Murdaugh Murders Podcast - TSP #148 - Alex Murdaugh to Get New Trial in Murders of Wife and Son + Mandy & Liz Break Down the 5-0 Reversal

Episode Date: May 14, 2026

It happened on a Wednesday… Investigative Journalists Mandy Matney and ⁠Liz Farrell⁠ break down the 27-page Alex Murdaugh murder conviction reversal that essentially boils down to two words: Blame Becky. They wrestle with the uncomfortable truth that money seems to help a defendant's chances at the state's highest court — while sticking to their belief that the evidence still points to one person who went down to the kennels and lied about it. In a unanimous 5-0 decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed Alex Murdaugh's double-murder conviction, ruling that Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill "placed her fingers on the scales of justice."  They also unpack the court's new guardrails on financial-crimes testimony at retrial, including the gutting decision to call Tony Satterfield's words unfairly prejudicial.  Plus: reactions from Eric Bland, Mark Tinsley, AG Alan Wilson, and AG candidate David Pascoe.  Same case. Same evidence. Same liar. Round Two starts now. Let's Dive in… 🥽 🦈 Join the LUNASHARK Premium Community - Together we go further ☀️ Episode Links Alex Murdaugh’s Reverse and Remand Order - May 13, 2026 📄 Reactions from Mandy and Liz on Supreme Court’s ruling 🌐 What’s your reaction? Let us know on Facebook or Instagram 🌐 Rewatch Alex Murdaugh’s Oral Arguments in front of the South Carolina Supreme Court from Feb 11, 2026 🎞️ South Carolina’s Rule 606(b) ⚖️ Previous Episodes: MMP 78 🎧 Stay Tuned, Stay Pesky and Stay in the Sunlight...☀️ Learn more about LUNASHARK Premium Membership at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠lunashark.supercast.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to get bonus episodes like our Premium Dives, Wherever It Leads..., Girl Talk, and Soundbites that help you Stay Pesky and Stay in the Sunlight. Plus BTS content from ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Murdaugh: Death in the Family⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ AND Mandy's book Blood On Their Hands. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support Our Show, Sponsors and Mission: https://lunasharkmedia.com/support/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Quince⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Hungry Root⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Bombas⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://amzn.to/4cJ0eVn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ *** ALERT: If you ever notice audio errors in the pod, email ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[e-mail]⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and we'll send fun merch to the first listener that finds something that needs to be adjusted! *** For current & accurate updates: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠lunashark.supercast.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram.com/mandy_matney⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   |   ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram.com/elizfarrell⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠bsky.app/profile/mandy-matney.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠bsky.app/profile/elizfarrell.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TrueSunlight.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠facebook.com/TrueSunlightPodcast/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram.com/TrueSunlightPod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/@LunaSharkMedia⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠tiktok.com/@lunasharkmedia Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey there, E.B. here. Your faithful Cup of Justice co-host. I am so excited to tell you about my new book, Anything But Bland. In this memoir, I share stories about my childhood, marked by bullying, my father's job loss, and the indomitable spirit that propelled me into the law and ultimately international recognition during the Alex Murdole murder trial. I believe in certain life principles that have helped me and helped others achieve success. From the power of organization and a sense of urgency to the importance of truth, leadership, and resilience. With vivid recollection from challenges and triumphs framing each chapter, success isn't about luck. It's earned through skill and hard work. Please visit theericblan.com to learn more about the book, Anything But Bland is a manifesto for those seeking triumph over adversity

and a guide for anyone aspiring to reach their full potential. I don't know if y'all heard the news, but Ehrlich Murdoch is getting a new murder trial, and that is a big deal. My name is Mandy Matney. I have been investigating the Murdoch family since 2019. This is True Sunlight, a podcast exposing crime and corruption, previously known as the Murdochurch's podcast. True Sunlight is a Luna Shark production written with journalist Liz Pharrell. Well, of course, on a Wednesday, the biggest news in all of the cases we cover just dropped. Not only on a Wednesday, but the Wednesday, before my court hearing where I will face two of

Ehrlich Murdoch's co-conspirators' attorneys who want me to be held in contempt and pay for gas station billionaire Greg Parker's legal fees, which we will talk about briefly in a minute for those of y'all who haven't heard us since the MMP days. But the big news first, in a 5-0 decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled to reverse Ehrlich Murdoch's guilty verdict in the Murdoch murders trial. And I just have to say, if you've been listening to us, you would have known that two weeks ago.

Not to brag, but like our sources still don't mess. But this week, soon after the decision was posted by the South Carolina Supreme Court Attorney General Alan Wilson, Fresh off the governor campaign trail, issued a statement promising that his office will be, quote, aggressively seeking a new retrial as soon as possible. Also, hell might have frozen over because I agree with Alan Wilson today. He said he respectfully disagrees with the court's decision, and let's make that clear. We do too.

The majority of the South Carolina Supreme Court's 27-page opinion could be summed up in two words, blame Becky. And I gotta give it to Elyke Murdoch's defense team, Dick Harputlian and Jim Griffin, who zeroed in on messy Becky the second she release, her impudent clerk of court tells all book behind the doors of justice in the summer of 2023, just months after Ehrlich Murdoch was convicted of double murder. Dick and Jim found the low country's weakest link and Becky Hill, and they chipped away at every bit of dirt that they could gather to convince the South Carolina Supreme Court that the small town clerk of court, with big ambitions and loose ethics, tipped the scales of justice just enough in Elyke Murdoch's trial for them to need

to overturn the verdict. Liz will get into all the details there, but we both are sticking to our belief that we still haven't seen any evidence of Becky's repulsory's repulsory. fame-hungry and morally bankrupt behavior as clerk of court actually influencing the juror's decision in this case. I don't think Dick and Jim ever showed evidence of actual jury tampering. What Dick and Jim did show, however, is what we've been saying all along. There are two systems of justice in South Carolina. And while you might not be able to purchase justice here, you can buy a new. trial. Jokes on us. This case, no matter where it turns, will always be proof that there

are two systems of justice in South Carolina, one for people like the Murdox and one for the rest of us. 99% of all defendants in South Carolina could never afford for their attorneys to go fishing for jury tampering in the dark like Dick and Jim did. Because again, not one of the 12 voting jurors ever said a word about Becky until Dick and Jim started cruising down dirt roads in Colleton County and knocking on jurors' doors. What the Supreme Court did today, in my opinion, was send a dangerous message to high-dollar defense attorneys who already have too much power in this state. This decision is all but encouraging every criminal defense attorney who lost a case to find each jury member at home and see if they can get them to sign an affidavit that taints the verdict.

