Murdaugh Murders Podcast - TSP #33 - A Rapist and Killer Let Off Easy + Can the Justice System Withstand the Weight of Alex Murdaugh?

Episode Date: January 11, 2024

On today’s show, True Sunlight Co-hosts Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell discuss Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin’s latest filing with the court ahead of the Jan. 16 status conference in Columbia. Did Team Murdaugh just admit the evidence against Alex in the murder case was strong? Are they admitting they don’t have evidence of jury tampering? Also on today’s show, Mandy and Liz talk about a 1988 Cold Case and the man who served time for killing a 60-year-old Hilton Head Island woman. The case is one that is particularly frustrating because of how — after being given a chance to show that violence against women matters to them — the 14th Circuit Solicitor’s Office declined to further prosecute a man with a history of violence, killing and sexual assault. Let's get into it... In January we’re offering your first month of Soak Up The Sun membership for 50% off and our SUNscribers will get an email this Friday for 50% off their first three months of Soak Up The Sun Membership. So join our email list to get that special offer for first time members. Join Luna Shark Premium today at Lunashark.Supercast.com. Premium Members also get access to searchable case files, written articles with documents, case photos, episode videos and exclusive live experiences with our hosts on lunasharkmedia.com all in one place. CLICK HERE to learn more: https://bit.ly/3BdUtOE. And for those just wanting ad-free listening without all the other great content, we now offer ad-free listening on Apple Podcast through a subscription to Luna Shark Plus on the Apple Podcasts App. Or become a member on YouTube for exclusive videos and ad-free episodes. SUNscribe to our free email list to get alerts on bonus episodes, calls to action, new shows and updates. CLICK HERE to learn more: https://bit.ly/3KBMJcP Visit our new events page Lunasharkmedia.com/events where you can learn about the upcoming in-person and virtual appearances from hosts! And a special thank you to our sponsors: Microdose.com, PELOTON, and VUORI. Use promo code "MANDY" for a special offer! *This episode contains strong language For current & accurate updates: TrueSunlight.com facebook.com/TrueSunlightPodcast/ Instagram.com/TrueSunlightPod Twitter.com/mandymatney Twitter.com/elizfarrell youtube.com/@LunaSharkMedia Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From the creative team behind the Brutalist and starring Academy Award nominee Amanda Seifred in a career best performance, Searchlight Pictures presents The Testament of Anne Lee. With rave reviews from the Venice Film Festival, this bold and magnetic musical epic tells the story inspired by a true legend. Anne Lee, founder of the radical religious movement, The Shakers, The Testament of Anne Lee. Exclusive Toronto engagement January 16th in theaters everywhere January 23rd. I don't know what Justice Jean Toll will decide in Elyke Murdoch's case, but make no mistake. This is the most important month in South Carolina's judicial system. Will it forever be the land of no consequences for dangerous men who refuse to follow the rules?

Will we continue to allow convicted criminals to terrorize public trust and safety? or is it finally time for change, for real change? My name is Mandy Matney. 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 Farrell. It is the second week of January, and wow. The month has already been just as dramatic and absurd as I would expect it. It's been very clear to us in the last few weeks that Team Murdoch and their trolls are working overtime as we get closer to the moment when Justice Toll will decide Elyke Murdoch's in really the entire justice system's fate.

This is the most important month, not just in the Murdoch case, but in the South Carolina justice system. They have called in their biggest gun in one of the most legendary legal minds in our state, Justice Jean Toll, to tell. save the system. But saving it from whom is the question. Is it from Ehrlich Murdoch and men like him who can use lies, money, and legal trickery to wrestle the system into submission? Or are they saving it for Ehrlich Murdoch and those like him? Someone who maintains that his constitutional rights were violated at the hands of a messy and foolish small-town clerk who got swept up in the chaos of the limelight during the biggest murder-trial. trial in South Carolina's history.

I keep seeing people, particularly those in the media, saying things like, if Becky is guilty of what Dick and Jim are accusing her of, then Ehrlich Murdoch deserves a new trial. Everyone deserves a fair trial. And they say, I know he was guilty, but he deserves a fair trial. Well, we hear you. And we understand how sacred this right is, not just individually, but of maintaining the integrity of the system as a whole. And before you start sending your angry emails to me, let's think about this. Does the system really have that much integrity right now? What are we trying

to protect exactly? Are we trying to protect the system that allowed thrice accused rapist Bowen Turner off without serious prison time? The system that allowed Carmen Mullen to still be a judge after she was caught on tape, trying to convince law enforcement to arrest a mentally ill man for a crime he did not commit. Are we trying to protect the system that allowed Representative Todd Rutherford

to get a murderer out of prison 15 years early under extremely suspicious circumstances? Are we really trying to protect the system that allowed Solicter Duffy Stone to give Ehrlich the power? To give Ehrlich the solicitor's badge in blue lights on his very,

vehicle with little to show of what he did to earn that right. Are we really trying to protect the system that allowed Solicitor Duffy Stone to go back to business as usual after he was suspiciously involved in the Murdoch murder's investigation when he had major conflicts of interest? I could go on and on and on, but y'all get the point. We need to take a good look at our system and ask ourselves tough questions about its integrity before we start moving mountains to protect it on behalf of Elyke Murdoch. If you believe Elyke Murdoch is guilty of the murders and the financial crimes, wouldn't the system delivering justice in this case mean that he deserves life behind bars?

