Murdaugh Murders Podcast - TSP #155 [Part One] - Judge McCaslin Takes the Wheel: Murdaugh Retrial Hearing Recap

Episode Date: July 2, 2026

[Part One of Two] The first hearing in Alex Murdaugh's retrial was supposed to signal a new era for Team Murdaugh. Dick Harpootlian promised bigger, bolder, different. What we got instead? Old Dick. Old Trick. Investigative journalists Mandy Matney and ⁠Liz Farrell⁠ break down every move from the June 29 scheduling hearing before Judge Debra McCaslin — the no-nonsense judge who called the warden herself, set a firm April 5, 2027 trial date, and wasn't about to let Dick charm, delay, or bully his way through her courtroom.  From the shackle saga to the laptop drama to Team Murdaugh’s DNA boondoggle, it's all here. Plus: what Dick's courtroom behavior may reveal about his real strategy — and why the Becky Hill federal lawsuit might not be about the money at all. Let's Dive In… 🥽 🦈 Lawyers & judges: email your insights to [e-mail] Join the LUNASHARK Premium Community - Together we go further ☀️ Fresh LUNASHARK Merch designs and styles 👚 Episode Links Crowd the Courtroom 3.0 - Week of July 6, 2026 📅 Alex Murdaugh’s Second Pre-Trial Hearing - Aug 14, 2026 📅 Othram - 21st century forensics 🧬 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 what Ellick Murdoch's legal team doesn't know. But, according to Dick Harputlian in his first hearing for Murdoch 2.0, check out Absurdity 2.0 merch at LunaSharkmerch.com, where Proceeds support charity. It appears like they don't know much at all, and their legal strategy of focusing on media manipulation over evidence hasn't changed much either.

My name is Mandy Matney, and this is True. Sunlight, a podcast exposing crime and corruption previously known as the Murdoch Murders podcast. True Sunlight is a Luna Shark production written with journalist Liz Ferrell. So before we get going on part one of True Sunlight number 155, I have a couple of really exciting announcements. First is that we are delighted to have finalized terms with Patreon to launch a platform to enjoy Luna Shark premium, while benefits will be. remain in parody with Supercast, we think you're going to love all the enhanced features offered on the Patreon platform. Stay tuned in the next couple of weeks for launch details on how you

can try the new platform out. You'll be able to listen to new episodes right on the Patreon app. You'll hear new bonus episodes. You'll see regular live chats with the team and eventually we will be broadcasting all hearing and trial coverage right from the live stream inside the Patreon platform. Supercast isn't going anywhere, but we think that you will love the user interface and all the bells and whistles on the new Patreon platform. And we are really excited that all of our subscribers will be moved over to enjoy a ton of free content beyond just monthly newsletters right on the Patreon app too. Next up, we're going to dive into all of the drama in the Beach v. Parker case in part two, so stay tuned for that on premium.

and on public feeds and apps. And remember, we are asking this community to crowd the court 3.0 for the Beach v. Parker motions hearing the week of July 6 and Beaufort County, South Carolina. More details to come, but mark your calendars now and start making plans to be there.

We will post more information on social media once it is published on the docket. As much as we would love to be in that courtroom ourselves, David and I are hitting the road to see America and Canada too. Just like Quince.com, we'll be traveling near L.A., San Diego, Kansas City, Lawrence, Kansas, Rock Chop, Chicago, Milwaukee, Toronto, Montreal,

Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, New York City, Baltimore, D.C., Richmond, Wilmington, North Carolina, and then finally back to South Carolina at some point. Or maybe not. This trip is designed to do two things. meet you, our members and listeners, and capture content for wherever it leads. But we will be quietly scouting new places that might one day become home. And most bizarrely, it's become really dangerous in South Carolina for us.

So here is our ask. If we are rolling through your corner of the map, tell us the best hotspots, hidden gyms, and can't miss spots. Or just invite us to come meet you for a cocktail, maybe even in our bathing suits. And will you will reach out if schedule allows for a good hang? Email members at lunasharkmedia.com and let's connect. Well, here we bow again. The first hearing in Ehrlich Murdoch's retrial for the double homicide of Maggie Murdoch

and Paul Murdoch was actually promising and very efficient. Judge Deborah McCaslin, the judge selected by the South Carolina Supreme Court to preside over the second Murdoch Murdoch's trial, was quick to show the world what she was about. And I'm not going to lie, we had doubts about Judge McCasland, especially given her vocal praise of Dick Harputian in the past and the fact that she has publicly called him a mentor of hers. But, I have to say, Liz and I were immediately impressed

by her highly organized, communicative, and no-nonsense approach to the bench. The hearing was on time, lasted almost exactly an hour, and effectively tackled a number of challenging matters in this highly public and dramatic case that is now set to go to trial April 5, 27. Yes, y'all, this judge managed to get Team Murdoch in the state to agree on a trial date in the first hearing, and the way that she handled this was nothing short of amazing. I'm going to tell y'all, I'm thinking April the 5th, and this being, I'm trying to get through Easter.

and I know how hard it is to pick a jury when you've got spring break. That's usually right before Easter. It is the March to the 28th. I think it's just the week. It's March 28th. So I'm thinking April 5th. You know, I know that we'll have a new Attorney General coming in. y'all

Mr. Harpoolian has already told me it's going to take six months to get experts prepared and ready to go that would give the new Attorney General time to look at his case in case he's going to be here

and join us do I and let me tell you this tell both of y'all I think y'all know me pretty well when I set a trial date I don't do continuances.

I don't do it. It better be a really good reason. So how does April that this sound, Mr. Waters? Mr. Harpuri. We'll be ready with some contingency that the DNA takes longer, for...