It's a bad precedent, in my non-lawyer opinion. And I know some of you disagree with me. I know that some of you will say that we all deserve a fair trial and the system has to work for the worst of us. The thing is, it did work for the worst of us, because here we are, three years later, After the verdict, not one person, not even anyone from the expensive defense attorney that promised in 2021 to find the real killers of Maggie and Paul. Not one has come forth with any compelling evidence pointing to anyone except for old Ehrlich Murdoch.

And no matter how much the Supreme Court wants to limit what they call unfair testimony regarding ELEC's financial crimes, which we will talk about later in this episode, the most damning facts of this case still remain. Three people went down to the kennels on June 7th, 2021. Two of them died, one of them lied. I believe that Creton Waters can retry this case and his sleep tomorrow, and I believe he can win even without the financial evidence. But I hope the Attorney General's office does something

to make round two worthwhile for the taxpayers. I hope they find where all that money went. I hope they find out how exactly Dick and Jim had been getting paid all this time. I hope they figure out if someone helped Elek cover up his crimes that night. I hope they find the guns that killed Maggie and Paul and figure out who hid them. I hope that they finally take the roadside shooting case

that has been sitting open since 2021 to court. I hope more people go down for this, because they should. And speaking of this nightmare justice system we have in South Carolina, I have a contempt of court hearing on Friday, May 15th at 10 a.m., in York, South Carolina at the Moss Justice Center, and I need every supporter who can to be there and wear pink. But, you know, professional pink. For the MMP listeners who have not heard from us in a while, this might be shocking to hear,

but we have been in legal hell with Greg Parker and his attorneys, Deborah Barbier, and Mark Moore for the better part of the last seven months. Yep, and for our loyal listeners, I'll do my best to sum up this insanity quickly, because I'm tired of talking about it and I'm sure y'all are tired of hearing about it. So we're talking about Greg Parker, the guy who's, whose gas station sold an underage Paul Murdoch alcohol before the boat crashed that killed Mallory Beach. We are talking about Deborah Barbier, the attorney who represented Elyke Murdoch's bestie,

Corey Fleming, who is serving a state sentence at a mysterious, unlisted, out-of-state prison. And we are talking about Mark Moore, the attorney who represented Elyke Murdoch's banker bud, Russell Lafitte, who is serving a federal prison sentence right now. And yeah, Mark Moore, the guy who got really mad when Liz referred to him as J. Edgar Picklejuice in an episode years ago. Now, it is not lost on me that the Debbie Mark Gregg Trio has a real axe to grind with us for what we have exposed about them, their clients, and the good old boy system they appear to love so much through our work on Murdoch Murder's

podcast. So of course they are the ones who will be fighting in court against me for me to be held in contempt and pay billionaire Greg Parker's legal fees. You know, the same week, Ehrlich Murdoch gets a new trial. Because, of course, the system is working the way that it was designed for people like Greg Parker and for people like Ehrlich Murdoch and against people who are willing to step up and speak out and fight for the truth. If you want to support my side of the justice system, please join us at 10 a.m. at Moss Justice Center on Friday, May 15th. For those of y'all who need more info about the insanity that has occurred in the Beach v. Parker lawsuit, complete with a creepy felon, allegedly stolen and

purchased private text messages, and a campaign of defamation, a fake journalist who might be a spy for Israel and Deborah Barbier losing her mind in court over the fact that I was wearing a bathing suit once in a social media post. For all that, check out episode 144 of Truth Online podcast and episode 178 of Cup of Justice. I hope to see so many of you on Friday. Now, let's get straight to it, the big news of Elyke Murdoch getting a new trial. There was a time when I thought the prospect of a new murder trial for Elyke Murdoch would be proof positive that South Carolina's justice system was irretrievably in the hands of the good old boys.

That it would be yet another sign that the good old boys always win and that there'd never be any hope of there ever being one system of justice for everyone. Wait, I said thought. I mean, think. I still think that. But who doesn't love a good redemption? arc. After the state and Alec Murdoch's attorneys made their arguments to the state Supreme Court in February, the possibility of a new trial became more real to both Mandy and me, and my thoughts

started to shift a little. I was already in the acceptance phase of legal grief, although let's be real. At first, whenever I allowed myself to consider any thought of what it would be like covering this case twice, doing all of that over again, that Charlie XX song would literally start playing in my head like, I think I'm going to die in this house. And I would think about all the people who stuck their necks out to tell the truth about Ehrlich, whether that be his housekeeper slash assistant, Blanca, his mother's caretaker Miss Shelley, Paul's and Buster's friend Rogan, who testified that he heard Ehrlich in the background at the kennels that Ehrlich said he wasn't at that night. Because sticking your neck out to contradict the narrative Ehrlich Murdoch wants out there is no small thing. And it made me

angry to think about the prospect of putting all those people through all of that again. Also, what fun is it going to be to hear that one sled agent correctly pronounce Gucci this time around? But really, here's what I couldn't get past, what still bothers me the most. I know one thing to be the most true about Alec Murdoch, at least in my opinion, and that's this. He does not want the label of murderer, specifically murderer of Maggie and Paul. I think he cares less about being in prison for the rest of his life than he does about that. And what makes me angry about all of this is, I think he did it. I think the evidence shows that Eleg Murdoch murdered Maggie and Paul that night on June 7, 2021. And if Eleg murdered them, then he

deserves to wear that badge of dishonor for the rest of his life. He can add it to the cardboard badges he probably made for himself in prison to replace the ones that 14th Circuit solicitor Duffy Stone, let him carry around before they were seized as evidence in September 2021. What I'm going to say next is going to make me sound like a legal, romantic, which I am not. But I'm actually looking forward to seeing the prosecution serve it right back to the system and seeing Elek Murdoch get found guilty twice. A second trial gives the state a chance to polish their case, and the Supreme Court ruling helps make that possible.