Let's be clear here. We are talking about the current allegations of jury tampering. If evidence comes out this month that Becky's behavior if you actually influenced the jury, I would understand the cries for a new trial. But now, Alec Murdoch was found guilty in a trial where he had the luxury of a multi-million dollar defense that made million-dollar mistakes. Why should he get a do-over just because he can afford a team of people who are really good at finding ways to exploit the tiniest bits of truth and scream about them until the facts become

so distorted, no one knows what is real and what isn't. And what about Maggie and Paul? What does justice mean for them? And why don't we hear that question enough? There are people grieving and silence because to remind the world that there are victims here is somehow an affront to the Murdox. And what about those who have stuck their necks out

to speak out against Elyke Murdoch? Shouldn't the system, if it truly cares about the greater good, do more to protect them than ELEC. And what about public safety? I've noticed this too often in South Carolina. Public safety becomes an afterthought for too many who work in the legal system. Is it because a lot of the men making the laws? I'm talking about the dudes with lots of money and lots of power.

Is it because they aren't worried that much about public safety? After all, they are less likely to be victims of violence. crimes. The case I want to focus on today is a perfect example of our failed system that simply doesn't take crimes against women seriously. I want to start off today's episode by talking about a case that both Liz and I covered before Elyke Murdoch decided to kill Maggie and Paul in 2021. It is about a man named Echran Frazier, who unfortunately, but predictably, came up on our radar again recently. In many ways, Eckron's case has contributed to our drive to fight for victims by bringing sunlight to areas of the justice system that have existed in the dark corner for far too

long. Let me tell you about this case and why it's another example of why it is so important to call out these problems. I know that the 14th Circuit Solicitor's Office would rather we not bring those things up or question any of their prosecutorial decisions. But I think y'all know by now exactly what we think of the job Duffy Stone has done. Stone is up for election next year, by the way, and we really hope there is an optimistic lawyer in the low country willing to challenge him. And if you know someone who is, please reach out to us. We understand that the job of the top prosecutor is a tough one, especially in the low country where everything is so messy. But I hope there is someone out there willing to do their part to change it.

Duffy, like the Murdox when they were in office, has grown used to running unopposed, and his track record shows it. Case in point, Ekron O'Dell Fraser, who will turn 60 in February. Frazier has an alarming history of violence against women, And yet, the 14th Circuit Solicitor's Office, let them off easy three times now. To start off, I want to say, I believe that people can be rehabilitated. I believe that they can change and be better, that they can learn from their prison time and devote the rest of their lives to being upstanding citizens.

But I also believe that when someone shows you who they are, you need to believe them, especially when who they are is a danger to society. And I believe that there's a system that is supposed to help keep the community safer, but that system continues to fail its people. So let's talk about the first incident Frazier was involved in in 1982, when, as an 18-year-old, Frazier admittedly attacked and raped a 65-year-old woman at the beach where she was vacationing with her family on Hiltonhead Island. The crime was an unforgettable nightmare for women on Hiltonhead at the time.

Around 7.45 in the morning, this woman was swimming at the Port Royal Beach when Frasier hit her in the back of the head, shoved her into the dunes, and violently raped her to the point that her ribs cracked. A group of beachgoers, along with the woman's daughter, heard the screams. The beachgoers chased Frazier to a golf course where he hid in the woods for hours before he was eventually arrested by Beaufort County deputies. He admitted to the rape and guess who gave him a sweetheart deal. Randolph Buster Murdoch Jr.

A.K.A. Alex's grandfather hooked him up with a 10-year sentence that he only had to serve a fraction of. He was released after just five years. The excuse given at the time of the decision was that the woman didn't speak English and had gone back to Germany. But according to our research, the woman was willing to testify. Buster Murdoch decided it would be easier to strike a plea deal and move on. And guess what happened? Just six years later, after the violent rape on the beach, Frazier's violence against older women struck again.

But this time, he didn't let his victim live to testify. In 1988, 60-year-old Bertha Newman's body was found behind a church on Hiltonhead Island. This week, Liz and I sat down to talk with Bob Romage, the Beaufort County Cold Case Detective, who solved Bertha's case 12 years later. Or he solved part of it. We will let Bob, who was now public safety director for the town of Hilton Head, explain. Okay. March 1988, a newspaper delivery woman, Bertha Neiman, was on her regular routes, which was in the middle of the night, early morning hours, on the north end of Hilton Island.

The next morning, her boss noticed she wasn't at work and called the sheriff's office because that was not like Bertha Neiman to not show off work. It's a very consistent, regular person. He called in a report. shortly thereafter they found her vehicle off of Marston Road. It had been abandoned. I believe the doors were open in the vehicle. It was a van, which carried newspapers in. And while they were doing that, a caretaker of New Church of Christ on Spanish Wales Road found a body behind the church. And it was, in fact, Bertha Neiman, she was deceased of a parent, multiple gunshot ones. Bertha wasn't just killed, though. It appeared that she had also been sexually assault.