I will have that information by next pretrial. If I need to extend it out a couple of weeks I will if that's the case. Please do not think that this case is going to be tried a year later because it's not. We're going forward. Your Honor, more than after that, Murdoch, more than after that, I just, again, everything is right because the science and all these areas is much better than more

about it. I understand. Technology changes overnight. Y'all, she handled Dick and Jim efficiently, effectively, and powerfully. And not only did we get a date for the trial, but Judge McCaslin set a date for the next hearing, which will take place on August 14th in Lexington County. And she was clear that she will handle all pretrial motions before the trial. So we will know before April 5th if she will allow Elyke Murdoch's history of convicted financial crimes into trial testimony,

which, by the way, is tied directly to the state's theory for Alex's motive. And we'll know how much we'll be allowed in, if any. So let's start by taking a look at the issues that were on the table when Judge McCaslin called the hearing to order Monday morning. Because holy beef sticks, I don't think T. Murdoch has done much work on this new trial so far, y'all. Beyond Harputian dicker treating his way through every news talk show, newspaper, and blogging. trying to grab those headlines talking about how different Elex defense is going to look this time around.

I mean, Monday did look different, but not because of Dick and Jim. They were utterly the same. Old Dick, old Jim, old tricks. As many of you will remember, one of the things Team Murdoch was known for in the lead-up to the first murder trial was loading up the court with bulky motions,

filled with mischaracterizations and gaping omissions, and using all of it to create. a bunch of little fires to distract. And more importantly, to Dick, anyway, to create those headlines that painted Elyke as not getting a fair trial from the jump, I don't think they're going to get to do that as much this time around because, like we said, Judge McCaslin does not seem like the type

to suffer fools, even the one she considers to be a mentor. Anyway, on June 17th, Team Murdoch began the flurry of filings with a motion for Ehrlich to appear in the courtroom, unshackled and in civilian clothing. No surprise there. They made that same request in the lead-up to the first trial, too, and Judge Clifton Newman allowed it. In their motion, like paragraph two, meaning immediately,

they noted that the U.S. Supreme Court forbids shackling defendants during trial. Trial. During the guilty phase of the case. That's an important thing to point out, but this ain't the trial, Dick. This isn't the guilty phase of anything. It's a scheduling here.

In the motions and memos and in the courtroom Monday, they repeatedly do something that feels like, well, frankly, I guess it's their best available argument, no matter what the issue is with Elek. And that argument is, someone out there is worse than him, and they got treated better. David, will you read the part of their motion where they talk about Mikhail Maudi, who went on a multi-state killing spree in 2004, and who was recently executed by firing squad. this past April in South Carolina. On this point, the decision by Judge Clifton Newman regarding the shackling of the defendant in State v. Madi is instructive.

After fleeing police at a gas station in Calhoun County, Madi murdered a law enforcement officer at his home, then fled law enforcement again while armed with a semi-automatic rifle. During the prosecution, a functioning homemade handcuff key was found in the defendant's pocket. which he had smuggled into the courtroom in his mouth. The prosecutor and sheriff therefore asked the court to have the defendant's hands shackled. Even with that specific threat of escape, the court declined to have the defendant's hands shackled, reasoning that the sheriff was aware of the issue and would be able to keep the defendant from escaping without shackling his hands.

Judge Newman then instructed the sheriff. Sheriff, at this point, I will certainly agree that security is imperative. I believe that if you would use the leg irons in addition to the chains, but at this point, I would not want to have him shackled in the presence of the jury with his shackles being visible due to the effect that it may have on his right to a fair trial. The operative words there being jury and trial, which are in their own motion, You get what I'm saying. They're arguing that ELEC shouldn't be shackled and supporting that argument with case law and prior decisions related to when an actual jury trial is happening. And I get that Judge Newman allowed Ehrlich to appear in pretrial hearings without shackles and in his street clothes. But guess what? ELEC was not a convicted felon back then. Team Murdoch goes on to argue that Ehrlich has never evaded law enforcement or threatened any court personnel or law enforcement, which sure, but also. Remember that time when Elyke was supposed to drive from rehab directly to Sled to turn himself in on the roadside shooting charges, but didn't do that?

Slead tracked him down and found him at his mom's house. So threats or not, Ehrlich does what Eleg wants to do, right? And given that we're doing all of this again, I would say that has not changed. Okay, so the final argument that they make in their motion to unshackle is that Ehrlich's fame requires that he be presented, as a shackle-free civilian from the start. Quote, it is true that murder defendants are typically shackled in pretrial hearings, but most murder defendants do not have TV crews filming every pretrial hearing. I don't know if that's actually true,

because I think murders tend to be of great public interest, dick. Oh, and then they gave the judge 90 pages of exhibits to consider, including, for some reason, all of the egg lady motions and the full transcript from Becky Hill's plea hearing in December. They didn't mention the egg lady or Becky Hill in their motion or even refer to exhibits, but sure. Like you said, they like to bulk things up and give the appearance of big things are happening here. Now, the state had something to say about this in response. On June 25th, the state filed a brief that rejected Team Murdoch's argument. They were like, uh, elect should be treated like every other inmate who is shackled during non-portions of the

case. More than that, the state pointed out the big orange elephant in the room. Elick is a convicted felon. And serving time in state prison, therefore, the state said, they defer to the safety protocols already in place for prisoners like Ehrlich. Second, they argued that Ehrlich has been a bad boy and has already shown he has little regard for prison rules. In support of that, they cited two incidents in August 2023. When Ehrlich got in trouble for using another inmate's pin to make phone calls. Third, they argued that Elek is a notorious criminal and therefore dressing him up in civilian clothes would bring even more attention to the case because everyone already knows he's in prison. They're not wrong. It totally would and we do. We know he's in prison. We check to make sure all the