So, is this justice? Not in my opinion. Regardless of where you fall on Eleg's guilt, Eleg Murdoch bought his way to this outcome, plain and simple. His money got him a seat at the Supreme Court table because no other murder suspect in South Carolina can afford to have a legal team sift through the metaphorical county dump in the hopes of finding enough dirty toothpicks to glue together and make a disgusting chair out of so he can sit at that table. Also, because he could afford to pay Dick Harpulian and Jim Griffin to work. like Santa's Little Elves during the Christmas season, Alex's case became so complex and, frankly, outlandish that the South Carolina Supreme Court allowed him to skip going through the motions

with the state court of appeals. He went straight to the top so that this would be settled. Anyway, let's talk about the opinion that reversed Alex's murder conviction, shall we? And let's all take a pause to be temporary bitches. I'll just say it. I hope Becky Hill has the day she deserves. because this is entirely her fault. Half of those dirty toothpicks from the metaphorical county dump

in the disgusting chair that Dick and Jim were able to make for Alec are from her. Oh, and a note to those of you, those few of you, who like to jump on us and point out that our original take on all this was to feel bad for Becky, you are right. We did feel bad for her because we thought she was being used for nefarious purposes. But this is why sunlight matters, why transparency is important. Evidence showed us who she was. Anyone who has listened to True Sunlight over the past three years knows how and why our

opinions on that evolved. The way I see the Becky Hill debacle is pretty simple. One, I believed and still do that she was encouraged behind the scenes to hurry up and publish the book that she had planned to write about the trial and that people or person kept tabs on her progress and what she was writing. Two, I believed, and I still do, that Dick Harpoolian and Jim Griffin exploited Becky's messy, loosey-goosey handling of the case,

and that exploitation included exaggerations and mischaracterizations of the facts. Three, I believed, and still do, that members of the media not only aided and abetted Dick and Jim by repeating their exaggerations and mischaracterizations as fact, they did so knowing that they were part of the problem. Stick a pin in that. Four, I still don't believe that Becky's comments

affected the outcome of the verdict. I believe that any remarks she made were cured by Judge Clifton Newman's polling of each juror. And I believe that the outrage from the Egg Lady juror and her sad-sac-pal juror Z, as she was referred to in the post-trial hearings, was largely manufactured. Egg Lady was speaking about this case

against court orders outside of the courtroom. And that's the truth of it. And that is a valid reason for getting punted off of a jury. There is no conspiracy there, no matter how much the troll community wants there to be. And I hope this ruling puts an end to their defamatory speculation and childish side-eye emojis. And finally, five, for the past few years, I've talked to some of the smartest legal minds in South Carolina and beyond about this case.

And most seem to believe that it was a 50-50 guess as to how the court would rule. So it's really hard to look at this as anything but a toss of a coin, at least from an emotional attachment standpoint to the verdict. From a legal reasoning standpoint, I actually think we're on solid footing. I might not agree with everything the justice has said, but I understand their logic. So I'm not going to go into the history of what brought us here, because it is tedious and we've covered the heck out of it over the past few years. But I'll mention a few things as they relate to the ruling. To begin with, there is no one author of this opinion. Here's David with the first thing this court had to say.

For six weeks in early 2023, the eyes of the nation focused on Colleton County, where the state prosecuted notorious former attorney, Richard Alexander Murdoch, for the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul. Both the state and Murdoch's defense, skillfully presented their cases to the jury as the trial court deftly presided over this complicated and high-profile matter. However, their efforts were in vain because Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdoch his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Our justice

system provides, indeed, demands that every person is entitled to a fair trial, which includes an impartial jury untainted by external forces bent on influencing the jury toward a biased verdict. Although we are aware of the time, money, and effort expended for this lengthy trial, we have no choice but to reverse the denial of Murdoch's motion for a new trial due to Hill's improper external influences on the jury and remand for a new trial. Because we order a new trial on this basis, it is not necessary that we review every evidentiary issue Murdoch raises on appeal from his conviction. However, we address the ined admissibility of Murdoch's financial crimes to offer guidance on this thorny issue to the court

on remand. So that's pretty clear, right? The court has decided that Becky put her thumb on the scale of justice, which, guys, I don't know. The only juror who says she was influenced by Becky is a woman who only started claiming this after Dick Harpoolian began to question individual jurors. And when it came to defending and explaining her position, she failed every single time and had to have her hand held through it. So I can't agree with that statement that Becky had her hand on the scale. But I accept that the court sees it that way. I can't blame someone for not taking a bite of cake after someone

tells them they removed a hair from it. They might not have seen a hair in it. The baker might deny that there was ever a hair. The person who said they removed the hair might not be credible, but after watching the baker walk around the kitchen without a hair net and washing her brush her hair near a big bowl of frosting, what are you supposed to think? We have a question though. Becky wasn't ever charged with jury tampering after an investigation conducted by SLED found no evidence to support that claim. But isn't ruling that Becky put her thumb on the scale of justice essentially saying she tampered with the jury? Huh. That is a question we are going to seek an answer to. Now, y'all know we love a little sass. And the state Supreme Court did not

disappoint. In their rundown of the facts of the case, the court mentioned Becky Hill's book behind the doors of justice and how she testified to Justice Toll that she used literary license in writing her book, meaning she admitted to exaggerating or just making things up, which was a convenient way to explain away some of the troubling aspects of her book, such as her interpretation of how jurors were affected by their visit to Moselle. Here is what the justices wrote in a footnote about Becky's book. Quote, as her book title suggests, it turns out Hill was quite busy behind the doors of justice. So warding the integrity of the justice system, she was sworn to protect and uphold. The book was

pulled from publication because Hill plagiarized portions of it. I mean, y'all, that's a pretty savage line. And we're here for it. It really gets to the beckiness of all this mess. More on the madness after a quick break and we'll be right back. Right now, news and politics are moving awfully fast. It can feel overwhelming, to say the least. I'm Evan Osnows, a staff writer for the New Yorker. On the political scene podcast, we slow things down to understand how power really operates in Washington, D.C., and what it means for you. My co-hosts, Jane Mayer and Susan Glasser and I have decades over. reporting experience. And every Friday, we have conversations with insiders and experts to understand

the forces remaking America. Join us Fridays for the Washington Roundtable from the political scene. On Mondays and Wednesdays, you can also hear insightful episodes from our New Yorker colleagues, David Remnick and Tyler Foggett, available wherever you get your podcasts. So you might remember that the biggest point of contention in the post-trial hearing in January January 24 was that Team Murdoch argued that they were due a rimmer hearing, which is basically an evidentiary hearing in which the burden falls on the state to prove that Becky's statements did not impact the jurors. Justice Toll denied Ehrlich a rimmer hearing, citing a previous state ruling, State v. Green and State v. Kelly. She kept the burden on Ehrlich to prove to the

court that the jury was prejudiced by Becky's statements. This is part of why people believed it was a 50-50 chance that the state Supreme Court would grant ELEC a new trial. Because while State v. Green might have justified Justice Toll's ruling against a rumor hearing, federal judges were not likely to agree. If Ehrlich had lost this appeal, his next stop was the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. ELEC's argument was that he deserved a jury decision free of any comment from Becky. The mere fact that she, an officer of the court, said anything at all to them means that he should get a new trial. The state's argument was Ehrlich was found guilty because he is guilty and not because of Becky's statements. The court's ruling on this was, well, David, can you read this?

