Murdaugh Murders Podcast - TSP #36 - End Of An Era (Seriously…) Alex Murdaugh’s Motion For New New Trial Denied by Justice Toal

Episode Date: February 1, 2024

The Alex Murdaugh Rollercoaster (finally) comes to a stop. True Sunlight Co-hosts Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell break down everything that happened at the very weird and very wild evidentiary hearing where Justice Jean Toal brought much-needed sanity to the state of South Carolina. After nearly seven hours of hearing from the jurors who found Alex guilty of murder and other testimony, Justice Toal concluded that Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill made “fleeting and foolish” comments to people around her, including one or more jurors, in her quest for publicity but that she did not tamper with the jury.  In other news, Mandy is excited to go back to Columbia South Carolina as we celebrate justice at the Capital City Club Columbia, SC to bring a special evening event you won’t want to miss!! Luna Shark CEO and celebrated journalist Mandy Matney will be joined by Attorney and Legal Director of the South Carolina Victim Assistance Network, Sarah A. Ford, for an evening reception and examination of state government, true crime and media and of course the conclusion of this very long saga. This Exclusive In-Person Event is restricted to Invited Clubs Members and Luna Shark Premium Members Only – RSVP Today By Clicking the following link or visit lunasharkmedia.com/events to learn more. https://lunasharkmedia.com/event/capital-city-club-confidential/ In February we’re offering your first month of Soak Up The Sun membership for 50% off. 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 that special offer for first time members, receive 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! 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

I now know that Justice Jean Tol should go down in history as a hero who saved the South Carolina justice system from further Murdoch terrorism. This week, she finally denied Ellic Murdoch's motion for a new trial after Dick and Jim failed to prove that Becky Hill influenced the jurors during last year's murder trial. It's the end of an era, folks, and that is a big deal. 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. Okay y'all, it is finally February and this hell mouth of a month, an era constantly fighting

misinformation on an elic murdoch's attempt at a new trial, is finally over. I am really excited for February, not only so we can start a new chapter that won't be clogged by Dick and Jim's nonsense, We have a really exciting event planned for February. On February 15th, I will be at the Capitol City Club in Columbia, South Carolina to bring a special evening you won't want to miss. I'm honored to be joined by Attorney and Legal Director of the South Carolina Victim Assistance Network, Sarah A. Ford, for an evening reception and examination of state government,

true crime, and media, and of course, the conclusion of this very long saga. This exclusive in-person event called Capital City Club Confidential is restricted to invited clubs members and Lunasharark Premium members only. RSVP today by clicking the link in the description or visit lunasharkmedia.com slash events. Also, have to mention, now is the time to get a Lunashark Premium membership.

As we continue to plan more and more members-only events across the country, and also this episode is enhanced and extra long for premium members only. Check the link in the description to become a member today. Phew, what a ride we have been on this month. Finally, on Monday, we all landed softly when Justice Jean Tolle denied Team Murdoch's motion for a new trial. She said specifically that she found that Becky Hill is not credible, but Becky Hill's comments did not influence the jury.

You know, what we have been saying on this podcast since September. Finally, we feel vindicated and validated and actually hopeful that South Carolina can better itself because of this mess. After years of enduring abuse, harassment, gaslighting, and hate for speaking the truth on this case, I have to say this one more time because it feels really good. Tell you so, there will not be a retrial of the century.

For the past five months, we have been battling misinformation from both the national media and local media who managed to convince a large portion of the population that a new trial for Ellic Murdoch was all but guaranteed and deserved. Turns out, the thousands of anti-Becky Hill headlines, TikToks, and tweets added up to a big ol' nothing for Team Murdock. Because Justice Toll, like us, was able to separate Becky's ethical issues from the jury tampering allegations. Ultimately, after an extremely unusual hearing where each juror testified under oaths about a verdict they rendered 10 months ago, the court

found that the defense did not meet its burden of proof for jury tampering. Even after one juror, 630, the one we always said could be problematic, pulled a bit of a switcheroo and made claims contradicting her affidavit from August, which we will get to in a moment. But first, I want to talk about how unusual this situation is. Justice Toll said it several times herself on Monday and Friday. Typically, in a case of jury tampering allegations, the claims are made almost immediately after the verdict. But of course, not in this case.