time. Anyway, that same day, Team Murdoch came back with a rebuttal to the state's argument in which they said this, quote, the state appears to concede that Mr. Murdoch cannot be displayed to the jury in shackles. Uh, yeah, and what? Of course the state concedes that. To be clear, Alec was not shackled during the first trial, as in the jury never saw him in shackles. He got to shake hands and socialize during breaks like it was family reunion time. Oh, and in fact, during that very weird and still not adequately explained fake bomb threat on February 8th during the 2003 trial, when Ehrlich seemed to smile to himself after Judge Clifton Newman announced that he was clearing the courthouse, Judge Newman took particular care to make sure Ehrlich was kept segregated

from everyone in the evacuation, meaning if that bomb threat were faked in the hopes of the jury accidentally being brought out the same way as Ehrlich or accidentally getting let out a door where Ehrlich was being loaded into a police vehicle, that hope was dashed against the wall. Again, a trial and there was a seated jury. Oh, back to what we were saying about Team Murdoch comparing elected someone worse. In their rebuttal to the state's argument, they brought up Charlie Kirk's assassin. David, will you read that part? During a pretrial hearing in criminal proceedings against the alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk, the court was adamant that the defendant must not be shown in shackles and responded to reports that this had happened by order.

ordering cameras repositioned and warning that they would be excluded if it occurred again. But Charlie Kirk's assassin was not a prisoner serving what, for all practical purposes, is a life sentence at the time of Charlie's killing. Like Ehrlich, in their rebuttal, T. Murdoch went on to whine that the state didn't even bother to describe the, quote, two minor prison disciplinary infractions that Elyke committed in prison in 2012. And notes that Ehrlich got his privileges taken away for 30 days as a result of that. Oh, and Ehrlich has never been accused of violence in prison or trying to escape. Dick and Jim refer to the state's arguments against unshackling Ehrlich as histrionic.

And then, get this, they withdrew their motion in the same response. David, will you read that part because it's kind of funny? Mr. Murdoch would ask that the court and the state focus on motions that are more material to his defense, like his motion to have unknown DNA from the crime scene tested, his motion to allow him to review case materials in preparation for trial, his motion to transfer venue to a location where he can receive a fair trial, and other substantive motions that are forthcoming. Mr. Murdoch has admitted his many serious financial crimes, and he accepts the consequences of those crimes,

decades of imprisonment, probably for the remainder of his life, without complaint. If the state wants to use that for a public spectacle, so be it. Mr. Murdoch will not waste the court's time at the upcoming status conference about the optics of the status conference. Mr. Murdoch, therefore, withdraws the motion. Y'all, I mean, this deserves a big old round of booze, because what do you mean you withdrew the motion because the state is trying to make a spectacle of Ehrlich? Again, old dick, old tricks.

Was this motion ever serious? Or was it a little trap to get the state to make an earnest argument about unshackling Ehrlich so all Team Murdoch could do was play victim and act like they are firmly on the side of anti-spectacle. Or did they withdraw it to gain potential favor for their little laptop argument? Which stick a pen in that one, by the way. It's hard to say.

But that was the end of the shackle talk. Just kidding. Of course, there was more shackle talk. At the hearing, when Dick Harputlian did his signature Dick Harputian move and had Ehrlich stand up for the judge, the courtroom, and the TV cameras. so everyone could see him. It's a move reminiscent of the scene in a Christmas story after the teacher Miss Shields has to run outside and rescue Flick,

who's stuck to a frozen pole by his tongue. She scolds the class while Flick sits at his desk with his tongue bandage sticking out of his mouth looking ridiculous. She's like, now some of you put Flick up to this, and I'm sure the guilt you'll feel is far worse than any punishment you'll receive. Well, that's all I'm going to say about poor flick.

Dick loves a poor flick moment. Sorry, I meant poor Ehrlich. Let's listen in on what happened Monday morning. In the middle of his diatribe, Dick had poor old Elyc stand up for the judge in an effort, I suppose, to make Ehrlich look pathetic. All right, now let me go through. I had a motion filed for the defense,

and I just want to put this on the record. The defense wanted the defendant to be unshackled in the courtroom. I received a response from the state. They objected. Then I had a response from Mr. Harpulian, where he withdrew that motion. That still stands, Mr. Harpillian. Yes, Your Honor, although we make renew the motion.

Our reason for this is jurors, potential jurors are watching this right now. It's going to be wherever this goes. It's going to be difficult to get a deal. And the extent to graining him around at a jumpsuit shackle like an animal impact their view, it's going to make it more difficult for us to get a jury. Now, again, this is a large argument is specious.

He's not dangerous. He's only thinking he's not stealing money. Now, Judge Newman let him come to the courtroom in street clothes and unshackled. I know Mr. Watersfield can tell to get every advantage he can, but this is one, this is our ability to get adjourned. So I ask that he be allowed to come in the courtroom, unshackled, and I will call them streetcloth. So you renewing your motion now?

I just want to make sure. I want to see that. I mean, chained around the way, change with the hand, changed on the feet. I mean, this guy is not a serial killer. He's not, you know, Ted Bundy. She could say that this one. I always think that he was accused of going to wife in time.

But he was accused of crime in time. and Judge Meen allowed him become unshackled in his people every hearing of him. I did read your response, but I'll be happy to hear anything, and I'll take it under advisement. Again, they were drawn in motion, and now they... Now they... This goes back to... It's not the state's policy, and then make it serving at 0.7%, okay? This is, yeah, the CDC's policy for a non-cury court.

that he comes out in the strings. He's not only placed on 27 years, the additional four years of federal court and he's also guided and for a double murder. So this is a basic security consideration. Again, the intent is not prejudiced with one. The intent is security of every time someone is transported out of port, it is a security risk.