We agree with Murdoch. Prejudice is presumed from Hill's comments, and while this presumption is rebuttable, the state failed to overcome the presumption. So the court doesn't agree with Team Murdoch that the mere fact that Becky said anything at all requires a new trial. But they do believe that the mere fact she said something means the post-trial court should presume this is a problem, and therefore the state needed to prove otherwise. The court actually refers to the state's burden in this as a heavy one, and obviously doesn't think the state met it. But the court also acknowledged that they themselves, the South Carolina Supreme Court, has not always used remer when looking at external influences on juries. So with that, they have provided a guideline for moving forward and have ordered that South Carolina court should follow the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals three-step analysis in cases like this. The first step is for the defendant to present evidence that the external influence was more than just innocuous contact.

The second is to determine whether the defense met the burden of the first step and recognize that the remor presumption has now been triggered. And the third step is to shift the burden of proof to the state to prove there is no reasonable possibility that the jury's verdict was influenced by the communication. Which, I mean, that's kind of what Justice Toll did. No? I'm sorry. I can't get past how not credible juror Z was, and really that's what it comes down to, right? Or it should come down to? It's not what it came down to. I think the horror of Becky Hill has influenced this jury of five justices. Because how is it that all 12 jurors confirmed their verdicts as being their own and based on the evidence in the courtroom with Judge Newman? then all but juror Z and one juror who wanted to be left out of all of this,

testified to Justice Toll's court that their verdict is their own and was not influenced by Becky. And then when you break down the trajectory of Jersey and her changing affidavits and the way she couldn't even articulate why she thought Elk might not be guilty, it seems absolutely silly for the justices to overlook all of that. For their part, the justices argue that it's weird for the post-trial court and for the state to have believed Jersey when she said she was influenced by the other jurors, but then not believe her when she also said Becky influenced her too. They note that Jersey's recollection of comments also lines up with the recollection of others.

Actually, David, will you read what they wrote about that? These comments were also strikingly similar to the comments Hill made to McElven, other staff members, and the media went away from the jury. So hang on. The court is reasoning that because juror sees memory of comments lines up with others, then that must make her credible? I'm sorry, but absolutely not. And also, excuse me, but what media?

Did media testify at the post-trial hearing and we somehow missed that? Did members of the media offer affidavits for Team Murdoch to include with their final? brief and exhibits for the state Supreme Court to consider? And we missed that too? What exactly are the justices referring to here because we've looked at the final brief offered to them by Team Murdoch and there's no mention of any comments that Becky made to the media that mere what juror Z and the others said they heard. Was this in this lead case file on Becky? We need to find out, because that's weird. Because, were justices considering outside information

when they came to this decision? From what we remember, there were a lot of red flags that when looked at altogether, could possibly explain how there was a cooperation between Jor Z and the others. And if the justices are putting that much stock in her memory and using that to excuse the fact flip-flopping in terms of who she says influenced her, well, I don't like that.

David, could you read the next part of the Supreme Court's opinion? Hill's attempt to insert herself into the jury's deliberations through these comments was in line with her stated desire for a guilty verdict to sell more copies of the book she planned to write. Her meddling in events around juror 785's dismissal and herself aggrandizing conduct throughout and after the trial, from granting favors to media members such as allowing them to view sealed exhibits and sitting a writer with court staff in the courtroom to granting interviews. Ah, yes, the granting favors to media members.

Not us, by the way. Not to us. In fact, Becky was an asshole to us. We didn't fawn over her enough or fraternize with her the way that other media did, and we have a lot of proof of this, so therefore we were fair game for her to lie about when a reporter asked her to verify that we were banned by Judge Newman from the courtroom. What was her answer again? Oh, well, they're not here, so it must be true. Lyer.

Anyway, the Supreme Court ruled that they have no reason to find Hill did not make. make all of the statements the jurors reported, which despite our thoughts on that is fair. It does not make Jersey credible in our eyes. But other jurors did say they heard Becky say things, but it didn't register as anything influential or consequential to them. Next, the South Carolina Supreme Court looked at whether Becky's comments were innocuous. David, will you read what they wrote there? By urging the jurors not to be fooled or convinced by Murdoch's defense, Hill essentially

implored the jurors to find him guilty, the ultimate issue in the case. Even Hill's seemingly innocuous comments that the day Murdoch testified was an epic or important day became nefarious when considered with her other comments. Insinuating there was something unusual and suspicious about his decision to testify. Therefore, we hold Murdoch met the, quote, minimal standard of showing that the extrajudicial communications or contacts were more than innocuous interventions, and the post-trial court erred as a matter of law in refusing to impose the remor presumption. So clearly the justices believe that Becky's intent was to convey to the jurors that Ehrlich's testimony was a big deal because defendants don't usually testify on their own behalf.

Meaning, it could be seen as a sign of desperation in knowing that the evidence doesn't look too good. Meaning, Eleg wanted to take the stand to work his magic on the jury. Which, again, I have to say fair. It's fair. I still don't believe that juror Z was influenced by Becky. I think she lost her ally when the egg lady was kicked off the jury and therefore lost her nerve to vote not guilty when the other jurors were her. finding him to be guilty, but that is just my opinion. I can't argue that the justices aren't

right about Becky's intent there because we all thought that it was a common opinion that Ehrlich taking the stand was a big deal, and for the reasons, I just said. Elick thought he knew better than Dick and Jim, who reportedly advised him against this, and he took the stand where he flubbered, like a dry walrus trying to conjure up some water, which by the way, tell me we're not going to get a part two of that. Tell me he won't testify this time, someone. Fine. Does anyone know a good PTSD therapist? Okay, so this next part is really interesting. In his final brief to the court, Ehrlich argued that Justice Toll erred by considering testimony from jurors about whether Becky's comments affected their verdict. The state argued that Ehrlich waived his right to complain about

that at all because hello. Why are we here then? Why did Jersey offer all those affidavits on behalf of Ehrlich? If Ehrlich is arguing they shouldn't have mattered. The court agreed with Ehrlich, saying that in asking that question, Justice Toll violated Rule 606B of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The purpose of which, they said, is to protect the jury system and the citizens who make it work. the court ruled that the portion of Jersey's affidavits, in which she, quote, disclosed her mental process in reaching her verdict was inadmissible. Inadmissible? You mean the parts that show that her story kept changing throughout the handholding she was getting from Team Murdoch? Honestly, it feels like everything Justice Toll did was wrong in the eyes of the state Supreme Court.

I mean, listen to this. David. The post-trial court aired in Finding Hill's comments were, quote, limited in subject and not overt as to opinion, end quote. Hill clearly advised the jurors to find Murdoch and the evidence he presented not credible and essentially urged them to render a guilty verdict. This might be what's beautiful about the American justice system, that different people, see different things when looking at the same set of facts. When I read that line, I was like, advised them to find Elyke not credible. What?