Well, the position of her clothing when they found her body led them to believe either she was dragged out of the vehicle or somebody sexually assaulted, but also during forensic got autopsy, they were able to determine that she had, there was sexual activity and proximity to her death. So it was highly suspected she was a victim of sexual assault and murder at that point. Persons of interest were developed early on the investigation. Of course, Hilton was a smaller place back then in 1988. So you had your regular, um, recital. of us that they would always come up in the investigations and one was Ekron Frazier. And the interesting thing about Ekron Frazier, he had sexually assaulted and been convicted of sexually assaulting a German tourist in 1982, which he did approximately five years in prison. But upon his release, she identified him after the sexual assault, physically identified him. So it was a great case.

He pled to it. He did a couple years, like I said, four or five years. release was put on the sexual offender registry at that point, and he became a suspect under Barthenema case as well. Ekron Fraser was in his 20s at the time and seemed to target older women. When Bob began looking into Beaver County's oldest unsolved cases more than 20 years ago, he worked closely with Sled to take advantage of the latest forensic technology available at the time. Unfortunately, though, it wasn't advanced enough. while law enforcement was able to develop a profile from semen evidence in the case,

it ended up not being a complete profile. In the meantime, though, Bob went to get a DNA sample from Frazier. In addition to Frazier's history, the case file showed that investigators in 1988 had considered him to be a person of interest. And I visited a prison that Eckron was actually staying at the time. and interviewed him, but in addition to that, I went through his cell with a contraband officer at that prison. And in the prison, we found a cardboard piece of cardboard with handwriting all over it that had women's names, dates, and locations. And one was Bertha, 1988, 1989, Spanish Wells.

So that really stuck out as something. You know, just it's a building blog. But you get into the informants also providing information that Eckerman admitted to them that he killed Bertha Neiman, sexually assaulted her. But again, we did not have a sexual assault case at that point with that weak profile. We really didn't, weren't able to prove it. Eckron, we compelled him to provide his DNA through a court order based on the probable cause we had developed in the case. We'd be talking to the informants and the piece of cardboard. He submitted to that DNA at that point. And when he provided it, we sent to sled and they were not able to make a match on it because, again, it was a very

weak partial profile. We really didn't, didn't have enough for the sexual. assault, we certainly had enough to pursue at least what it was knocked down to was voluntary manslaughter. And the family at the time was happy with that because if we went to trial, there's a great chance to lose in that case. Enter Randolph Murdoch. Bob said that because the murder case was not strong enough to stand on its own at that point, Randolph Murdoch, who was solicitor at that time, decided to reduce the charge to voluntary manslaughter and package it with Frazier's armed robbery charge.

I think I remember Randolph Murdo, the prosecutor at the time, the solicitor, asking him during the plea deal. I have one question, Your Honor. Ekron Frazier, did you shoot and kill Bertha Meeman? He said, yes, sir, I did. Frazier received a 25-year sentence and ended up serving 85% of it. Before Frazier's term was up, though, Bob decided to get one final question answered. Even though Frazier had admitted to killing Bertha, he did not admit to raping her. More than that, the partial.

profile that was developed did not seem to be his, leading Bob to believe that Frazier had perhaps committed the murder with another man. We'll be right back. In 2005, the case was featured in an episode of Cold Case Files. In the episode, a sled agent says that Bertha was either sexually assaulted by an unknown assailant or she had been carrying on some sort of dalliance that her family had not been aware of. That question lingered for years. Well, until 2019, when Bob instructed the Beaver County Sheriff's Office's Forensic Sciences Lab

to look at the evidence in Bertha's case and see if the latest technology held any answers for them. Bob was surprised to learn that the seaman did belong to Eckron Frazier. Here's Bob again. Talk about closure for the family. The family, of course, had to hear for many, many years that their mother may have been out there having, you know, sexual relations with somebody that they had no idea who it was or is this is she a victim of rape could it have been somebody with equine at the time but of course during that process i eliminated those people as well the DNA the initial analysis did not include eckron fraser so

at that point i'm looking for somebody else in my mind right and based on the technology available at the time it was brand new technology of highly sensitive so they was prone to interference and whatever else back then that's how it was explained to me and I said okay well we can let's wait till technology is better let's give it another look but again the family would have wanted and they did want to to know what was going on with their mother so when I resubmitted it for analysis here in Beaufort County our lab has the state-of-the-art equipment brand new the best equipment available so they processed that evidence again and came up with two areas of a complete male DNA profile in semen.

That was a mixture with, of course, birth name and from autopsy. So that was strong evidence. And of course, when they came back with who it was, I was doing my research right away on Double Jeopardy to make sure that this wasn't going to, you know, this could be a standalone case with the murder of the voluntary manslaughter being separate. And it was. It was not. He had not been charged with sexual assault.

So I approached prosecutors to that point. They weren't excited about the case because he had done 22 years, I think. And he was in prison and I went to the magistrate, of course, spoke with the sheriff, then went to the magistrate and the magistrate issued a warrant for criminal sexual conduct first degree for Ekron Frazier in connection with the sexual assault of Perth of Neiman. And that was in 2019 following the DNA results. But again, did the research on double jeopardy. Solicester's office also did the research.

