in a family that just over a year ago they were investigating for obstructing justice in the boat crash investigation. This is also a family who doesn't seem to want to acknowledge its own power while doing everything they can to preserve their legacy and wealth. Then again, maybe John Marvin's role as Maggie's personal representative and Randy Murdoch's role as Paul's personal representative puts them in the victim category, which is a real sticky mess, and we'll talk more about that. Anyway, we're so glad that the murder investigation is finally winding down.

Starting point is 00:04:15 Since last summer, we have repeatedly heard that these charges are coming. Finally, we can say it's happening and mean it. So we were originally a little suspicious about the state AG's office and SLED deciding to present to the Colleton County grand jury, as opposed to the state grand jury, which has been handling this case from the beginning. One of the key differences between the state grand jury and county juries is this. The statewide grand jury is tasked with handling investigations that span multiple counties, like the financial crimes, whereas the county juries handle crimes that clearly occurred in their

Starting point is 00:04:57 own jurisdiction, such as murders. Grand juries are secretive and confusing in a part of the criminal justice system that so many really don't know enough about. We'll do a quick rundown of what we know so far. First is the high-velocity impact spatter that was apparently found on Alex clothing from that night. We were told it could have only come from one thing, and that is standing over Maggie's body when she was shot. We know that investigators are going to be able to show that the weapons used belonged to the murder. And real quick, we can already tell from at least one report in mainstream media that one of the ways the Murdoch camp might try to discredit investigators is by questioning the two guns, one man's scenario. How could Elyke kill Maggie and Paul using two guns?

Starting point is 00:05:52 One thing to keep in mind is that the Murdox had a small arsenal at Mozel. Guns were readily available to them. I think this will be one of the things that will become more clear after the indictment, but think of it this way. way. If one of the guns had two bullets and those two bullets were used to shoot and kill Paul, then the shooter, who we can now say was allegedly Ehrlich, can either reload or grab another gun. It's not difficult to explain. Okay, back to the evidence. We have also heard that Ehrlich had gunshot residue on his hands. We know that Maggie was apparently lured there that evening by Ehrlich and otherwise had not planned to be at Moselle. We know that the timeline Ehrlich gave law enforcement has been

Starting point is 00:06:33 highly questioned and that there is evidence discrediting his narrative from that night, including a video found on Paul's phone that shows that counter to what he told Sled, Ehrlich was at Moselle just before Paul and Maggie were killed. We're also told that there's other evidence that shows Ehrlich's movement from that night, which again discredits his quote-unquote iron-clad alibi. Then there are the financial crimes that he's been accused of. Those might speak to motive. At the time of the murders, Eelick was a powerful attorney whose word was simply,

Starting point is 00:07:03 accepted as the truth. No one knew then that he'd been allegedly stealing from clients for years. On Tuesday, he was disbarred by the state Supreme Court, meaning he's now just a guy whose word means nothing. Okay, so knowing the evidence is one thing. We still don't know what happened or why it happened. We do deserve all the answers, thinking back to last June, and also because he's a public figure, employed by the chief law enforcement agency in this area up until last September. Remember, Ehrlich Murdoch was a person of interest in the double homicide. Remember the ironclad alibi? Shortly after the murders that the Murdoch camp was telling people behind the scenes that Ehrlich's alibi that night was indisputable. They obviously wanted to prevent

Starting point is 00:07:54 any stories that would paint Elyck unfavorably. But ironclad, it's a heck of a thing to say. Whenever I heard that term, I was like, yeah, okay, we'll see. Frankly, if Mandy hadn't been doing the work last summer, mainstream media might have been fine and dandy with the unspecified, quote-unquote, ironclad alibi and done nothing more to push the story. So one major question in all of this as we move forward is whether the state attorney general's office will designate this as a capital murder case and seek the death penalty against ELEC. A couple of things to know about the death penalty in South Carolina.

Starting point is 00:08:34 Needless to say, it's been pretty gruesome here. If you look at the statistics, you'll find that South Carolina has executed more than 300 people since 1900, and most of the people put to death have been black. We haven't had an execution here since 2011 because of the pharmaceutical companies ban on selling the drugs necessary to do so. But earlier this year, our legislature decided to make the electric chair the default method of execution.