And the first two goals in any escape to end up is to point, strength, and then civilian. So I'm here to represent those basic policy and procedure for inmates, serving long-flung the assentances with SCB. I completely understand that the jury, the calculations are different, and that is going to be a different thing to do. The remedy for all of that ultimately with our process, it's going to be a jury selection, and it's going to be instruction from the court.

So will Elyke get to wear his street clothes and future pre-trial hearings. That's the question, right? And I can practically hear the executives at Vineyard Vines dropping their coosies all at the same time and yelling, please God, no. Not to mention Jim Griffin's son, who probably doesn't want to lend to Ehrlich his clothes this time around. Years before, the name Elyke Murdoch was splashed across every major media outlet. I was a local South Carolina journalist and I had an instinct that something wasn't right in the low country. The powerful Murdoch dynasty dominated rural South Carolina for generations. Few dared to publicly utter a harsh word against them.

From the newsroom to the courtroom to the kitchen table where we recorded the number one global hit, The Murdoch Murders podcast, I invite you to learn more about my book, Blood on Their Hands. Blood on their hands is a harrowing first-person narrative of battles against systemic subversions of the truth, overcoming institutional sexism, corruption, and threats to my personal safety to expose a network of horrific crimes and give voice to victims. Click the link in the description to order today. Visit any retailers near you or visit lunasharkmedia.com slash book to learn the best way you can

stay pesky and stay in the sunlight. Okay, so next at the hearing, the judge wanted to know where everyone was on discovery. She was literally asking for information about actual elizabeth. elements of the case, like text messages, phone data, GPS data, forensic evidence. But when she asked Dick the question, where are y'all at with that? Here is how he responded, again, old Dick, old tricks. So we don't know what we don't know. And I'm giving an example.

Let me hand this up, Your Honor. Your Honor, this is a transfer of an energy gun for a guy named Chapman. and another officer who were folks that arrived on the scene to begin with, process the scene, and were very involved in the forensics of processing the scene. And if you go to page 6, Chapman, who was in charge of the scene, says this. We're talking to an interview on March 13, 10 days after the Burkney's case. he says in response to the question I believe you have some healthy apt man or rather yes that's rejected you know the disposal of weapons moving around a vehicle we heard so much

about the sled of an A.G.'s office they don't have anything it's all circumstantial that poses a question of you there was a clean crime scene stage crime scene clean crime seat we expect to find more evidence or less and that's what's kind of hard to get people to understand is we didn't find a lot, but why we did refined locks because it was clean. I mean it was manipulated. There's evidence removed from the scene. Now this is 10 days after the trial. This is not what Chaplin testified to. Chapman has evidence there were other people who defend the assistance under their theory or there were other people there. We need to have that furnished to us and we have other witnesses

who testified at trial saying something totally different indicating there's evidence believe somebody else was seen or there were other people seen. I mean this guy's the chief guy in charge of the scene along with Rutland the process that night. We need and when the process is doing this to determine if they put those state or the report. So we don't know what we don't know. We don't know what we don't have. We need some period of time to try to process that. And you're on our say this and no, no, no, you know, no. emphasis on trying to. We're not alleging that the stage has hidden anything from us. We do know

there were people that came to see us that said they had important information. We have no ability to investigate. We don't have subpoenaed. We don't get a grand jury. We don't have search warrant. And two or three of those people we sent to web. Did they follow up? We don't know what we don't know is basically. like saying uh um and um because what a placeholder when you need to delay things but have nothing of substance to say in support of that no strong evidence to support your cause it's yet another reason it looked to us in our opinions that team murdock has been slacking or rather resting on the smug idea of theirs that they won't have to try this case for another year which judgment caslin isn't having but

what was Dick actually saying there? That after Ehrlich was found guilty, investigators were talking about how they believed the scene had been manipulated and cleaned up and that ELEC had help cleaning the scene before law enforcement got there. Isn't that also bad? Doesn't that also say that ELEC did this? So the thing Dick doesn't know is it that ELEC might have had co-conspirators? So they want evidence that might point to that? This is very confusing. But also, We knew where he was going with this because it's a troll theory. So day one, out of the gate, T. Murdoch, after weeks of telling us, this is going to be bigger, better, different, seems to be relying on an ill-informed, crowdsourced idea from people who get their kicks out of being devil's advocates. The prevalent troll theories are, one, ELEC didn't do it. Two, ELEC didn't do it alone, or a variation of that is ELEC didn't do it, but rather paid someone to do it.

And three, that the unknown male DNA under Maggie's fingernail now means vigilantes did it because of the boat crash or Stephen Smith's death. Let's go back to the courtroom where a several hundred dollars an hour attorney shared a theory put forth by a felon grifter who relies on AI to help him form and shape his reckless theories into books. One had extraordinary evidence about a tie-in between Paul's murder and the murder of the gunman. named Steven Smith but we have no we had no I can't compel anybody to come anywhere we sent that to swag they investigated or they investigated and I must tell you there are a lot of a lot of information out there that and maybe

they just stopped once they got conviction didn't do anything else that it didn't consider that our desire to get a get a conviction I have a conviction help so they didn't follow it up maybe it does need to be We're going to have to go back and look at all of that. We're going to have to determine whether or not additional material developed sensitive products. Maybe they just stopped? Maybe it does need to be followed up on?