They said, we don't find any case law that would prevent. vent you from charging. So that's where that went. So got the arrest warrant. He was served in the summer of 2019 with that arrest warrant and following his release, they were going to deal with the case. So closer to his release in 2021, they were going to revisit it to see if they were going to bring it to trial or not. So almost 20 years after Eckron Frazier was convicted of killing Bertha Neiman, he was charged in her rape. And thus began an interesting conversation. Frazier was nearing the end of his sentence for killing Bertha and for robbing the Hampton Inn. He had never pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting her or had taken any accountability for it whatsoever.

Worse than that, while in prison, Frazier was disciplined multiple times for sexual infractions, meaning, on paper at least, it did not look like Frazier had been rehabilitated. This presented a problem for Bob and for the sheriff's office. Hilton Head is not just a beautiful place to live, it's largely made up of retirees. In other words, the age group that seemed to appeal to Frazier. Frazier's case was unusual because no one had ever heard of a man being convicted of one crime committed against a woman and then 20 years later being charged for a second crime committed against that woman at the same time that the first crime had been committed. It was so encouraging to see law enforcement value a woman's life in that way,

to say that it also mattered to them that she was raped before she died, to want to hold the person who did this to her accountable for it. That's a very close-knit family, great people, very cooperative in the investigation, very appreciative. And, again, they would expect us to do diligence. They were all about prosecuting him for the sexual assault of their mother, and so was I, and so was the sheriff's office in general. So, you know, it would never occur to me to, unless it was double jeopardy, we could not prosecute the case to allow this to occur and give him a break on it. It just didn't make any sense to me at all.

And now, fast forward, 2003 in November, he's on the sexual offender registry. He fails to show up to register. So where is Zekron Frazier now? Where is this repeat offender? Where is this repeat offender that clearly was a danger to the community? Dangering Community don't be on the sexual offender registry and required to register. I was hoping for it to be prosecuted and certainly when you bring a charge that's what you expect. And it was a solid charge.

We're talking about, and I don't have the DNA report in front of me, but the statistics were, you know, I mean, just overwhelming. Like one, you know, one in seven quadrillion or something like that. I believe that's like 15 zeros on top of the seven, actually. But yes, it was huge numbers, a good case. Unfortunately, this isn't what happened. We asked Bob to elaborate on why the 14th Circuit Solicitor's Office, aka Duffy's Office, decided to drop the case in August of 2021, effectively signing Frazier's get out of jail free card.

I'd rather not get into that directly. I wasn't satisfied with it clearly, clearly, and still am not. And, you know, when I was going through Instagram, you know, over the past several days, up pops, Ekron Frazier, up and I believe I, I know what I did with that. I looked at it, and I was like, my God, here we go again, here we go again. And it's, it's alarming. And this should, you know, it should not have slipped through the cracks, clearly. I mean, it should not have. It was a good case in my estimation under working criminal investigation for over 30 years. So I can look at something and say, okay, this is worth prosecuting.

Again, going back to 2001, where we're looking at the totality of what we had, if we went to trial for murder or sexual assault, either or, we stood a good chance of losing that case in front of a jury. So this particular case with the DNA evidence to support it, again, I believe there's two areas of DNA that matched Ekramfrasia. And that's solid. There are several things that stood out that it's just like, wait, this is not somebody that's done anything to rehabilitate. Somebody is back out. And it's like suspended animation when they're in prison. We go back to the Teddy Powell case, and you know I've talked about that.

He was gone for 20-some odd years when he gets right back out. Now he's savvy about how to destroy evidence, and he's going to do the same thing in Georgia. I mean, that could be a topic for another conversation. But that was the biggest learning case in my career. I learned more from that, just looking at prior bad acts what these people do and how they progress from peepantoms to, you know, sexual assaults and murder. Wow. We don't have to tell you how often rape cases go unprosecuted or how often victims are further harmed by a system purporting to want to help them. That's why this case frustrated us so much.

Here was a case that offered prosecutors an opportunity to show the 14th Circuit what they're made of and what they value. This was an unusual case and could have stood as an example of what comes from never giving up. Yes, at the end of the day, Bob was able to get an answer for the victims who never left his mind. But now he had to witness the family's disappointment and fear as the man who had killed their mother was about to be released. Now, of course, there's an argument to be made about what. whether Frazier had, in theory, also already served time for a crime he did not admit to. And of course, a man should be given a chance to show the community that he has changed. But like we said, all evidence was pointing to he hasn't changed.

