Murdaugh Murders Podcast - TSP #158 [Part Two] - South Carolina’s Warning To Whistleblowers + What’s Happening In the Alex Murdaugh v Becky Hill Lawsuit?

Starting point is 00:00:05 My name is Mandy Matney, and this is part two of episode 158 of 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 Farrell. Okay, so I need to point something out that's really bugging me, because y'all know me. I don't have it in me to just let things go. In the Beach v. Parker case, I was fined $5,000 by the state of South Carolina, specifically to, quote, deter similar conduct in the future and promote respect for

Starting point is 00:00:43 the law. The similar conduct that they are speaking of is that I showed up for my deposition at a place where I felt safe, unlike the office that Greg Parker's attorneys chose and strangely refused to budge on, the one where the felon promised to show up and how I dared to use my first Amendment rights to call out the attorneys in this case who I believe specifically use the court system to harass, demean, and defame me. Literally, my social media post calling out this corrupt system that refused to acknowledge my right as a non-party in this case to feel safe. Those are being used against me in the court order as evidence of my intent to defy the court. And for that, I was handed a $5,000 fine by Judge R. Keith Kelly.

Starting point is 00:01:35 And you know what gets me? The state of South Carolina, find me, a journalist known around the world for exposing the corruption in the S.E. Legal System. $5,000 to, quote, promote respect for the court. That is more than they find Dick Harputlian, who literally pointed a gun at prosecutors during the Elyke Murdoch trial and joked about wanting to shoot them. The state fined Dick Harputtlyan $0 to, quote, deter similar conduct in the future and promote respect for the law. The state of South Carolina find me more than they find Corey Fleming. You know, Ehrlich Murdoch's best friend who pleaded guilty to using his law license to help Elyke Murdoch steal more than $5 million from their grieving clients

Starting point is 00:02:25 who desperately needed that money, specifically he admitted to helping steal $4.3 million from the Satterfields and $1 million from the Pinkneys, all while he was acting as their attorney, an officer of the court sworn to serve his clients. The state fined Corey $0 to, quote, deter similar conduct in the future and promote respect for the law. The state of South Carolina find me more than they find Becky Hill. The former clerk of court, infamous for her fame-driven misdeeds in the Murdoch trial, who was sentenced to zero prison time

Starting point is 00:03:05 after pleading guilty to misconduct in office, obstruction of justice, and perjury. The state fined her $0 to, quote, deter similar conduct in the future and promote respect for the law. Becky, a former public official who the South Carolina Supreme Court basically blamed for their decision granting Elyke Murdoch a new trial that will likely cost state taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Starting point is 00:03:33 Nope, not a fine for her. And finally, I was fined, get this, more than Ehrlich Murdoch was by the state of South Carolina. Ehrlich effing Murdoch, the guy who used his law license to lie, steal, and cheap, the guy who owes over $1.6 million in unpaid South Carolina state taxes. Elyke Murdoch, the lawyer slash officer of the court who used his position of power to steal over $12 million from his vulnerable clients who had tragically each lost a loved one. Elyke Murdoch, who is the poster boy for South Carolina corruption. The state, bind that man, $0 to $1 to.

Starting point is 00:04:21 deter similar conduct in the future and promote respect for the law. Now really, think about that for a minute. What kind of message does the state of South Carolina really want to send when they find a journalist who was simply advocating for her safety and trying to get the court to allow her to be deposed in a location where her stalker wouldn't be more than they find some of their most despicable criminals who misuse their position of power in ways that hurt people and costs a lot of tax dollar money. In my opinion, I hope every whistleblower in the state is paying attention to what this order is saying. Whistleblowers will be punished more than criminals in the state of South Carolina. Which brings us to Becky Hill today. Okay, so y'all know our stance on Becky Hill.