Again, this is South Carolina, and we promise you that South Carolina would rather never have charged Elyke Murdoch with murdering his own family. The powers that be in South Carolina would have been a okay with sweeping that under the rug and letting it live on forever as an over. open cold case. They would have preferred it to be like that. But unfortunately for them, again, the evidence pointed to Ehrlich. And the extraordinary evidence he's talking about? Well, it sounds a lot like a troll theory from a fellow felon who makes up lies for profit. Let's go back to Dick trying to convince Judge McCaslin that discovery is incomplete based on the notion of imaginary things that might

exist. Listen to his wet and gulapy word pudding here. And we haven't done a thorough check of all the testimony, uh, read it all, not in the sense of the deal, which we've done, but the sense of, I mean, we, in, in criminal cases, we don't have deposition or we don't have them here. We have a transcript of every, but not maybe, I'm sure they're going to get rid of some of these with us are horrible for top right and get additional words. Um, but, um, But most of the witnesses, we have their transcript or deposition.

I mean, we go back and read all of that when we get a sense of how you talk. It's like you're in the civil case. So I can't say that we've got at all. I can't say that we don't have it all. Again, I don't know what I don't want to get on. But I think we will be very diligent. One of the other things we talked about, you will get access that it's making a way that makes it you need for him and does

talk about that that's another question to talk about that I'll get to your nations in just a little bit I'm what I really want to know is about phone records text messages cell phones video recordings toxicology finger press you have all that's We're not sure. We need to review it as if we're getting ready and the brand there. We look at five years and before we know we are. We know if you're doing that, but certainly our thing will take us some period of time to review that. One of the point, we did not remind me, we did not have on star data on the vehicle until halfway through the trial.

That is not the attorney. That is not furnishing it. We had to do that on the problem. that on the run, we want to go back and analyze that, and try to analyze that even more. I do want to handle this up, the training people by the state and we find. No interest anything in profit.

Okay. So part of what we need to do, we need to hire additional experts based on some of the views we now have on some of the witnesses, both the state and the defense end of the defense end. They may need to examine those reports to determine what we have a human. So it's going to take a little bit of time, Judge. We don't, I can't tell you today we have everything that we don't know.

So remember during the first trial when GMC contacted the state to be like, we've been watching the trial on TV and we heard y'all say that we didn't comply with your request for the data. But we actually have that. Although Dick made it a point to say that he wasn't trying to suggest that the state withheld that evidence when it came to vehicle data, he's still using this argument in support of his, We don't know what we don't know statement. Meaning, we didn't know about the vehicle data. So that means other things could be out there.

And we're going to need a lot of time to figure that out to figure out what we and the state don't have. To us, it's still a dishonest argument. Luckily, the judge asked Creighton for clarification on Dick's weird little non-accusation accusation. Okay. Let me ask you, Mr. Orders. What about the on-star data? Do you have all of that? Yes, ma'am.

So, Your Honor, we actually, slend and sent two search warrants to be, you know, well in advance of trial. So to apply, there's something out there. I mean, we're always constantly augmented with that and doing our obligation, but I say discovery opportunities, very seriously, we have access to all that information. So, sit here and I, we don't know, we don't know, well, I'll recognize that,

but I know that my obligation to provide that information to you . And if I'm aware of it, then it's been provided. And we really have done that, we added it so 12-40 original file, and we will continue to do that. And as he freely recognizes us, Non-star data came in late, despite our best efforts,

and immediately disclosed it down every opportunity to. Process that information, and they agreed to know what? It was the two-law. So that's not anything, any sort of indication of a bad process of practice on their cells. So the bottom line, is they have everything that you've had? My knowledge, yes, ma'am, and we were very careful about it. We want to be all that discovered. And you don't know if anything else it needs to be analyzed at this time.

Well, again, we have that DNA. The DNA, and I'm going to get to DNA in just a moment. Yeah, let's talk about the DNA, shall we? So after Maggie Murdoch was murdered at Moselle by someone, Sledd's forensic team found a partial sample of male DNA under one of her left fingernails, meaning it was a sample that was deemed useless to them because it did not contain enough information

to submit it to CODIS, the National DNA Database that might have helped them identify who it belonged to. They did have enough information to know that it did not belong to Elyc or any of the other people of interest, which is the fact the defense twisted in its final brief to the Supreme Court in Elyx appeal by pretty much saying that Sled just didn't submit it to Codis, leaving out the part about it not having enough identifiable components to send to Codas. During the first trial, Dick and Jim and Elyke's online troll supporters occasionally relied on the mystery behind this partial DNA sample. It gave them a small chance at reasonable doubt when it was considered on only its face. Like,

oh my gosh, what? There was DNA under Maggie's fingernail from an unknown male? I mean, of course, that sounds wild, right? But it's not DNA from an unknown male. It's partial DNA that is so partial that the only thing you can tell from it is that it came from a man and there's enough DNA identified to know it didn't belong to Eleg. It's not an unknown male. It's a male who can't be known. That's different, very different. But trolls be trolling. They love to roll out the mystery man DNA

as the evidence they're relying on to say they don't think Kellogg did it. Or they think he knows who did it but didn't do it. Again, I get it. It's a very small piece of evidence that could lead to a very small dose of reasonable doubt if you ignore every other piece of evidence in this case and even then it tells you nothing. Nothing!