In this case, Dick and Jim claims that they heard about jury tampering allegations after the Clerk of Court's book was published, another extremely abnormal situation in this case, and that made her an easy target to discredit. One of the jurors labeled your ex testified on Friday because she had a trip planned this week, and Justice Toll was nice enough

to hold a separate hearing in Columbia on Friday, which David and I attended. I saw some absurd chatter on social media about how this juror was getting special privileges, and I need to clear up something right now. Ellick Murdoch is a convicted murderer and a convicted criminal. He is now presumed guilty after a jury of his peers found him to be guilty of killing his wife and son.

The 12 jurors who served on that jury for six weeks are not presumed guilty. They sacrificed six weeks of their life for extremely low pay. They did nothing to deserve to be treated like prisoners. As a South Carolinian, I am personally thankful for their duty to the truth and I cannot imagine how stressful the last year has been for them, especially with Dick and Jim's pressuring antics over the past six months. Our system should cater to innocent jurors over the needs of Ellick Murdoch the monster. Every single time. We should not demand for Jure's lives to be continuously

interrupted every time Dick and Jim want to cause more chaos. Jures should be protected. And they were this week, even after Dick Harputlian asked for them to be sequestered. And by the way, could you all imagine being forced to spend the weekend with people you normally wouldn't want to hang out with just because Ellie Kmerdok the murderer wants you to? No, absolutely not. So instead, Judge Toll put a media embargo on Jurrex's testimony so other jurors couldn't see what she said.

Toll also made it clear to the jurors and to the world that they did nothing wrong, that they were not criminals, but abstaining citizens who were forced to participate in the circus of a trial whether they liked it or not. Toll understood how important it was to minimize harm done to the jurors, because jurors are an important part of our system. Now, on Friday, Judge Toll said that she would allow both sides to question Becky Hill, and she didn't shut down Dick Harputlian's request to call additional witnesses. So, on Friday we knew that Judge Toll was likely going to widen the scope a little

to allow for the defense to put their best argument forward. Keep in mind, most of the decisions Justice Toll has made in this case are based on the assumptions that there will be an appeal, or multiple appeals, by Team Murdock. And it was Justice Toll's job to minimize the issues that would be made in upcoming appeals. But on Friday, we didn't know how wide that scope would be, nor did we know what kind of wild ride we would be taking on Monday.

Monday's hearing was unlike anything we have ever seen before. Not only were the matters at hand unprecedented in South Carolina, the proceedings themselves had a few bizarre moments, and the courtroom was packed. Even from afar, we could feel the energy of that room. And even though we went into this hearing feeling confident that Justice Jean Tolle

would see the same things that we were seeing about Team Murdoch's accusations that despite Becky Hill's loosey-goosey style during trial, she didn't do or say anything that ultimately affected the verdict. We were still tense. As you know by now, expect the unexpected when it comes to Alec Murdoch. So basically anything that could happen would happen.

Now the biggest thing to keep in mind as we go through what happened Monday is the two key issues here. One is who had the burden of proof. Meaning who had to show the court that Team Murdoch's allegations against Becky Hill were true or not true. The second is what standard of law would apply. The defense wanted the court to accept that the mere fact that Becky, a court official, had said anything at all to the jurors

related to the trial itself, was enough to grant a new trial regardless of whether it had affected jurors' verdicts. Why did they want that standard? Because they only had one juror, the juror now known as Jurzee, and they knew that that one juror's earlier sworn statement did not point to Becky as the reason she rendered a guilty verdict.

Not only did this juror say that she went into deliberations questioning Alex Guilt, meaning any earlier statements from Becky do not appear to have affected her thinking, she ultimately voted guilty because of her fellow jurors. She did not attribute her verdict to Becky. The defense knew this was a problem and wanted the rules bent in their favor. In arguing this, they relied heavily on a 1993 case called State vs Cameron, which cited a 1960 split ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals called Holmes vs USA. We'll discuss those two cases again at the end of the episode.