Starting point is 00:09:02 and Ehrlich's attorney, Dick Harputlian, was key in having the firing squad added as an option. We have an inmate on death row who chose the firing squad as his option, but that case has been halted by the state Supreme Court while they decide whether the punishment is proportionate to the crime. Richard Moore is accused of killing a convenience store clerk in 1999. At any rate, a murder must meet one of 12 criteria set out by state law for it to be considered. to capital case. The criteria are pretty specific. In fact, one of them is related to the murder of a solicitor or former solicitor, and another is related to the murder of a family member of a solicitor or former solicitor. But that's not what happened here, obviously. In Eleg's case, the AG could seek

Starting point is 00:09:49 the death penalty because he's being accused of two murders. And this might be more difficult to prove, but the death penalty could be sought if Elek were trying to eliminate Paul as a potential witness against him in the obstruction case or the Mallory Beach wrongful death case. We'll be right back. We talked to Eric Bland on Tuesday about another sticky issue here, a very complicated issue, in fact. So remember, Dick Routlian and Jim Griffin were Paul Murdoch's attorneys in the boat crash case up until his murder. They are now representing Paul's suspected murderer, which isn't only awkward, it could present a conflict. of conflict of interest, meaning they might not be able to continue on as Elyke's attorneys.

Starting point is 00:10:45 This could be a big deal, because again, Eleg could be facing the death penalty, and whoever represents him could be basing their success on whether or not he is sentenced to death, if convicted. Everything is on the line here. So the question is, can Dick Harputlian and Jim Griffin ethically represent the man accused of killing their former client? We asked Eric Bland this because he is one of the top experts in South Carolina on attorney misconduct. Here is what he said. So one, you have three things that you deal with here.

Starting point is 00:11:19 The appearance of impropriety, does it appear improper that Dick is representing Alex against his former client? The answer is yeah. Is that the beginning and end of the analysis? The answer is no. Number two, are they substantially related? The answer is on their face, no. Now the complicated one is the third prong. which is, did they learn something in the course and scope of the representation of Paul,

Starting point is 00:11:42 either directly from Paul or through their investigation, that if they walked in the court to defend Alex on these murder charges, are they violating their duty of candor? Or do they become a material witness? Or, based on the rule that you just cited, are they violating duties to a former client? We want to talk briefly about Eleg's potential motive in the murder. One consistent theory for motive involves the Mallory Beach lawsuit, which could put Ehrlich on the hook for owing millions of dollars for Mallory's wrongful death.

Starting point is 00:12:18 So if, and this is a big if, the state focuses on the boat crash lawsuit being a potential motive as Ehrlich's world was collapsing and Paul was the source of his family's downfall. Here is what matters when it comes to deciding whether or not Dick and Jim stay on the case. Did they come in the possession of information from Paul that would actually show Alex's culpability? And are they going to now go before a court in the murder case and say, oh, no, Alex had no motive at all and no intent at all. You know, there was no reason why he would kill his son. Well, if they're doing that and Paul had told them or they came in possession during that defense of Paul from investigators who investigated, all of a sudden, wait a minute, Alex really does have implication in the Martinsley lawsuit now and had that because he bought him the alcohol, he obstructed justice, he tried to manipulate the police, he knew that Paul was using a fake ID, now all of a sudden it starts to get problematic because now there is incentive for him to take out Paul. So it's not that Paul's estate would bring a motion to disqualified Dick and Jim, the state actually can do.

Starting point is 00:13:35 it. The opposing parties can bring a motion to disqualify the other side's lawyers and raise these issues. So it's really interesting. You know, on first blush, you say, oh, they're not substantially related, so Dick and Jim are fine for representing Alex.

Starting point is 00:13:50 But then you've got to say, that's not where the analysis ends. The question then becomes, did they learn something in representing Paul that now, if they go into court to defend Alex, they're violating their duty of candor to the court? I asked Eric specifically what would an example of information that Dick and Jim had that could present a conflict of interest large enough for them to be removed from the case?

Starting point is 00:14:18 And the answer is, Paul says my dad knew that I had a fake idea and he encouraged me to use it, knew I was using it, and didn't do anything about it. Remember, Mark's claims that he didn't supervise Paul properly, right? That would be most. of in a civil suit, Paul may, if Paul was living, right, if Paul was living, and let's say he never got killed, Mark Tinsley sued Alex and Paul. Paul may say, in order, his lawyer may say to Mark, in order for me not to have a judgment against me for the rest of my life that I'll never get out from under, I'm willing to tell you that my dad knew that I had a fake ID, encouraged me to use it. In fact, he sent me down to the store on many occasions to buy beer for a party. Now all of a sudden, it gets really sticky.

Starting point is 00:15:09 And speaking of sticky situations, when talking to Eric Bland on Tuesday, he brought up another potential problematic situation for the Murdoch family. So remember, John Marvin Murdoch, Maggie Murdoch's brother-in-law, was made personal representative of her estate last year. This was apparently after Maggie's sister's name was scratched off as personal representative

Starting point is 00:15:32 and someone wrote Randolph III's name in her 2005 will, which is also super weird because a family of lawyers should have known that handwriting on a will ultimately invalidates it. And eventually, John Marvin was made PR of Maggie's estate and Randy was in charge of Paul's estate. This means as personal representative of Maggie and Paul's estates, Elyx brothers are in a position to choose their fiduciary duty over their own brother. A big question everyone has right now is will Elex family turn on him?