When did that happen? But Becky did do that. She did tell the jurors to not be fooled or thrown off by Ehrlich Murdoch. In her elected position of power at the courthouse made those words mean more. We've been mostly focused on Jersey's flip-flopping words and how they only came with Ehrlich's ability to pay Dick Harpoonian and his Mercedes to go tooling around the dirt roads of Colleton County, his words, not mine, to find those dirty toothpicks to build that disgusting chair. And again, Becky all but marked her garbage bags with the words, dirty effing toothpicks.

on the sides, ready for him to find. Another interesting thing is that this court also did not agree with Justice Toll that because only a limited number of jurors heard Becky say anything, it had less of a prejudicial effect on the outcome. Their reasoning, Ehrlich had a right to 12 impartial jurors. And Ehrlich does have a right to that. We all have a right to an issue. impartial trier of fact. But what happens when we're not afforded that right because one can't afford

to prove that we didn't get that right? That is the problem that we have with this. Oh, and let's talk real quick about the court's view of the evidence. David, will you read that? In addition, in the context of a jury tainted by external influences, the strength of the state's case does not necessarily warrant a finding that the state met its burden of proving a lack of prejudice. The state certainly produced considerable evidence here, and arguably reasonable minds may debate whether the evidence here was overwhelming. In the situation before us, notwithstanding the strength of the prosecution's case, the state is unable to overcome the presumption of prejudice. The state's case rested largely.

on circumstantial evidence, and Murdoch's credibility was a key component of his defense. Hill's repeated comments challenging Murdoch's credibility directly undermined that defense. Hill's egregious improper jury interference went to the heart of the case and unquestionably was intended to push the jury to a guilty verdict. I'm disappointed that the court felt the need to memorialize in writing that, that the case rested largely on circumstantial evidence. We have said this from the very beginning. Most cases like this are circumstantial.

It's the point of having a trial. It is the point of the phrase building a case. If there were video of ELEC doing this, there would not have been a trial. Or maybe there would have been. It's really hard to predict with him. The court pointing this out, though, just adds fuel to the small group of people

who still think Ehrlich didn't do this, because, I don't know, men don't kill their sons, or because there were two weapons, or because he was too big and heavy to kill two people by himself. Literally, that is what the Egg Lady said on a TV talk show. I do, however, understand the court's logic. Alex's credibility is critical to this case, and guess what? He has none. He lied.

He lied about being down at the kennels. He lied about his alibi. According to testimony, he tried to get. others to lie for him. He lied. He didn't need to get up on the stand for the jury to know that. The evidence showed that. So, well, yes, we all have a right to not have a Becky Hill weighing in on anything at all when it comes to our juries, ever. It's so hard to reconcile any thought that Becky's words would have been the thing that led to a guilty verdict. I mean, hello. Mr. Murdoch, is that you on the Kennel video at 8.44 p.m. on June 7th, the night Maddie and Paul were murdered?

It is. Were you, in fact, at the kennels at 8.44 p.m. on the night Maggie and Paul were murdered? I was. Did you lie to Slet Agent Owen and Deputy Laura Rutland on the night of June 7th and told them that you stayed at the house after dinner? I did lie to them. Did you lie to Agent Owen and Agent Crawf on the follow-up interview on June 10th that the last time you saw Maggie and Paul was at dinner? I did lie to them.

And in the interview of August 11th, did you tell Agent Owen and Agent Crawth, did you lie to them by telling them that you were not down at the kennels on that night? Yes. He lied, but it's like trying to jam the wrong charging cord into an iPhone. On the one hand, you have the iPhone, which to me is like Jersey's lack of credibility, in my opinion that this ruling is one reserved for only the privileged who can afford to pick a part a case post-verdict. On the other hand, you have the wrong cord for the iPhone, which is that Becky should not have said anything about anything to anyone. when it came to her views of the trial and what was happening.

I can't charge the iPhone with the wrong cord. I have to accept that the court is wrong, and it's wrong, because the court has ruled that Becky's comments, absent their effect on the jury, are prejudicial in nature. And in consideration of their effect on the jury, we've got one juror saying that she did feel influenced by the comments. And I'm frustrated saying that because it's very hard for me to say the words that Ehrlich Murdoch did not get a fair trial, because I think that his trial was more than fair.

But for this one part, which is so small, when you look at the big picture and so big, when you look at the backbone of the system relying on adherence to the Constitution. The last thing about Becky, the court also ruled that Judge Newman's polling of the jury at the end of of the trial after they rendered their verdicts was not enough to cure any prejudice from Becky's comments. I disagree, but they do make an excellent point. Here's David. The trial court never had the opportunity to even attempt to cure the prejudicial effects of Hill's comments because they did not come to light until months after the trial. If we were to accept the proposition that standard charges could cure such prejudice, then no defendant would be entitled to relief when

improper extrajudicial information reaches the jury's ears, regardless of its content or context. Our federal and state constitution simply cannot countenance such an assault on the right to a fair and impartial jury. Accordingly, we hold Murdoch's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury was violated, and the post-trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. So, thank you, Becky Hill, for that. Your self-rasal dazzling will go down in history now. And actually, you should get yourself a lottery ticket because you wanted attention in the Murdoch case, and boy, have you ever gotten your wish on that one. While the Supreme Court ordered a new trial based on Becky being an improper jury influencing idiot, they remanded a guidance for the court

to follow for the admission of evidence related to Elic Murdoch's financial crimes. The court found that Judge Newman had ruled within discretion and his finding that the financial crimes evidence was relevant under Rule 401 and admissible under Rule 402, but they also ruled that Judge Newman should have limited the evidence that was presented to the jury. Okay, so remember Creton's BCE, his big, Creighton energy moment at trial, when Paul's friend Will Loving was testifying, and Ehrlich's attorney Jim Griffin showed the court a video from Ehrlich's last birthday party as a free man in May 2021. The video was shown by the defense to show the jury that the Murdox were presenting as a happy family just weeks before the murders. Chris Wilson, one of the many lawyers accused

of doing shady dealings with Ehrlich Murdoch, and who has never been punished by. the bar or charged by the state of south carolina was at that party and he gave elyke a very intimate hug which was interesting and creighton seized on that video in redirect he replayed the video and here's what happened which we told you about in episode 78 who's that guy in the green shirt do you know that's chris wilson you know chris wilson's relationship to alec wilson or alec murdock Yeah, I think they're best friends. Best friends. Best friends should do each other right, isn't that correct?