Starting point is 00:05:20 On one hand, we agree that she ruined everything by giving Team Murdoch a little lump of sourdough starter, which they have since made thousands of loaves of bread out of. But on the other hand, we think that most of the claims made against Becky are hyperboized and absolutely tainted, meaning no one in this farce is credible. First, we think the Egg Lady juror, aka Miss Myra, juror 785, Crosby herself, is a reckless and arrogant and inconsistent narrator of her own sad tale. She routinely flip-flops between saying that she had yet to make up her mind in the Murdoch case and wanted to hear closing arguments before deciding and saying that had she been

Starting point is 00:06:09 on that final jury, she wouldn't have budged an inch on her not guilty vote. Then there's the transcript of Egg Lady juror telling this to judge Newman on February 28th, just two days before the trial was over in their in-camera hearing, which no one but us ever seems to talk about, by the way. Here's David as Judge Newman and Grace as juror Myra Crosby, reading from the transcript, which was contained in the state's response to Ehrlich Murdoch's motion for a new trial in November 23. So has Clerk Hill discussed the case with any of any of the jurors? Has the clerk discussed anything about this case with anyone on that jury?

Starting point is 00:06:57 Not that I'm aware of. Oh, interesting. Grace, will you read paragraph two of Myra's affidavit, which Team Murdoch took in August 2023? Two. During the presentation of the defense case, after President's Day, but before Mr. Murdoch testified his own defense. Colleton County clerk of court Rebecca Hill told the jurors quote not to be fooled by end quote the evidence presented to the jury by Mr. Murdoch's attorneys.

Starting point is 00:07:26 Well, that's just odd. She told Judge Newman that Becky had not spoken about the case with the other jurors as far as she knew, but then she changed that story right around when Dick Harpoonian and Phil Barber were going dick or treating at jurors' houses in the summer of 2023. Like we keep saying, the claims against Becky, the ones the Supreme Court based their decision on, are tainted, and their decision does not change that. The Egg Lady wants us all to think she was this impartial juror who had some questions about his guilt, while also asserting that Becky Hill just knew she was pro-Ellic and therefore targeted her. And not for nothing, but the Egg Lady is part of this dubious crew of idiots who think Her removal from the jury was part of some plot involving us, and of course, Mark Tinsley,

Starting point is 00:08:20 they are so convinced of that, and instead of correcting them, Team Murdoch seems to foment that idea, to feed that sourdose starter from Becky. By entertaining the theory without actually saying they're entertaining it, notice how Team Murdoch never says our names when they refer to juror 785's removal and the potential other people involved in that. There's a reason for that. They need to keep their idiot base energized by their hate of us so that they'll keep pushing their pro-ellic narratives.

Starting point is 00:08:52 But they can't name us. They cannot. Though we wish they would because I would love nothing more than to take Dick Harpoonian's vacation home from him, which I would immediately fill with the slobrious dogs, furious cats, and endless supplies of steak, chicken, and hairball dinners for all of them. I would also seize his entire silk tie collection, which I would then donate to a commune for them to use this toilet paper. After saging everything, of course, I can't have that bad juju being spread around. Actually, you know, post Greg Parker and Mark Moore and Debbie Barbier, I have kind of a nostalgic spot for Harpo.

Starting point is 00:09:39 Ah, I sure do miss the days when lawyers just cracked inappropriate jokes. and hyperboized the truth and manipulated headlines for their client's benefits. But the plan doesn't change. So go ahead and say our names, boys, and see what happens to those silky ties. Anyway, in addition to the Egg Lady, there's Juror Z or Juror 630.

Starting point is 00:10:04 The sad sack, dear in the headlights, juror who voted in favor of Alex's guilt, testified to the court that she came to her decision on her own and based her verdict. on testimony and evidence. Suddenly changed her stance in the summer of the dicker treating, but could not fully commit to that changed stance and still maintained that she changed her vote

Starting point is 00:10:25 because she felt pressured by the other jurors. Then she went on national TV and had an episode in which she appeared to have forgotten her lines and she was unable to say why she thought Ehrlich was not guilty or even why she voted guilty. She couldn't seem to muster an enthusiastic because of Becky Hill. Then she went on the stand in January 2024 and told former Chief Justice Jean Toll that she voted guilty because of Becky Hill saying not to be fooled by Alex's body

Starting point is 00:10:56 language. But then she changed that when Chief Justice Toll was like, and this affidavit in which you say the other jurors pressured you and that's why you voted guilty, is that true or is what you're saying today true? And Jersey was like, oh, the affidavit is more true. Hello people, Jersey, the one juror who says she was influenced by Becky's alleged comments can't get her own story straight. Then there's the clerk of court, Rhonda McAleveen, the head of the state's county clerks of court association, who sure did have a lot to say about Becky's behavior during the trial after the fact.