Starting point is 00:16:06 In this PR situation presents a conundrum. Will Elex brothers sue him for wrongful death as PRs of Maggie and Paul's estates? Randy and John Marvin, the question is, who are the heirs now? Maggie has a will, so we know how her stuff's going to travel through. But Paul didn't have a will. Paul died in testing without a will. So whatever assets he has upon his death would go to his mother because he didn't have children and he didn't have a wife. They would go to his mother and father 100%.

Starting point is 00:16:41 Well, his mother's dead. So that means it would go to his father. Well, now his father's charged with murdering his mother and murdering him. The state has a statute that says, no, he can't inherit from Paul. Whatever Paul had. So now it falls to his next closest air, Buster. So the question is, is Randy going to sue Alex for wrongful death of Paul? Now, if Alex was Bill Gates, hell, you would do it in a second.

Starting point is 00:17:12 He would sue him because he has a duty. Listen, Randy, as personal representative, has a duty to the estate of Paul. He owes no duties to Alex. and he has to do what's in the best interest of the estate of Paul. The state of South Carolina is telling Randy, your brother killed your client, the estate. So we don't know whether Alex is going to have the money. And so Randy is going to have to most likely bring a wrongful death suit against Alex. If he's dispensing his duties to the estate, remember, he owes 100% duties to the estate of Paul.

Starting point is 00:17:50 Nothing to Alex. He can't take Alex in the case. consideration. When he accepted being PR for Paul's estate, he accepted it, locked stock and smoking barrels. And so he's going to have to now make a decision if these murder charges are brought. Do I bring wrongful death charges against Alex? Now he may say, well, Alex is broke and there's no money left because Tinsley's going to clean the clock. Bland's cleaning his clock on Satterfield, Blan cleans his clock on Plyler. Bannberg cleans his clock. on picnic and then the state is going to seek retribution and they're going to make him, you know,

Starting point is 00:18:30 pay money to, you know, whatever the criminal charges are. However, he still may have a lot more money because we think he's hiding out money. And we do think he's hiding money for the record. And we need to know where that money went because the victims need to know, because the victims deserves that. We need to know who is paying Dick Harputlian and Jim Griffin and where that money is coming from. To be extremely clear, when murder charges do come this week, it does not mean this is all over. Not by a long shot. This is merely the beginning. For those of us watching this case closely, the news this week comes as no surprise. But we need answers about much more than who killed Maggie and Paul.

Starting point is 00:19:21 We need to know why ELEC wasn't arrested that night. We need to know why Duffy Stone's investigators were allowed on scene. We need to know why John Marvin was pictured with those investigators. We need to know what is going on at USC law. Is this where corruption in our South Carolina legal system begins? We need to know how Ehrlich was able to steal millions of dollars from innocent clients such as the Satterfield family. We need to know what role Judge Carmen Mullen played in the Satterfield heist, considering she is still ruling from the bench

Starting point is 00:20:03 and deciding who gets their freedom taken away. We need to change the way judges are elected in the South Carolina justice system, which has proven in this story time and time again to serve as a playground for the corrupt and powerful. We need to know how the South Carolina Supreme Court, who finally disbarred ELEC this week ahead of indictments, allowed such widespread corruption to take place among officers of the court. And we need to know what they will do in the future to prevent that. ELEC didn't act alone, and most importantly, we need answers for the victims in this case. We need to know what happened to Gloria Satterfield.

Starting point is 00:20:46 We need to know what happened to Akeem Pinckney. We need to know who killed Stephen Smith. We need justice for Gloria, for Mallory, for Maggie, for Paul, for Hakeem, for Stephen. And we won't stop until we get answers for all of them. And to end this podcast, I do have some positive news to share about Stephen Smith. Stephen's wonderful and fearless mother, Sandy Smith, who has fought tirelessly for justice for the past seven years, will finally be able to commemorate Stephen's resting place with a headstone in a ceremony this Sunday. The headstone means the world to Sandy, who wants me to thank every person who donated to the Standing for Stephen fundraiser.

Starting point is 00:21:34 Last week was the seven-year anniversary of Stephen's brutal and still-unsolved murder. We hope that someone out there listening has information, and now that the tides of justice have changed, in Hampton County, that someone will come forward with evidence. We will be making noise and demanding justice in Stevens' case until we have answers. And those responsible for the murder, bungling the investigation and ultimately obstructing justice, answer for their crimes. Stay tuned. The Murdoch Murder's podcast is created by me, Mandy Matney, and my fiancé, David Moses.

Starting point is 00:22:30 Our executive editor is Liz Farrell. Produced by Luna Shark Productions.

Murdaugh Murders Podcast - MMP #52 - Alex Murdaugh To Be Charged With Killing Wife Maggie And Son Paul

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.