And then he did this. Did you know anything about Alex finances? No, I did not. Did you know anything about his law practice? No, I did not. Did you know anything about where he gets his money? No, I did not. Did you know anything about where he was spending his money?

No, I did not. Did you know anything about what his bank account balances were? No, sir, I did not. Did you know anything about the debt that he was carrying? Do you know anything about that? No, sir. Did you know the specific things that were going on in the boat case the week that Paul and Maggie were murdered? No, sir.

Do you know anything about civil discovery and how it can expose financial information? No, sir. Do you know anything at all about him being confronted on June 7, 2020? on June 7th, 2021 about- Object. I'm going to hear the question. Did you know anything about him being confronted on the morning of June 7th, 2021,

about $792,000 of missing fees from his law firm? Judge and Your Honor, totally improper. Jackson is overruled. Did you know anything about that? No, I did not. You know any of the facts of those things that I just asked you about? No, sir.

Creighton took a chance knowing that Jim would be there with a hot and fast objection, which Judge Newman overruled. And it looks like he was able to get ELEC's financial crimes admitted on the record, something Dick and Jim fought hard against. We have a long way to go and a long list of witnesses to hear from, so it's hard to know where this trial might end up. but we will be there for every step of the way. And we'll be right back.

As we said in MMP episode 78, which was a great episode, by the way, Creighton took a chance, knowing that Jim would be there with a hot and fast objection, which Judge Newman overruled. This is what paved the way for Ehrlich Murdoch's financial crimes

to be on the record after that whole in-camera hearing. So this is important to know. The Supreme Court is not banning using Ehrlich Murdoch's financial crimes as evidence in his new trial. They are just saying limited. It's also important to note that the Supreme Court argued that, quote, evidence of Murdoch's financial crimes made the state's theory of motive more probable. Here is David reading the Supreme Court's justification on that. The more difficult question is, whether the trial court should have excluded all or some of the financial crimes evidence

pursuant to Rule 404B or Rule 403. We address this question as two distinct categories of issues. The first of these categories, whether the trial court should have excluded all the financial crimes evidence, is a point on which not all members of the court would have ruled the same way had we been the trial court. We each agree, however, this was a decision within the discretion of the trial court under the facts and circumstances that existed in Murdoch's murder trial. Okay, so they're saying, yeah, some of that evidence should have been allowed. However, y'all went way too far and way too long on that. Here is David with their specific words. As to the second category, we will address whether the trial court should have restricted the extent to which the state was allowed to present this evidence.

That is, whether the trial court should have excluded some of the evidence. We unanimously hold the trial court allowed the state to go far too long and far too deep into aspects of Murdoch's financial crimes that were not prosely. of the state's theory of motive, which gave rise to considerable danger of unfair prejudice, and therefore should have been excluded. Again, the Supreme Court are saying some of the financial crimes evidence used to show motive was above board. So for the next trial, it is not completely ruled out. They're saying the prosecution needs to spend less time on it. Like they said, too far and too deep.

But here is the concerning part. As an example of the prosecution going too far and too deep, they included this transcript from the testimony of Tony Satterfield, the only financial victim to speak at the Murdoch trial. We will play that clip from court. Why were you the personal representative and not your brother?

Because my brother is a vulnerable adult and he has a disability. That my brother, he's a vulnerable adult. so he's not able to function as a normal human being to do him and stuff like that. He's a vulnerable adult. Yes. As we've said from Day 1 on Murdoch Murders podcast, context matters here. Tony is the son of Gloria Satterfield.

And he is the first of many former clients of Ehrlich Murdoch who realized that his lawyer, Ehrlich Murdoch, had stolen from him. Tony hired a lawyer to do something about it. Now, Tony wasn't just a client of Ehrlich Murdoch. His mother, Gloria, was the Murdoch's caretaker, nanny, and housekeeper. She was credited by several loved ones as having raised Paul and Buster as though they were her own. Tony testified that he looked up to Ellick as a role model and a father figure. Ehrlich promised to take care of Tony and his brother Brian Harriet after their mother suddenly died in February 2018,

following a mysterious fall on the Murdox property at Moselle. Ehrlich has changed his story about what happened on his property that day, and despite Sled reopening an investigation into Gloria's death in 2021, most of the details surrounding her death remain a mystery. The only witnesses who were home that day at Moselle were Maggie and Paul Murdoch, and they are dead. Ehrlich Murdoch reportedly looked glorious two boys in the eyes at her funeral and promised that he would take care of Brian and Tony, who were parentless and desolate at that point. Ehrlich then convinced his buddy Corey Fleming, which, where is he, by the way? Debbie, do you know? To file a lawsuit on behalf of the Satterfields and convinced Tony to sign over his personal representative rights to Palmetto Bank Vice President Chad Westendorf, whom Tony did not know and said he had only

spoken to him once or twice during this process. Quietly, in 2018 and 2019, right after the boat crash, Chad, Corey, and Ehrlich landed two massive of settlements for Gloria's death, with the approval of Judge Carmen Mullen, who has not been held accountable for this. Two massive settlements. And nobody told the Satterfield family. Nobody gave them a dime. In the meantime, Ehrlich and Corey spent that money. Well, mostly Eleg. In the summer of 2021, Tony Satterfield contacted Eric Bland after seeking help from Mark Tunesley, who was representing the Beach family in the boat crash case. And Eric soon found out that Ehrlich not only stole the $500,000 settlement that was apparent in the public index.

He stole every penny of an additional secret $3.8 million settlement that was signed, again, in secret, by Judge Carmen Mullen. In 2021 before the murders, Tony Satterfield read Mandy's article on the only public document in this massive settlement for the $500,000 part of it. He asked Elek about this, and Ehrlich, surprise, lied to him. This is a big part of the gathering storm, and it tells the jury a whole lot about Elyke Murdoch's character around the time of the murders, and the pressure that was on him to keep this hidden, that he would betray two young men who looked to him as a father, two young men in the Hampton community who love Jesus, work hard, and were struggling financially. Two young, parentless men would have been perfectly overjoyed if he had given them even

a fraction of that money. Ehrlich knew they were struggling and he still stole every penny. That's the kind of person Elyke Murdoch was around the time of the murders, and that's the pressure that was on him because the Bowcrasch case was threatening to reveal this. For the Supreme Court to say that Tony Satterfield's testimony was overkill and unfair to Ehrlich, it makes us really question their definition of justice and fairness. Ehrlich's cruel and unusual actions paved the way for a jury of his peers to hear what he did, to those boys. How is that unfair? Here is what South Carolina Supreme Court specifically said about