Starting point is 00:11:34 She never thought to report to Judge Newman the disturbing things she allegedly heard and allegedly saw during the week she helped Becky's. during the trial? I mean, right there, we have credibility issues. Anyway, despite all that, the state Supreme Court made its ruling overturning Ellick's conviction this past May. And though T. Murdoch would say, let's not relitigate the facts here. It is important that we all keep this in mind as context. The complaints against Becky were made by people lacking credibility in our opinions. And more than that, Becky has never been charged with jury tampering. In fact, The 11th Circuit solicitor Rick Hubbard was assigned by the Attorney General's office to prosecute Becky's case.

Starting point is 00:12:17 Hubbard spoke about his decision not to charge Becky with jury tampering during Becky's plea hearing in December 2025. David, will you read the part where Hubbard explains why there was no jury tampering charge? There were three jurors who alleged improper contact. These three jurors, particularly 785 and 730, have given multiple and different accounts, Mrs. Hill's conduct. All of them have their own variation of what they say happened, and all of them, at least in post interview, specifically 785 and 630, have changed somewhat in what they have said. None of them brought these issues up before the court at the time. This information came out after defense attorneys for Mr. Murdoch were looking and talking to jurors. Nothing improper

Starting point is 00:13:06 on their part. They have a right to do that. As Your Honor knows, If I were to prosecute this case, all three of these jurors would be my key witnesses, and the inconsistencies would be insurmountable. By three jurors, Hubbard means Egg Lady, Jersey, and an alternate who never rendered a verdict. Okay, so why are we bringing this up? Whenever we talk about Becky Hill, whose actions we do not defend because she shouldn't have been such a slot fest and made herself so stupidly vulnerable to the Murdoch team. We do think that context is important.

Starting point is 00:13:45 Which brings us to Murdoch v. Hill, the federal lawsuit Elyke Murdoch filed against Becky Hill in federal court this past May right after his verdict was overturned by the South Carolina Supreme Court. As we have shared with you, Ehrlich wants at least $600,000 from Becky, which is interesting. That $600,000 was taken from ELEC's 401k plan in an agreement with the boat crash defendants and other financial victims of ELEC. Essentially, they couldn't get his $2 million retirement fund as an asset unless Ehrlich cashed it out. So the agreement was to open the assets up to the victims

Starting point is 00:14:28 and allow him to keep $600,000 of it, which his attorneys said was for a flat fee for experts. Y'all remember the experts who testified on Elyke's behalf in the first trial? If they cost $600,000, then we're all doing something wrong in life. That said, Eleg believes he is owed this money from Becky because she is guilty of, and I quote, criminal jury tampering. Which, did we miss something? You heard what Solicitor Rick Hubbard said at Becky's plea hearing in December. He also told the courts this.

Starting point is 00:15:07 Our standard of review is very different from the one the court will take. For us, we were looking at, did action take place that rose to the level of a crime? And if there was action there, could we prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Meaning, while the South Carolina Supreme Court might have been persuaded by the dodgy witnesses against Becky, Rick Hubbard did not think that he could get 12 people to find them credible. So why are ELEC's attorneys calling it, quote, criminal jury tampering? Likely because jury tampering itself is a crime, and now they get to add that, despite Becky never being charged with that. That said, let's talk a little bit about the latest filings in this case.