In fact, when Mandy was reporting on Frazier's release in 2021, she discovered that Frazier had lied to the Department of Corrections and the probation office about where he was going to be living on the island. The person he listed on his form had no idea that Frazier had planned to come stay with him and, further, had no connection to Frazier. And still, Frazier was released. At the time, I was working with Bob at the sheriff's office. And Frazier's release felt like a kick to the stomach. It was like a countdown clock had started and every woman over the age of 60 on Heltonhead was a sitting dock. So it was no surprise when I saw that there was an arrest warrant out for Frazier this past week.

had failed to register as a sex offender in the 1982 rape case. And by the way, we were annoyed to discover that the first and second offense of failing to register as a sex offender are just misdemeanors. Luckily, Frazier turned himself into law enforcement Monday. He posted Bond and is again a free man. This case still haunts us. While we understand fully that every prosecutor's office has to make difficult decisions every day about who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. It seems like cases involving violence against women often get minimized or dropped because they're often viewed as too challenging and too complex. But here's the fear at the heart of all of this.

The justice system was so tightly controlled by the Murdoch family for so long. Duffy Stone has his position because of Randolph. And there have been times when we have questioned if Duffy works for the, the people who elected him, or for the Murdoch family and their friends. We've heard so many stories of Duffy allowing the good old boys to cloud his judgment. So we have to ask, is the system that was built by the Murdox the one we want in the 14th Circuit anymore? Is it a functional system? Does the system even know how to be a functional system when all it's ever known is Murdoch? And finally, and most importantly, who does it serve? Because we're not, we're

When a dedicated detective delivers what seems like a slam dunk case, one that would send a message that when someone is charged with a crime and there's strong evidence to show that the person committed said crime, then that case will be prosecuted in good faith. These are the cases we want to bring more sunlight to. Cases that could otherwise be solved, justice that would otherwise be served, if not for a corrupted system getting in the way. And we'll be right back. So if there's one thing we've learned about Dick and Jim, it's that they both appear to have become lawyers at about six years old

when they discovered that kids could change a narrative simply by screaming their sibling's name immediately after whatever loud disaster they created away from the view of their parents, knowing that their parents' first suspect was going to be the sibling. I think in previous episodes we've also compared their style to the stop-hitting-yourself method, which is when you use someone else's hand to smack them in the face. Meaning, what seems to be true isn't always the case. That said, the pre-hearing brief that Team Murdoch filed last week in preparation for the January 16th status hearing

does not disappoint in that regard. It's impressively laugh out loud funny in places. Let's start with the serious parts first, though. Dick and Jim do not have any evidence of jury tampering according to this brief. Additionally, Dick and Jim think the evidence against Ehrlich is strong and that it shows Ehrlich killed Maggie and Paul. Wait, they said that in the brief?

Okay, essentially. In their brief, they admitted to the court that the Egg Lady juror's dismissal is not evidence of jury tampering. Here's David with the exact wording that Dick and Jim used in two separate parts of their January 3rd brief about the egg lady juror known as juror 785. The state correctly notes that the only relevance of the Facebook post, Ms. Hill, fabricated, to remove juror 785, her book plans, or her other post-trial actions, is to impeach Ms. Hill. They forgot the word allegedly before the word fabricated, so we will note that it's only an accusation at this point that Becky fabricated the post.

Given that Becky seems to be fully in her suspicions era, we will have to leave that open, though. Later in the brief, Dick and Jim wrote this. Here's David again. It includes evidence related to her involvement in the removal of juror 785, not because the removal itself is grounds for a new trial, but because juror 785 has averred Ms. Hill was involved with her removal in an improper and dishonest way that, if true, would serve to impeach Ms. Hill's credibility. meaning this was never about any assertion that Becky tried to have the egg lady removed so that Elyc would be found guilty,

but rather simply to show the court that Becky is a liar, and therefore her word cannot be trusted against any juror who says she talked to them about material evidence of the case, which as of now does not appear to be any of them, even the one Dick and Jim have on their side. You've got that right? This entire time Dick and Jim have ridden that horse, Becky sought to remove Egg Lady to get a guilty verdict so she could sell her book, though they never said it exactly that way. They certainly used the catchiness of the story to guide the public, the media, and their social media fans toward the idea that what happened with the Egg Lady

juror was proof that Becky had tampered with the jury. I mean, look how much of their filings have been about the Egg Lady and that Facebook post. They put a lot of effort into this, even sending poor old Phil Barber down to Georgia to dig up that random guy's family drama and get an affidavit. But boy, did people run with all of this, conflating the egg lady's removal with the Facebook post and using it as proof that Becky did tamper with this jury and that it was plain as day to anyone with eyes and ears. As recently as this past week, New York Post reporter Dana Kennedy even mentioned it in her story about why Ehrlich might get a do-over.

Here's David with what she wrote about this. What also could come during the evidentiary hearing is whether the one juror who was widely believed to be a lone holdout against voting to convict Murdoch was improperly removed from the jury just hours before they began deliberations. The controversial removal of the so-called, quote, egg lady juror, end quote, involves Hill because of an election. alleged incriminating Facebook post by the juror's ex-husband that Hill claims to have seen, but which she hasn't been able to prove ever existed. Again, this phrase improperly removed is from Dick and Jim's brief and not a reflection of the facts. Let's go through that really quickly. Can we agree that Judge Newman gave the jurors an order not to speak about the trial with each other