My God, it is the genomic version. of stepping on gum on the sidewalk. On June 24th, Team Murdoch filed several mini emotions. One of them asked the court to compel the state into giving them the partial sample of male DNA that was under one of Maggie's fingernails so they can send it to a lab in Texas called Othrum, which, according to Dick and Jim,

has said it believes it can find something useful in this partial sample. Team Murdoch is using the wrongful conviction of David Cam to support their argument. In 2000, Cam, who was a very important, former state trooper, said he came home to find his wife and two children shot to death in their driveway. Unlike Elyke, though, David Cam had an iron-clad alibi. Eight people either saw him playing basketball at a nearby church during the time of their killings or were playing basketball

with him. And unlike Ehrlich, David Cam got blood on his clothing from getting in the family car and trying to reach his son, who he mistakenly believed was still alive. This case was a mess from the beginning, with several theories not only about Cam's alleged motive, but even how the family was killed. Cam was tried three times, and yes, after his first conviction, his defense team pushed for a strange gray sweatshirt found at the scene to be finally tested for DNA. And yes, that DNA led to the real killer. What sucks for Cam is he was found guilty as a co-conspirator with the real killer. So while the DNA test was insightful, it took a while before Cam was exonerated. In other words, prosecutors seemed determined to make Cam the murderer despite contradicting evidence and timelines.

And that is not what's happening here. The partial DNA will not help Eleg explain all the other damning and compelling evidence pointing to his guilt. That said, let's see what Othram has to say, right? Well, maybe, because the state is objecting to the release of the DNA evidence. In a three-page reply filed the morning of the hearing, the state, pointed out a few things that are important to remember here. I'm going to have David read from the filing. First, it is important to put this evidence in context, which, of course, has been available to the defense from early on in the discovery process before the first trial.

In other words, if this were considered exonerating evidence, why didn't Team Murdoch push for this before? Go ahead, David. Touch DNA has gotten extremely sensitive. and we know that as humans interact with each other and their environment, they are shedding DNA and picking up shedded DNA from others. Indeed, Maggie had her nails done the day of the murders, according to anecdotal evidence in the case. More importantly, there is absolutely no evidence that a physical struggle took place between Margaret Murdoch and her murderer.

She had no defensive wounds and no indication on her hands or fingernails that she scratched her attacker. It was as if she was unexpectedly gunned down from a threat she did not see coming. BCE, y'all, big Creighton energy. Keep going, David. There is nothing of value to be obtained from a, quote, more thorough analysis, end quote, because a thorough analysis has been completed by sled.

Defense has made no attempt to facilitate communication between Sled and Othrum to even determine whether the evidence would be eligible for testing by Othram or what sort of testing Othrom could conduct that Sled could not. The state is concerned that non-traditional DNA testing for the sake of non-traditional DNA testing in this retrial is an unnecessary boondoggle that is more made. for public consumption than to uncover viable evidence. Meaning, Team Murdoch could have very well been doing this for the headlines to influence a jury pool by further developing what could be a misleading attempt to gain reasonable doubt based on this evidence of very limited consequence, as the state puts it. During Monday's hearing, Jim Griffin presented Team Murdoch's argument for Othrum by noting that someone worse than Ehrlich was identified by them.

Othram confirmed Brian Coburger as the man who fatally stabbed four University of Idaho students in 2022, and they did it within days. Basically in real time as investigators were developing their case. I should note, though, that Brian Coburger left behind a lot of DNA. They had a lot to work with. This was not about a partial profile too limited to be uploaded to Kodas. This was about Brian's DNA not being in Kodas and therefore they needed to dive deeper into his family tree. That said, some of you might recognize Athrum as the lab that confirmed the identity of the unknown hiker,

whose case was the subject of a documentary called Mostly Harmless. More on that after a quick break, and we'll be right back. Let's go back to the courtroom in Elex's case, though. Let's start with Creighton's argument, which was much like his filing. Ultimately, there's absolutely no evidence that if Maggie Murdox was in trouble with 31, that she had any sort of offensive wounds, that she was scratched, she was a sort of attacker. And we also know that it's very common how sensitive touch DNA is. We're constantly shedding DNA and picking up DNA from others by shaking hands and door knobs and all the rest of it.

So this is a bit of red herring. That doesn't mean that we are not willing to discuss with the defense. Anything that they want to do, if reasonable, we're at least to be back to this work with that as well. I promise you, T. Murdoch did not like Creighton's use of the phrase red herring. Let's listen in on T. Murdoch's argument in favor of sending this partial DNA sample to Othrom. These murders happen in 2021. We're in 2026. 2021, there's no such thing as artificial intelligence.

In 2021, this genetic genealogy was just on the ground floor. In 26, we are light years ahead. And so what we're asking for didn't really exist in 2021. It does exist today. And Othram is the leading lab that performs this analysis. They did last year on 2025, Therefore, the statistics are that they cleared 200 cold cases on behalf of law enforcement around the United States and the country.

They worked with law enforcement every day. The most high-profile case they did was at the University of Idaho, the Moscow-Idao murder that took place about the first week of our trial. College kids were massacred in a house at the University of Idaho. They had a DNA sample. They ran through CODIS. Came up nothing. There was nothing.

The state of Idaho police department, like SLED, had a contract with Othrum. They sent the test Othrum. Othrum does this genetic genealogy DNA analysis. And it comes back to a family member who had done a DNA test, ancestry test, the person who committed these murders, Brian Colbert. That's how they solved the Moscow murder cases, was through Othram Lab. The difference between, and they say they don't have enough samples to get through CODIS,

and I talked to the lab about that, and that's not an issue. Kodas uses an analysis called STR. This analysis is SNP, and they call it SNPs. They have, KOTUS has 20 data points. SNPS has half a million data points that they analyze. Now it takes a while to do that. And so we're going to have to see what the lab says. They've asked me to get information from SLED as to, you know, they like to see the

electrobarogram or mixture of proportions so they can have a better handle on it. And I'd ask Mr. Waters to give us a name so that these experts can interface. But what they're doing in Houston, Texas, they don't do in South Carolina at SLED lab. There are handfuls of labs around the country, and they are certified. They work with law enforcement. I don't know that they worked specifically with SLED. They're familiar with SLED when I spoke with them, but they have a whole division. So you need an expert's name or whoever has this sample to see if there's a viable sample,

that you can send. Correct. And they can work with the extract that SLED used when they did their STR analysis. Okay. They work with that out there. They've told me.