Starting point is 00:15:55 For one, we want to note that Dick Harputlian's associate Bill Barber is the one submitting the briefs on Ehrlich's behalf. This is interesting for a couple reasons. One is that Phil used to be the law clerk for Judge Richard Gergel, the judge in this case and in most of the Murdoch federal cases. I do want to point out that neither Phil nor Judge Gergel are South Carolina School of Law graduates, which, you know, is kind of refreshing, they are both on the outside of that home-cook South Carolina legal community. No offense to the wonderful lawyers who graduated from USC.

Starting point is 00:16:33 But Phil Barber graduated from Duke's University of Law School, and so did Judge Richard Gergel. Another thing that bonds the two. Also notable is that on December 17, 2025, Judge Gergel appears to have had a hilarious time at Buxton's bookstore in Charleston, where, according to pictures on Dick's Facebook page, show him laughing it up with Dick Harputland during a book signing for Dick's book, Dig Me a Grave, the inside story of the serial killer who seduce the South. Lord help us if there's a movie version of that book and they do not cast George Clooney as Dick. I don't think we can take another public temper tantrum from him about jury from Parks and Rec portraying him on screen. Okay, so that all is a little concerning. This is not

Starting point is 00:17:25 to suggest that Judge Gergel can't keep things straight, but connection is connection. Now, Judge Gergel wasn't always the judge assigned to this case. It was originally assigned to Judge Cameron McGowan Curry. And here's what's interesting about that. Elek filed his complaint on May 17, along with a set of interrogatories, in which they answered this question. Is this action related in whole or in part to any other matter filed in this district, whether civil or criminal?

Starting point is 00:17:58 counsel should disclose any cases that may be related regardless of whether or not they are still pending. Whether cases are related such that they should be assigned to a single judge will be determined by the clerk of court based on a determination of whether the cases arise from the same or identical transactions, happenings, or events. Involve identical parties or property or, for any other reason that would entail substantial duplication of law, labor if heard by different judges. You would think that that answer would have been right, so Ehrlich Murdoch pleaded guilty to 22 federal financial crimes in 2023 and Judge Gergel presided. But no, that's not how they answered. David, will you read this answer? This action may be related to Murdoch v. May, 322 CV-608 CMC. That action was a civil rights action arising

Starting point is 00:19:00 from plaintiff's pre-trial confinement during the same prosecution that is at issue in this action, although the underlying civil rights claims are not related, nor are the defendants. So, first, they got the name of their own case wrong. I'm not kidding. It's Murdoch versus Moy, not May, as in Washava Moy, who was the interim director of the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center, a.k.a. the Richland County Jail, where Ehrlich was held until after his murder trial. The case was filed in February 2022, but Ehrlich sued Moy in June 2022 after she took over for the original defendant,

Starting point is 00:19:43 the previous interim director who was named Shane Kitchens. Judge McGowan Curry presided over this case, which you might remember as Ehrlich's attempt to stop the jail from releasing his recorded jailhouse calls to us. say us because we were the first and only media foying for that at the time. He lost that case. Sorry, I still can't get over the fact that they misspelled their own case caption. That said, and I'm not a lawyer or a legal strategist, but why mention the case that they lost? Is that because Was Chavamoy was a public employee and this was a civil case? Why not also mention the case Judge Gergel handled? Curious. Anyway, The next day, Judge McGowan Curry issued an order determining that Murdoch versus Moy was not similar enough in facts for her to preside over the case.

Starting point is 00:20:38 Also that day, the court reassigned the case from her to Judge Gergel. Is this just one of those things? Or was Team Murdochuk trying to give the appearance of wanting Judge McGowan Curry and, oh, shucks, you're right. We're better off with Judge Gergel, who is Phil's mentor and Dick Harputleon's book signing pal. Now, back to the claim. Ehrlich thinks that Becky owes him at least $600,000. He claims that this amount of money got wasted on the first trial because of her, you know, quote, criminal jury tampering.