or outside of the courtroom for the duration of the trial? Can we agree that Judge Newman repeated this directive many times a day throughout the trial? Now, can we agree that a judge has the right to remove a juror who violated that order by talking outside of the courtroom? As Judge Newman noted during their in-chamber's proceedings with the Egg Lady, he didn't have to question her at all and could have actually removed her without an investigation, but he wanted to rule fairly and with an abundance of caution. He wanted to give her a chance to save herself, but she couldn't do that. The transcripts clearly show that Dick and Jim were part of the process of sussing out whether

the Egg Lady had, in fact, spoken about the case outside of the courtroom. They got to question the tenants, and they even asked one tenant for clarification about a statement to sled. Of course, now Dick and Jim are maintaining that these statements were coerced and not the truth. Additionally, they did not object to the Egg Lady's removal. Why? They had no grounds to object. But since we're asking questions, what would have happened had they objected? It probably would have put more of a spotlight on the egg lady juror and invited more scrutiny, right? It could have gotten worse for them.

In that Chambers hearing, Judge Newman not only took into consideration that the tenants were saying that this juror had violated his, order, he took the egg lady's husband's words into consideration. He too said she had spoken with him about the case, meaning Judge Newman caught the egg lady in a lie, even without the tenets affidavits. Over the weekend, law and crime reporter Anginette Levy published a thread on Twitter of six posts, two which have since been deleted, all related to that odd Facebook post, in the removal of the egg lady juror. In the thread, she insinuated that the Facebook post factored into Judge Newman's decision to remove the egg lady, and she posits that there was something fishy in her removal,

noting that the egg lady was widely viewed as being favorable to the defense, along with the alternate juror known as Blanket Lady. The Blanket Lady, like the Egg Lady, never rendered a verdict, by the way. When challenged by a Twitter user about her use of the phrase widely viewed, Ann Dynette responded that it was just the feeling, and, quote, well, a lot of us in the media talk to one another, so I guess we widely viewed it. She concludes her thread by noting that whether the result of Eleg's verdict would have been different is not the legal standard. But, she says, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered, starting on June.

January 29th. She says, quote, the entire thing about the Facebook post is very suspect, given the fact everyone felt Egg Lady would hang the jury. What was the point of all of that, right? Other than to further solidify this idea that the answer to whether the jury was tampered with lies with the Egg Lady juror. But let's get back to our breakdown. How a juror may or may not be thinking before they got into a room to hash it out with each other is not a guarantee of how that juror would have actually voted. It is an indication, sure. But look at the only juror Dick and Jim have on their side, according to the filings. Jurors 630, who claims she questioned whether the state had proven Elyke's guilt, but decided three hours in she was just voting along with

the majority because she felt pressured. So let's remove the verdict altogether. Can we agree that a judge who hears from three people, including the woman's husband, that the woman violated his order, that a judge pretty much has no choice but to excuse the juror because otherwise his order was meaningless. Sure, Judge Newman could have decided otherwise,

but it would have added chaos to a very chaotic murder trial. Also, this was at the tail end of the trial. This was half a million dollars into the trial. The wisest thing to do was what he did. It does not matter how this juror would have ruled because she lost that chance through her own actions to have a say. Now, let's go back to Becky's character in their desire to impeach it,

and how every week Becky, somehow makes it easier for them. At this point, it is almost funny to discuss this, given all that's come out about Becky in the past few months, like we keep saying, Becky's ignorance and foolishness carved a much easier road for Team Murdoch. But we still also believe that this unraveling has been wholly fueled by Team Murdoch.

Becky's own behavior was weaponized. But Dick and Jim are asking the court to allow them to question Becky on the stand in public. We happen to agree with their argument. She's a public official. She was elected to office by the people. She needs to answer to the people. The point is, they don't want her to be questioned by the judge in a room without the cameras. They want to make sure that the spotlight will be firmly

on her. Additionally, they are arguing that they should be allowed to present the totality of evidence they have against her, and that the court should not view that totality as repetitive or redundant. Meaning, they're asking to make that same point over and over and over again, that Becky is a liar. But why? I mean, obviously we know the why-why-why, but why is her character are so important when no jurors are saying she spoke to them about material evidence related to the trial. We've said this all along. There isn't a he said she said right now. Not that we've seen, not that we've heard about. That phrase is important, by the way, material evidence. Dick and Jim have told the court that they can prove Becky did this and that the subject matter of what she said

wasn't harmless. In other words, she wasn't just asking the jury about what they wanted for lunch. But the state maintains that Becky told the jurors to pay attention to testimony, not just Elyx testimony. More than that, like we've said in past episodes, the only juror who Dick and Jim have, who rendered a verdict, juror 630, seems to have confused Creighton Waters' closing statements and Judge Newman's instructions to the jury with what she thinks she heard Becky say. Also, she is reportedly another one of Egg Ladies' tenants, so there's a power differential there that needs to be acknowledged. The egg lady is reportedly angry that she didn't get to enter her verdict.

And speaking of credibility issues, Dick and Jim are apparently going to have a difficult time with hers. She not only got dismissed from the jury for disobeying an order and then lying to the judge, once the judge found out that Becky had spoken to her about the Facebook post, the egg lady was asked more about that. She was asked more about what Becky said to her and other jurors. According to a filing from the state, the court specifically asked her if Becky had discussed the case with any of the jurors, whether Becky had discussed anything about the case with anyone on the jury.