Tony's testimony. This particular testimony had zero probative value as to Murdoch's motive for the murders and obviously high potential for unfair prejudice as it portrays Murdoch as a man who praise on vulnerable victims. See Rule 403, S-C-R-E, quote, although relevant, Evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The danger of unfair prejudice for the jury to hear something that he admittedly did and was trying to cover up at the time of the murders? It is enraging to me. Tony Satterfield, in my opinion, was one of the most important witnesses to testify about the motive and the financial crimes directly related to this case. He showed the jury the level

of depravity Elyke Murdoch was capable of, and the details of his story are what make it so relevant. But the Supreme Court disagreed. Here's what they said. Much of the additional details the state presented as to Murdoch's financial crimes had little or no probative value for the purpose of establishing Murdoch's motive. The state's theory of motive centers on the point that his financial crimes were about to be exposed and he needed time. The fact he committed some of those crimes against a vulnerable adult adds nothing to the theory. To the extent many similar details may have had minimal probative value, that value is substantially outweighed by the unfairly prejudicial sympathy

the jury was likely to feel toward this victim. By our calculation, the state spent a total of 12.5 hours of actual testimony before the jury over 10 days of trial to introduce evidence introduce evidence related to Murdoch's financial crimes. We are convinced the state could have effectively presented evidence to support its motive theory in a fraction of that time. The fact that Elyke Murdoch committed these crimes against a vulnerable adult who thought of him as a father figure, that does matter, especially when he's accused of killing his own son. Elyke Murdoch had a pattern with the people who he stole from. This was not a man who was cheating rich crypto bros.

off a fraction of their income, he stole from the Plyler sisters who just lost their mother and their brother and were orphaned. He stole from Hakeem Pinckney, who was quadriplegic and deaf. He stole from Arthur Badger and his children, who had just lost their mother. He even stole from one of his childhood friends. Maybe it would have been overkill to call each one of those witnesses, But it would be a true injustice, in my opinion, to completely eliminate the voices of all of the financial victims. We looked back on our trial coverage from the state, and they called at least 10 witnesses to discuss Elyke Murdoch's financial crimes. But many of those, like Chris Wilson and the P&PED partners, testified to other aspects of the case. Those witnesses included

Jeannie Seconder, who testified that she confronted Elyke-Murdock on the day of the murders about the missing money from the firm, and Elyke Murdoch's paralegal, Annette Griswold, Palmetto State Bank president Jan Malinowski, who testified about Ehrlichs mounting overdrafts around the time of the murder, Michael Gunn, president of the Real Forge, and a Bank of America records custodian, and, of course, Mark the Tiger Tensley. Maybe they could stand to cut a few of those, but Tony Satterfield, the one financial victim, that doesn't sit right with me. The good news, though, is that the Supreme Court did not mention that Mark Tinsley's testimony

was overkill. And this is important. On the day of the murders, Ehrlich not only had been confronted again about missing money at the firm, he was in his office gathering financial records for the boat crash case, in which he was a defendant. A hearing was coming up in which Ehrlich, who was claiming to be broke, knew the judge had run out of patience and was likely going to compel him to hand over the names of his bank accounts, and that this, This would lead to Mark Tinsley and Elyke's firm finding out about the fake forge account and everything else that Eilke had been doing. The pressure of this is what the state believed contributed to him snapping that evening and killing Maggie and Paul. And Mark Tinsley connected the dots for the jury in this case.

When Tinsley explained to the jury what would have happened had Ehrlich not ended up getting charged for their murders. in the wake of the murders did you generally understand or or have an idea of it at least what had happened to maggie and paul how they had been killed just from media reports and the rest of it that's right and did that have any effect that tragedy of their deaths did that have any effect on your assessment of the boat case and how everything fit together if things were how they initially appeared It would have affected, I mean, yes, it did, and it would have ended the case. It would have ended the case against two? Against Alex Marna. And explain that to the jury.

Why? What had changed after this terrible tragedy? Well, when you have a civil case, if you, nice people get good verdicts, okay, just generally speaking. Yes, sir. Nice people get good verdicts. You really have to motivate a jury to want to help somebody in a civil case. And so if you compare, say, Attila the Hun with some sweet grandmother, who gets a better result?

It's the sweet grandmother. If Ehrlich is the victim of a vigilante, nobody's going to hold him accountable. It doesn't make any difference what he did or how clearly what he did contributed. The case would be over against Ehrlich. And so initially, it could have been over. It appeared that it was going to be over against Alec. Because I had other defendants. I had Parker's convenience store that it clearly violated its rules.

And so you wouldn't want a very sympathetic person in your case when you have somebody who clearly violated the rules and caused this tragedy. So it would have been over against him. The sympathies of the case had changed if Alec had truly been, his family had been the victim of some vigilante or something like that. The sympathies would have changed if that had been true. And assessing those sympathies and those emotions in a case like this is what you do as a plaintiff's lawyer, is that correct? It's what we try to do.

And it's one Alec Murdoch used to do as well when he was a plaintiff's lawyer. I think he was good at reading people and knowing what made them ticked. The murders had not only ended PMPAD's inquiries into the missing money, they were about to get ELEC dropped from the boat crash case, until ELEC was caught in one of his many lies by his assistant who found evidence of the missing money on his desk almost three months after the murders. The Supreme Court warned that if the state does allow evidence of ELEC's financial crimes, quote, the state must complete its introduction of that evidence efficiently without the lengthy presentation of inflammatory details with little to no probative value that was permitted in the first trial. We are hoping that BCE read that and said bet.

Now, finally, here is David reading the conclusion of the state. Supreme Court's decision. Section 3. Conclusion. As the Fourth Circuit declared, the Remmer presumption is, quote, alive and well, Lawson, 67F3D at 642, it serves to protect the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury for all defendants. Here, Hill, the Colleton County Clerk of Court egregiously attacked Murdoch's credibility and his defense, thus triggering the presumption of prejudice, which the state was unable to rebut. As noted at the outset, Hill's shocking jury interference was accomplished outside the presence and knowledge of the outstanding trial judge and superbly

competent and professional counsel for the state and the defense. We are accordingly constrained to reverse the post-trial court's denial of Murdoch's motion and remand for a new trial consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. Kitcheridge, CJ, few James Hill and Verdon, JJ concur. More on that after a quick commercial break. Obviously, after this ruling, we were very curious about what the power players in this case had to say about it. Let's start with the guys who got their first big win in Eleg Murdoch's cases. Remember how many times they kept losing and losing and losing? Elex attorneys Dick Harpoon and Jim Griffin, who issued a joint statement.