Starting point is 00:21:11 Elex's complaint contains some oldies but goodies when it comes to misleading statements such as that Becky fabricated or manufactured a Facebook post. Again, what Becky is guilty of there is sticking her nose in places it did not belong and not having the wisdom. him to not speak about that which she does not know because as we all found out later Becky was half right there was a Facebook post from a juror's ex-husband on the Walterborough word of mouth page and that post did articulate that a juror was allegedly

Starting point is 00:21:44 drinking and talking about the case that post was made by someone claiming to be the ex-husband of juror 630 aka juror z that's neither here nor there though but accuracy does count She didn't fabricate a post, which she seems guilty of, is not reporting that post to the judge. She didn't bring it up until hearing that juror 785 was outed as talking about the case outside of court. And math, presumably not being Becky Hill's strong point, unless it comes to giving herself bonuses from federal grant money, not meant for that, Becky decided those two things must add up, and therefore it was time to mention the post. And we'll be right back. Raise your hand if you're still wearing the same glasses you've had for three years because

Starting point is 00:22:37 replacing them feels like an unnecessary expense. I was that person, y'all. Scratches manageable. Loose screw? I overlooked that. Then I found Zinny and realized I had been dramatically overthinking this whole thing. I ordered a pair of prescription frames from Zinney. Went online, picked out a style I actually loved, entered my prescription, customized my lenses,

Starting point is 00:22:58 and they were right there at my door. the whole thing cost a fraction of what I would have paid at a traditional optician. You just stop justifying the expense and start thinking about a work pair, a fun pair, and a pair for the beach. Upgrade today with Zeni. Go to zenni.com slash podcast and use code podcast 15 for 15% off your first order plus free shipping on all U.S. orders over $65. These styles sell out, so don't sit on it. That's z-en-n-I.com. slash podcast. promo code podcast 15.

Starting point is 00:23:37 Oh, two more things about ELEC's attorney's fees. Sorry, his flat fee expert costs. Let's not forget that Dick and Jim have both been on the record as fumbling their way out of the question. Where is ELEC's money coming from to pay them for this next go-around? The answer to that has been left at, we have a job to finish, and I'm already rich, neither of which actually answers the question. In their response to Becky's motion to dismiss, they contend that round two of Eleg's murder trial is going to be even more expensive than round one.

Starting point is 00:24:12 How is that possible, you ask? Great question. I mean, we're in pretty good shape for round two because we've already lived round one. It's called institutional knowledge. We asked a Cup of Justice alumni attorney, Eric Bland, about this, and he said that experts can be very expensive. in fact, more expensive than we think. And that Team Murdoch has already said they will have eight new ones. Again, we all remember what those first go-around experts were like for $600,000.

Starting point is 00:24:43 So maybe that's right. I don't know. What I do know is that Becky Hill's response to Alex's complaint is this. You're welcome, sweetie. Now, if off. I mean, that's our interpretation of it anyway. It's obviously put in a much more academic way than that. In her motion to dismiss, Becky offers up several defenses, and I'm going to totally oversimplify

Starting point is 00:25:06 them here for comprehension. Apologies to legal nerds out there who really want to hear the nitty-gritty. One argument Becky has is that she has nothing to do with Alex's expenditure of $600,000 in his first trial and therefore can't be held accountable for that. She says he was going to spend that money anyway, regardless of the outcome. And two, how can he claim damages? for the second trial when the second trial hasn't happened. Meaning, she's arguing the issue isn't right for judgment yet. Meaning, get back to me when you spend $600,000 on the second trial and then we'll talk. Oh, and three, I got you a second chance at not being called a murderer,

Starting point is 00:25:47 and that feels more valuable than your $600,000. Literally, y'all. Her team quotes from a summary judgment in Towns v. City of New York from 1999, a case about illegal search and seizure. The quote, Plaintiff has already reaped an enormous benefit by the illegal search to which he was subjected, his freedom.

Starting point is 00:26:10 Which is funny because it's true. For all of Team Murdoch's drama and outrage that's finely tuned for the headlines, Becky was their golden goose. Sorry, not their golden goose. She's much more like a sourdough starter. The amorpherson. glob of fermenting flour and water that needs to be tended to and fed in order to grow it

Starting point is 00:26:34 into the thing that you wanted to be. And in our opinions, what they wanted Becky to be was someone who felt so special and so important. So it would go to her head. So the attention, an alleged encouragement from Joe McCola, for instance, would register as a privilege of her position. And we're not saying that T. Murdoch manufactured anything. We're saying that sourdough starter, when tended to, make sourdough bread. And Becky, juror 785, juror Z, and old Rhonda McElvane were the perfect small-town messes to parade in front of the state Supreme Court. Okay, again, so two major arguments.