And the egg lady said, not that I'm aware of. After procuring Dick's friend Joe McCullough as her attorney, the egg lady has a different awareness. Okay, so Dick and Jim not only want the ability to repeatedly show that Becky is not someone whose word can be fully trusted. They want to be able to say it over and over and over again, and they want the standard to be a preponderance of evidence, meaning they want the judge to rule in favor of a new trial based not on the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather the idea that based on the evidence,

it's likely that Becky did do this. To that end, they're asking the court to allow them to enter repetitive and redundant testimony onto the record and citing case law to support their argument. They don't want to be restricted in their pursuit of discrediting Becky on the stand. But here's the thing, and they acknowledge this. Becky is under criminal investigation.

It was further confirmed by SLED this week that there are two investigations into her alleged actions. There's one into her tampering with a jury, because let's not forget this is a criminal allegation Dick and Jim are making, and there's one into whether she used her public office for personal gain. At the heart of that is the accusation that she gave herself and her staff unauthorized bonuses from federal funds. The fact that Becky is under criminal investigation makes it likely that she'll choose to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to not incriminate herself.

And maybe that was the point of all this, even though Dick and Jim are asking the court not to allow it. Remember, two things can be true at the same time. Becky can be guilty of the ethics allegations made against her, but not guilty of tampering with the jury. But what better cloak than to make it so she can't defend herself from the stand? Anyone who's watched any crime drama knows how someone pleading the fifth looks. They look guilty. Which brings us back to the original point. T. Murdoch doesn't have evidence of jury tampering.

Or enough evidence. Certainly nothing that is a slam dunk. And they know that. A strong case doesn't need an uneven playing field. But that is what Dick and Jim are striving to get. So Dick and Jim are asking the court to allow them to allow them to, present the same testimony over and over. They are asking the court to force Becky to take the stand publicly, so her likely nervous demeanor will be on full display, and so everyone can see

her plead the fifth and look guilty of all the things that she's accused of, including jury tampering. They are asking the court to deny the state's motion to strike the affidavits from Dick's secretary, statements about the jury deliberation, and any claims regarding Facebook post. Ms. Hill's book deal or post-trial interactions. And they are asking the court to use the preponderance of evidence standard, an easier standard, to make its decision. Additionally, they are arguing that only one juror is needed to make their case. They have warned the court that, quote,

it is likely several jurors will testify that they have never heard any such jury tampering and that they do not believe it occurred. They say it is not a direct contradiction of the testimony of jurors who say they saw and heard it. To be clear, there are not jurors who heard it. There's Egg Lady who did not render a verdict. There is the alternate juror who also did not render a verdict and who Becky criticized in her book.

And there's juror 630 whose accusation of Becky is almost word for word what Creighton and Judge Newman said during the trial. But Dick and Jim are asking the court not to consider the word of other jurors. They are arguing that only Becky, the person whose word means nothing right now, can contradict the Egg Lady, Jur 630, and the alternate. Okay, again, we think their brief is an admission that they don't have it. They don't have what they need, to prove there was jury tampering. They claim that Ellick has not been able to conduct any discovery in this case whatsoever, which we know not to be true.

Quote, all he has are voluntary statements made by jurors and other witnesses willing to talk to his lawyers and information published by journalists. See, they admit what they have here is everything we've already seen. They say that this is all they have until they are authorized to issue their own subpoenas for the January 29th hearing. Speaking of that, can we talk about it real quick? Justice Toll told us that the dates for the evidentiary hearing, in other words, the hearing that's expected to start January 29th, were tentative. And even though we think it's most likely that she will allow for this hearing, we keep seeing people talk like it's a sure thing. In fact, this is one of the funny parts of Team Murdox brief we mentioned.

earlier. They literally gaslight the judge into committing to the hearing on the 29th. See, in their brief, the state has asked the court to deny a hearing. They say that Team Murdoch hasn't shown a need for one. Team Murdoch obviously disagrees with that. While arguing in favor of an evidentiary hearing, they're basically like, which you already scheduled and agreed to, but since the state has mentioned, and I guess we'll say something about this now. Repeatedly, they mentioned that the court has already agreed to this hearing based on the fact that dates have been set. But again, from our understanding, those dates are tentative. I mean, guys, the gall of these people.

So throughout the brief, T. Murdoch acts as though the hearing is set in stone, but then slips up by mentioning that they haven't been authorized to subpoena for evidence for said hearing, likely because of what we're saying, Justice Toll hasn't officially decided it's necessary. And that the state hasn't handed over discovery yet. which we don't even know is true. To us, that looks like Dick and Jim's usual dramatic overstatement, but the point is the blatant manipulation of the court is hilarious. Okay, so all of that was simply to say that though some seem to think this brief packed a punch,

we see it as them telling on themselves. They don't got it yet, but to get it, they need the playing field to be tilted totally in favor of them. Their brief was 21 pages, by the way. The States was seven. Now, let's talk about their acknowledgement that the evidence in Elyke's murder trial showing that he did, in fact, murder Maggie and Paul. They are arguing that the court should not consider the strength of evidence against Ehrlich. They are not only anticipating that a reasonable person might look at the fact that no other juror is corroborating their claims and think, oh, well, that doesn't look like jury tampering to me.