I suppose we should offer them a congratulations on this. But no thank you. We'll pass. Here's David with what that dynamic duo had to say. The Supreme Court's decision today affirms that the rule of law remains strong in South Carolina. The court found that Becky Hill's conduct during the trial attacked Alex Murdoch's credibility and defense. The court rightly described her conduct as breathtaking, disgraceful, and unprecedented in South Carolina. We respect the decision that made clear that the retrial must look very different from the first. The initial jury heard more than 12 hours of testimony

about Alex's financial crimes. The court held that this evidence went far beyond what was necessary and gave rise to unfair prejudice. On retrial, that will not be permitted. Alex has said from day one that he did not kill his wife and son. We look forward to a new trial conducted consistent with the Constitution and the guidance this court has provided. Dick and Jim will not be available for interviews until tomorrow.

until tomorrow. Huh, wonder what they're up to on their big day. Are they getting new power suits and a little pop of Botox, perhaps? Here's what Attorney General Alan Wilson, who is up for the Republican nomination for governor next month, and high on his own political supply right now. Listen to the fury here. David?

While we respectfully disagree with the court's decision, my office will aggressively seek to retry, Alec Murdoch for the murders of Maggie and Paul as soon as possible. Let me be clear, this decision does not mean Murdoch will be released. He will remain in prison for his financial crimes. No one is above the law. And as always, we will continue to fight for justice. My goodness, someone must have found a backbone in the lost and found at Piggy Park, huh? I mean, this is the Allen Wilson we saw the trial. So we are pro this version of him and anti the version that is so far up that Orie County good old boy's backsides, you can't even tell the man has a head. Time will tell whether he

really means what he says or if this is just him acting like a big old toughie to get those votes in June. Now, what about the frontrunner to replace Allen as Attorney General? David Pascoe, who is seeking the Republican nomination next month. We talked to him on his way to an event in Buford. So the Call was a little cracky, but I think the sentiment is loud and clear. I have had time to read the Supreme Court opinion. I want to read it again more carefully later, but it's a very good opinion in the sense of it. It lays out constructive instructions on how the case should be retried. So I think it's a good opinion in that regard.

As I've sit on record before, I believe there are substantial evidence of guilt. The case needs to be retribed. on the murder charge. It is not unusual to retry cases on murder charges. I've probably done it a half a dozen times in my career. And quite frankly, usually when I retried even murders and other violent crime cases, they were first tried by other prosecutors that I came in and tried them later and got convictions. So it's not uncommon at all.

This trial needs to be much shorter. I was saying that in real time back during the trial. I think that this is more of a two-week trial, in my opinion. But, yeah, it'll be much shorter. So good to know that the frontrunner in the AG race, who is known to be best friends with Dick Harputtlian, believes that there is substantial evidence of guilt and the case needs to be retried.

That is, in case Alan Wilson does not get to it this year. But the most important thing to know today is that Ehrlich Murdoch will be behind bars for the next few decades, and likely his life. He is currently serving a 27-year state prison sentence concurrent with a 40-year federal sentence for his financial crimes alone. And you can rest easier tonight because of the heroic work of so many people, including civil attorneys Eric Bland, Ronnie Richter, Justin Bamberg, and their brave clients who exposed Ehrlich Murdoch for all his thieving.

We thought it was important for y'all to hear from them, like back in the old MMP days. Well, certainly it was, you know, either the shot heard around the world or the shock heard around the world. But to most of the court watchers, if you watched the oral arguments in February earlier this year, this decision should come as no surprise. The real surprise happened with all arguments when we saw how hard the justices were against the state's positions and really how easy they were in favor of the defense. So from a lawyer standpoint, today's decision is not a shock. But if you were not, you know, court side and watching this all along and just opened up the newspaper today and saw that there was a reverse. it would really shot the world.

But, you know, the reason our system is so good and in comparison to other judicial systems throughout the world is we treat the worst of us as good as we treat the best of us in the justice system. And that's what makes it good. The justice is blind. I believe that there is sufficient, strong, credible, circumstantial evidence of his guilt.

murder. And look, John Gotti was tried five times on four hung juries before they finally got a conviction on the fifth time. I certainly hoped if we don't go through that with Alex, but it's important. You know, that's why Mandy, Liz, Ronnie, Justin, and Mark and I work so hard and David to get the financial crimes to have him plead guilty and get him convicted of the financial crimes because he has these long state and federal court sentences irrespective of the murder charge. So, you know, that was the backstop. And, you know, Paul and Maggie deserve justice. It's not good enough just to say, well, he's going to be away in prison for the rest of his life. So we shouldn't spend the money for a new trial. I think Paul and Maggie deserve it. I think that

They want justice, and I think they should get it. And that justice will come with a new trial. And finally, here is Mark the Tiger Tensley. I think today's ruling is, it makes sense to me. I believe in the rule of law. I think that the rules matter. I think it's very unfortunate that Becky Hill did whatever Becky Hill did. I don't necessarily know if the facts that the court used to conclude

the things that it concluded in its opinion are accurate in terms of what happened. But I think that there are certain things that from which our court concludes that there's prejudice just as a matter of law. And it seems that that prejudice can't necessarily be undone and that whatever happened in this case fits that bill. And so the result makes sense. I think that the outcome will be the same in the second trial. And I think that the court's clearly indicated that the financial crime.

are relevant in the things that Ellick was facing were relevant in the consideration of the second trial. So I expect that the outcome will be the same. The facts of this case haven't changed. Let's hope the verdict the second time won't change either. There won't be a second episode this week due to my stupid court hearing, Blame Parker's. Until next time, stay tuned, stay pesky, and stay in the sunlight. True Sunlight is a Luna Shark production created by me, Mandy Matney, co-hosted and reported by journalist Liz Farrell,

research support provided by Beth Braden, audio production support provided by Jamie Hoffman and Grace Hills, case file management provided by Kate Thomas. Learn more about our mission and membership at LunaSharkmedia.com. Interruptions provided by Luna and Joe Pesky. Together, Campside and Lunas Shark present Pursuing Justice, launching later this year to shine a light. on active and cold cases through the eyes of the world's best investigative experts.

Pursuing justice delivers expertise and real-world experience to families and advocates falling through the cracks of the justice system. Each episode tackles a different angle of the most intriguing, most frustrating, and most heartbreaking cases submitted from you, our audience, with expert analysis from around the country and the globe. How do you interact with law enforcement during the height of tragedy to get them to care as much as you do. How do families navigate media relationships during their struggle for answers? What's the threshold necessary to cross over from mild suspicion into actionable evidence?

If you know the answers or want to submit a case to us, please email info at linasarkmedia.com. And if you want the answers and education, stay tuned. Pursuing justice premieres in 2026, wherever you get your podcast.