Starting point is 00:27:18 One is that Ehrlich says, you ruined my first trial, and now I want the money that I spent for that on my second trial. And the other is, I allegedly ruined. your first trial and your conviction got overturned, so what are you complaining about? Becky not only argues that Elek has no right to ask for attorney fees in defending himself against murder charges that she did not bring upon him, she says that a mistrial was a real potential with the first trial anyways, and therefore the second trial might have existed absent her alleged actions, meaning 11 of the 12 jurors who were

Starting point is 00:27:58 voted guilty, said that Becky did not influence their vote, and nine of them said that they never heard Becky say anything. And though juror Z says that Becky influenced her vote, she also said she voted the way that she did because of pressure from her fellow jurors. So what exactly are we to conclude from that? That she would have voted differently if Becky had not allegedly said, watch his body language, and don't be fooled by him? Maybe? And if she had, oh look, it's a mistrial. And you think the Attorney General wasn't

Starting point is 00:28:36 going to elect to have a retrial? Please, get real. Now, regardless of what the Supreme Court thinks about little old Becky, she's saying that Ehrlich is looking at a guilty verdict or mistrial regardless of whether or not she existed. Meaning she's saying Ehrlich, you were either going to rot in prison as a convicted murderer or you get a second chance at exoneration, which would necessitate you spending more money on your defense. In addition to that, Team Becky makes the point that besides all that, y'all are claiming that her alleged jury interference began after President's Day on February 20th, which means 11 days before the verdict. Isn't that what Egg Lady juror said in her affidavit? After President's Day, Becky started coming into the jury room talking about the case.

Starting point is 00:29:29 I mean, of course, eight days after President's Day and five days after Ellick took the stand, Judge Newman specifically asked Egg Lady if Becky had spoken about the case to Annie Jurors, and Egg Lady said not that she was aware of. So Team Becky makes this point and then breaks down the cost. She says $600,000 over 40 days of Elyke's Murdoch trial is $15,000 a day. If Becky didn't interfere with Ehrlich's case until February 20th, and even though they think Ehrlich is due $0 from her, at most, she's just on the hook for $165,000, which is interesting, right?

Starting point is 00:30:13 Team Murdoch did not think so. Here is how they responded. David, will you give this one a read? Ms. Hill's theory that Mr. Murdoch is entitled only to a pro-rata portion of his defense costs from the time her jury tampering allegedly began mid-trial to the verdict is odd. And why Ms. Hill believes that argument could have any bearing on standing is incomprehensible. When Ms. Hill's tampering actually began is a subject for discovery, Whether damages should be $600,000 or $165,000 or some other number manifestly is not a question to be decided on a motion to dismiss,

Starting point is 00:30:58 and certainly not a challenge to standing. Nominal damages provide standing. Why Ms. Hill believes that tampering with the jury only corrupts a discrete fraction of the trial is difficult to understand. Yeah, they really did. like that. I have to say this, though, Philip Barber's writing is truly entertaining. I cannot help but read it using James Bader's voice when he played stuff, the bored, rich, Miami-Vice suit-wearing, high school student in Pretty and Pink. Here's David with some of his more pointed lines. Quote, having placed her fingers on the scales of justice for profit, Ms. Hill now asks this court

Starting point is 00:31:44 to hold that she may do so without consequence. She cannot. She fabricated a Facebook post, interrogated, and lied to a juror about it, and manufactured a pretext to have that juror who, quote, had not made up her mind, end quote, removed. At least one juror testified that Ms. Hill's conduct influenced her guilty verdict. That one is super funny because, one, I guess Phil ignored the part of the Egg Ladies' book where she says she wouldn't have budged one inch on her not guilty vote had she stayed on that jury. But two, he puts, had not made up her mind in quotes. And three, at least one juror testified that Ms. Hill's conduct influenced her guilty verdict. Uh, no, Phil. Only one juror testified to that and to such limited effect that it necessitated a third in the moment made to order affidavit from her