Mr. Waters, can you give him a name so he can move forward? That's what I put in my motion, Your Honor. Please give us a name, and I'm happy to have SLED reach out and talk to them about what their supposed capability proposals are and any procedures.

And I'm done with me, bring you, that information I'm happy to discuss those with the friends that for whatever reason we can't agree we'll come back to that precisely what I put in my motion is let us let's talk to the experts talk so that my experts can hear you know what it is that that they proposed to do and and I gave him three names and contact information this morning and I've asked a name that I can send back to my folks I do want to address this red herring argument the The DNA that we're talking about, Your Honor, came from Maggie Murdoch's left fingernail.

That was tested by SLED with this STR analysis. The DNA sample, number 70, that we're asking to be tested, it positively was not, Alanisks, of the other folks who were who they took Buckel Swabs from, went their long list, not them, except for one potential. And that potential, the ultimate result was it's 11 times more an unknown male, so they know it's a male, than it was this person. That's how they do things in their DNA analysis. And Mr. Water said, well, there's no evidence of struggle, but there's no evidence of struggle,

but there was a shell casing under Maggie Murdoch's body from the gun that killed her. I mean, that shell casing and that gun had to be in very close proximity. Maggie Murdoch's cell phone was missing from the crime scene. Was DNA transferred at that point in time? And so we don't think it's a red herring. We think it's very important. And we turn out to be innocuous. We don't know, but it's worth looking into.

Again, the issues with the DNA here are not the same in the Koberger case where they had its full profile. He just wasn't in Kodas, meaning he wasn't a previous offender or previously accused of a crime that resulted in a DNA sample being taken. It meant law enforcement needed to go deeper to find his relatives who could lead them back to him. In Alex's case, this DNA isn't complete enough to even be submitted to Kodas. according to the state. And again, there's so much other evidence. Also, not for nothing, but Dick and Jim seem to be using the DNA issue

as a way to buy them more time before trial. John, we have paid extra witnesses. All of them are just beginning to get the information they need. DNA is when we are told to make them up to six months. It's been represented by the state. But that's not.

I'm not going to address that specific to that in this moment. But this case this year, you know, I'm talking about going to the death now before a bunch of a minute of three months. Try it before the end of the year. It cannot be done to us to be adequately prepared. And we talked about the laptop. Without the laptop, we can't cut next year.

If we have to go down there and take them with a bank of box to the time that we got, almost 20,000 pages got. So we came up with a way. Well, surely, Mr. Harbrily, and he reviewed those before his first trial, we did not. Five years ago.

I mean, it's just the judge. I can't remember a page by trial three months ago. And a payrolls on this. It's ridiculous to require him not a adult and effect. To require him to have a member of each document that he booked at almost five years ago.

First, I'm going to mention it again. Authrum developed Brian Coburger's familial DNA profile in days. Not months, not a year, days. Second, eight expert witnesses? Who is paying for that? Because it ain't Becky Hill. This should be good. I literally cannot wait for that witness list,

and I will so not be surprised to see TikTok and Reddit username. on there. So let's talk about the laptop, another micro motion that Dick and Jim submitted before the hearing, as a request for ELEC to have his laptop in prison so that he can prepare for the case. As anyone who followed the first trial knows, Dick really doesn't like the hassle of having to go to see ELEC behind bars. What we'd like is we'd like that laptop with the warning and corrections to have total access to it can be. by SLED to make sure it can't transmit these image, a message can't be used in any way. There is no Wi-Fi that's a particular solution.

That has to be by self-service. And these are not difficult technical issues. And if they're concerned about grand jury test, you have to take that out, that's a very, that's a public plan of what we can look at. And we can certainly do that separately with hard stuff if you have to get out there to that. I mean, Griffin and I, or Ms. Farber, or Ms. Fox have to go down, three hours down, sit with him for three hours, three hours back. We're talking about it release the end of next year, not at the beginning of the following year. We get this support.

We can't be working on experts, and we can't be interviewing witnesses while we're tied to sitting there and babysitting him while he's reading a laptop that doesn't have any capability to communicate both. And we'll be happy to have Swayd, inspect it. We'll be happy that the department for us, we'll be inspecting. But, you know, the idea, we bring laptops in. We give it, as you can see, permission to bring laptops in. And laptops are brought in all the time. The question is, can he keep not using, because the warden people, for some office at the institution, keep it, and give it to him when he needs?

The question is, can Elyke Murdoch get? Ehrlich Murdoch get special treatment. That's always the question, right? So it's at this part of his impassioned laptop, don't make me drive their argument when Dick got pretty vicious about Creighton. Let's have a listen. And the honor,

I gotta say, this idea of bringing him in here, chained up, the idea of not letting him have access to the laptop, the idea of everything, things we're trying to do, expedite this process. I understand it's just a warrant job to legally prejudice that offended. But this is beyond the paper.

This is beyond the player. I'd ask you to remind Mr. that he has an ethical duty to see the justice has done, not get a conviction. I don't. Okay, we're not going to go there. And I have no sense of prejudice. Prejudice suggestive says you must have wrong place.

And the court doesn't take it that way, Mr. Ward of. So is that what Dick Harputtlyan was doing when he was a prosecutor? Legally prejudicing defendants? Man, this little temper tantrum was telling. We think Dick was learning in real time alongside the rest of us. But Judge McCasland is not susceptible to whatever charm and authority he thinks he brings to the courtroom. She wasn't falling for his fake outrage, and she also wasn't relying on his interpretation of the facts

or his word, because listen to this. All right, let me tell both of you. I took the liberty of calling the warden and talking to him about the laptop situation. And because I, too, used to practice law. I remember terabytes of discovery that I had to carry. to my clients to go see.