They are anticipating that the court will look at the evidence against Ehrlich and think, why are we having this conversation in the first place? They want to head that off. Here's David with what they wrote. Sustaining a conviction based on the court's opinion of the strength of the evidence against the accused, regardless of improper external influences on the jury from court officials, about the merits of the case,

would effectively be a directed verdict for the prosecution. A statement that whatever happened at trial simply does not matter because the evidence can admit only one result regardless. This is important. Dick and Jim don't want Justice Toll to consider the strength of the evidence against Ehrlich, and that's likely because of how it could affect their central and perhaps strongest argument. I say strongest because it's going to be up to how Justice Toll interprets it. It's not as straightforward as Dick and Jim like to portray it to be in their filings.

They say that all they have to do is show that Becky He, spoke about a harmful subject to one juror, and that, on its face, is enough to grant a new trial. That it doesn't matter whether anything Becky said affected the verdict. Just the mere fact that she spoke to the juror about the harmful subject at all is enough. They say the phrase, quote, could not have affected the verdict is key here. Their interpretation of that is, even if it didn't, it could have. The state's argument is, um, no. They argue that it absolutely matters that the jurors aren't saying she affected the outcome. Team Murdoch has laid out several avenues to their assertion that Becky's words could have affected the verdict.

For one, they say she told the jurors to pay attention to Alex's body language specifically, that she told one juror, juror 630, not to be, quote, fooled by him. Again, not only does Becky deny saying that, and no other juror corroborates it, but this mimics what Creighton said to the jury. One of the jurors, 254, says that she remembers hearing that they should watch Elyke's body language. But most jurors don't remember Becky saying anything about evidence beyond general advisories to pay attention. Additionally, no courthouse employee has reported hearing or seeing Becky talk to the jurors alone or in an inappropriate way. In their brief, T. Murdoch says that Becky pressured jurors into coming to a swift conclusion.

Cool argument, but not one that holds up when you consider they only deliberated for three hours. Any perceived pressure could not be taken seriously. In other words, no one was standing over the jurors saying, wrap it up, we've been here for days. Now, let's go back to the argument that Becky's alleged interactions with the jurors could have affected the verdict. How could Becky's advice to pay attention to the witnesses actually affect the outcome? I mean, obviously, we think the more you pay attention to the defense's witnesses, the more you're going to question Elex innocence. D. But ultimately, paying attention is what the jurors needed to do, and it is something that would have been increasingly difficult to do day after day

for six weeks. Add to this the strength of evidence. I know Team Murdoch doesn't want the court to do that. But how can telling jurors to pay attention to testimony possibly be harmful? And that is the threshold that needs to be met, according to the defense, when the evidence already supports the conclusion. You can't separate the two fully. One leads to the other. There is no incongruence in Elyx case. There is no scratching of the head, wondering how the jury got there. There is no gap and logic. But I can see why Dick and Jim would want a jury not to pay attention. At the end of the day, it is the jury's duty to pay attention. It is part of the deal. It's as much part of the deal as them getting lunch delivered by the clerk of court. It's a basic, non-extorinary

part of their day. Or at least it was before Team Murdoch crossed the threshold. On January 16th, Justice Toll will preside over a status conference that we will live stream to Luna Shark Premium Soak Up the Sun members. During that proceeding, Liz and I will be chatting with you live, and we expect to learn more about what Justice Toll's thinking is on how all of this is, and we expect to learn more about what any evidentiary hearing will look like. We are continuing to go through Becky's emails, including emails that were released Tuesday from Becky's personal account to public email accounts at Colleton County. This month is going to be a doozy. We won't be surprised if it ends up being more dramatic than the trial itself.

One thing I want to note is how important it is that we cover the proceedings this month. And what we hope will wind down the Murdoch coverage. When you hear people claim that their rigorous advocacy for Ehrlich Murdoch getting a new trial is about wanting to ensure that we have a justice system that is fair to all. Please ask the question, what other cases are you fighting this hard for? Because at the end of the day, this is not about the facts. It is about one man who has repeatedly shown us that he does not believe that the system should hold him accountable in any way beyond what he thinks is suitable.

Every day, there are men and women without resources to find that the system to hold him accountable. fight their charges, who are wrongly put behind bars, because the justice system does not value them the same way that it values Elek Murdoch. Elek is only doing this because he can. That is not a principled fight. He is not fighting for the future of every man who has been denied justice. He is fighting for a system that was supposed to be broken. The system that he and his family built for themselves and broke for others.

system didn't exist for him in March 2023. The system he saw was not the one he could bend into shape anymore. Instead, it withstood record amounts of pressure from him and his team, and he wants the old system back. The question is, will he get it? Stay tuned, stay pesky, and stay in the sunlight. True Sunlight is a Luna Shark production, created by me, Mandy Matney, and co-hosted by journalist Liz Farrell. Learn more about our mission and membership at LunaSharkmedia.com. Interruptions provided by Luna and Joe Pesky.