Starting point is 00:32:41 to clarify what her stance was on the stand. Sorry, go ahead, David. Would you read some more excerpts from Phil Spiling? Although arguments regarding the availability of attorney's fees or any other measure of compensatory damages are not relevant to the motion to dismiss, Mr. Murdoch nevertheless will briefly address this irrelevant issue because Ms. Hill devoted nearly 20 pages of briefing to it,

Starting point is 00:33:08 and he does not want to appear to concede that Ms. Hill's announcement, analysis has merit at any stage of these proceedings. Mr. Murdoch seeks recoupment of money he actually lost because a court officer secretly rigged his trial. His pleaded injury is that the $600,000 he withdrew from his sole remaining asset to defend a constitutionally fair trial was rendered worthless because Ms. Hill corrupted the first attempt at trial, forcing its vacate. The upcoming second trial, which will cost significantly more than the first, is the necessary

Starting point is 00:33:49 fair trial caused by the indictments. Ms. Hill caused the need for two trials to occur, but the additional trial she caused is the first trial, the legal nullity with a vacated verdict. Not the more expensive retrial that presumably will result in a constitutionally valid verdict. It is not likely a difficult question. question for a jury to find it foreseeable that secretly corrupting a six-week trial for personal profit would cause injury to the litigants. Editorializing to jurors about the defendant's guilt, holding secret conversations with the foreperson, fabricating a Facebook post, interrogating and

Starting point is 00:34:32 lying to a juror, and engineering that juror's removal are not discretionary judgments forming part of a clerk of court's caretaking functions. They are the antithesis of any legitimate clerk's role. Ms. Hill's argument that, quote, some contact with the jury, end quote, was part of her duties does not meet this burden, that she was permitted to hand juror's coffee does not immunize her for secretly urging them to convict.

Starting point is 00:35:07 I mean, that one is just savage. One more, David. Ms. Hill knew her conduct was unlawful, which is why she concealed her conduct from the judge, instructed jurors not to discuss it, lied to a juror, fabricated evidence, and later committed perjury during the evidentiary hearing about her conduct. One of Becky's arguments is that because this case is so unique and so unprecedented, that she couldn't possibly have known that her alleged behavior would be seen as interference, which I think is her weakest argument because, come on now, Becky, get real.

Starting point is 00:35:47 Anyway, another thing that happened in this case while we were battling vampires for the past few months is that the judge signed a confidentiality order to seal discovery in this case, which we don't love that. But Becky appears to have agreed to it, which is quite ironic, given the access she gave to certain members of the media to sealed evidence in Ellick's trial during Elex trial. I guess what's good for the Becky is also not good for the Becky. Motions to dismiss are often not granted, as a lot of you know. Judges have to look at the complaint as a solitary thing and the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Basically, they have to assume that what the plaintiffs are arguing is true. It's hard to know how Judge Gergel

Starting point is 00:36:34 will regard Becky's arguments, but the question comes down to, does the law support Elegman? or not getting compensated by Becky for his overturned conviction? Or will the court understand that there were only two likely outcomes to Ehrlich's first trial? Given the juror testimony in January 2024, Ehrlich was either going to be found guilty or there was going to be a mistrial. And if there were a mistrial, which Becky ostensibly prevented from happening by supposedly influencing juror Z's guilty vote, again, we just don't believe juror Z when she says Becky did, then doesn't that mean Eleg would be spending this money anyway? Honestly, we cannot wait to hear the judge's thoughts on this.

Starting point is 00:37:19 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 in membership at lunasharkmedia.com. Interruptions provided by Luna and Joe Pesky.

Murdaugh Murders Podcast - TSP #158 [Part Two] - South Carolina’s Warning To Whistleblowers + What’s Happening In the Alex Murdaugh v Becky Hill Lawsuit?

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