And I know that it can be cumbersome, and I would imagine the discovery in this case is a lot. How many pages do we have, Mr. Waters? Half of a terabyte. Okay. I talked to the warden. He will not allow a laptop. And for safety reasons,

he said he would quote make available a conference room council may bring their computer they could have a law clerk come or the attorneys could come their cells they could look at it he could review his discovery they could bring their own laptop

however somebody must be with him his concern was having a laptop in his cell that no other inmate has a laptop in their cell they do have access to an iPad

that has Westlaw on it now I just have to be honest with you I didn't even think about asking him if you could download any discovery on that iPad I don't know if that's available but I certainly will call and check

and see if that's acceptable to him. If that's the case, I'm going to have Mr. Waters draw me up a proposed order on the state grand jury material. I haven't looked at Judge Newman's yet, but I will. Please run that proposed order by Mr. Harpulian and Mr. Griffin.

I will check on the downloading on an iPad, but I'm not going to allow him to have a laptop computer in his cell. It's for safety reasons. That's out of my control. I think it's not only for the safety of the others at the institution, but probably Mr. Murdoch for your own safety. Ooh, plot twist.

The judge had already done her homework. In response, Dick argued that they wanted ELEC to be able to access the laptop, or just an iPad in a conference room, and they were not arguing for ELEC to keep the laptop or bring it back to the cell with them. The judge had receipts, though. When I read your email here, this seems like he could go to his cell.

He could keep it in his cell. I know good and well that the warden is not going to allow that. I've talked to him personally. Okay. We'll follow up on that and on next pretrial or if I can I'll probably let you know before

pretrial, but if he says no and it's for security reasons and the answer is no I'm not going to allow what you understand. Mr. Harpulian? Do you? Do you understand Mr. Herpulian?

And we're currently waiting for the inevitable sexist comment Dick is going to make about women judges. Remember when he was overheard saying that he was surprised that Judge Allison Lee, a black judge, gave Elic a $7 million bond. Oh, how could we forget? One more thing before we go. Jill McCullough, Dick's Bestie, the attorney who sat with the media in the first trial, courtesy of Colleton County Clerk of Court, Becky Hill,

for all six weeks claiming to be working on a screenplay. The lawyer who immediately began representing the Egg Lady juror after she was booted from the jury for violating a court order, and speaking about the case outside the courtroom, Joe and the Egg Lady have an outstanding order in front of the court asking for the investigation that led to the Egg Lady's removal from Ehrlich's jury to be unsealed.

Crayton Waters has filed a brief in support of the case file being unsealed and we have called for the case file to be unsealed. Why? Well, sunshine first and foremost. But also to shut the trolls up who keep hinting that there's something big in there that will reveal jury tampering by I guess us, the hinting is as cowardly as these trolls are.

And the defamatory statements against us, Mark Tinsley, Eric Bland, Crayton Waters, and the woman who wrote an email to Judge Newman about the egg lady in February 2023 keeps on growing. And we want it to end. On Monday, the judge saw John McCullough in the courtroom and was reminded of his motion. Here's what she said. All right, now let me address a signal. Mr. McCullough sitting out there.

And then I also have another, they're both the same protective order, but they're wanting two different things. That's right. They're two different things. Right. As far as, but I think before we go there, Mr. Harpulian,

I believe Mr. Waters, am I correct in stating that you're working on a response to both of these. There might be some redactions that you wanted, and you're going to submit that to the court. Okay, and I'll be able to address that at the next free trial conference. Yeah, we are generally in favor of those being unsealed, but they will have to be done judiciously at the appropriate redactions to preserve their identities and actions.

Right, because I did. Yeah, and I did receive something from SLED, an email from SLED. Where is he? Okay, I did receive your email, and just get me an answer on that, and we'll decide it the next pretrial to end. So, it sounds like they are working on getting those files ready to be made public, which, again, we want to see happen. As we've said before, there is nothing to hide about how and why Egg Lady was removed from the jury,

and it is time that the media sees that for what it really is. Another dick trick. And speaking of Dicktricks, did y'all notice there was no mention of Egg Lady or Becky Hill during that entire hearing? As we've said, Murdoch 2.0 has nothing to do with them. So, why did Team Murdoch file that better? lawsuit against Becky Hill. While Dick never mentioned Becky Hill, he did whine about how he did not have deposition power in this criminal case like he would for a civil case.

Was he telling us what his plan for that lawsuit really is? Maybe to use his power as a civil plaintiff to subpoena and oppose whoever he wants for whatever he wants? Team Murdoch claims they are suing Becky Hill. Hill to get the $650,000 that they spent on the first trial back. But we don't buy that. We think something bigger is going on, and we're going to find out. 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 Pharrell, research support provided by Beth Braden, audio production support provided by Jamie Hoffman and Grace Hills. Case file management by Kate Thomas. Learn more about our mission and membership at LunaSharkmedia.com. Interruptions provided by Luna and Joe Pesky. Alec Murdoch, I need police and an ambulance immediately. Murdoch, Death in the Family, official podcast is here. I'm joining Patricia Arquette, Jason Clark, and the cast to uncover

all things Murdoch. Family first. To unravel the story piece by piece was really surprising because you don't want to believe it. Murdoch, Death in the Family. Family Official podcast, Wednesdays, and stream Murdoch, Death in the Family on Hulu, and Hulu on Disney Plus for bundle subscribers. Terms Apply.