For now, just know that the defense lost their argument. In the status conference earlier this month where Justice told us that the ground rules for the hearing, she ruled that there had been several rulings since state v. Cameron that clarified the standard and that standard was prejudice must be shown. verified the standard, and that standard was, prejudice must be shown. That meant that on Monday Dick and Jim needed to show that the jury was prejudiced against Alec because of what Becky had said. Now, the Friday before Monday's hearing Justice told her testimony from Juror X, who was represented by Eric Bland. Juror X told the court that she did not hear Becky say anything to the jury, and that Becky

did not affect her verdict. Additionally, because the defense was accusing Becky of having private meetings with this particular juror, and insinuating that this particular juror was feeding Becky info about how jurors had intended to vote, which makes no sense because the jurors weren't even allowed to discuss the case with each other until deliberations, Justice Tull asked Juror X about these so-called private meetings. The juror told the court that she did meet privately with Becky once and that the matter they discussed had nothing to do with the trial. On Monday, it came out that this juror had spoken to Becky about a concern with jurors being loud in the courtroom. Becky said she told this juror she

had to communicate with the bailiff who would pass notes to the judge. Okay, so let's talk about juror Zee. She was the first juror to speak Monday and that's because of Joe McCullough's health. The idea was to get his client out of the way so that he could go home and rest. Here's Justice Toll. home and rest. Here's Justice Tull. You're a Z. I will ask you some questions and there are no right or wrong answers. The truth is what I seek and that is the truth of what you experience in relation to these questions at the State versus Murdoch trial. You rendered a verdict on March the 2nd, 2023. That verdict was read in open court by the four person of the jury. And then the court said this, Madam

Four Lady and members of the jury, if that is your verdict of each and every juror, let it be known by raising your hand. The transcript then indicates that the jurors comply. The jury was individually polled and each was asked, was that your verdict? Each juror answered yes. Each juror was then asked, is that still your verdict?

And each juror answered yes. Was that an accurate statement about your verdict at that time? Yes, ma'am. Right? So this is very important. Going into Monday, Juror Z had already testified once under oath that her verdict was her verdict. And that's when she was pulled by Judge Newman on March 2nd of last year. Here she was again testifying that she did, in fact, do that.

Hence why she paused, because there was no way out of it. She couldn't change her mind in that moment and say she lied back then when she said it. That bit of testimony further sealed for the court that her verdict at the time was her verdict. Was your verdict based entirely on the testimony, evidence, and law presented to you in this case? Yes, ma'am.

Here again, Jersey is painting herself into a corner. She just testified again that her verdict was arrived at based entirely on the testimony, evidence, and the law presented during the trial. That left no room for Becky's alleged influence, and yet. Did you hear Ms. Becky Hill make any comment about this case before you revert it? Yes ma'am. If yes, what did Ms. Hill say?

If yes, what did Ms. Hill say? To watch his actions. To watch his actions. What else? To watch him closely. To watch him closely. Anything else you remember? There is, but I can't remember. Okay, that's fine.

Notice what she didn't say there. She didn't say anything. She didn't say anything. She didn't say anything. Okay, that's fine. Notice what she didn't say there. She didn't say Becky told us not to be fooled by his actions, and that's incredibly important. All she is testified to at this point is that Becky gave what seemed like neutral admonitions to pay attention. Was your verdict on March the 2nd, 2023

in any way with any commu- influenced in any way with any communications by the clerk of court, Becky Hill, in this case? Yes, ma'am. Yes, please. All right. Was your verdict influenced in any way by the communications of the clerk of court in this case? Yes ma'am. And how was it influenced?

To me it felt like... She made it seem like Cuba's already guilty. All right. And I understand that. That's the tenor of the remarks she made. Did that affect your finding of guilt in this case? Yes, ma'am. All right.

Be at ease. So this is where things got oddly dramatic. We knew going into this that this juror was going to say that her verdict was influenced by Becky, but it was still crazy to see it play out in light of everything we've said so far about this juror's claims. At this point, she had already testified twice that her verdict was her verdict and based entirely on the evidence and testimony in law. We also knew that she swore that she went into deliberations

having questions about Elix Guilt and that she hadn't actually blamed Becky for her verdict and instead was blaming the other jurors. So how could she possibly claim that Becky is the one who influenced her guilty vote? One thing to note here on our recent Cup of Justice episode, Eric Bland, who was in the courtroom, told us that this juror, who seemed nervous just from her voice alone, did not take her eyes off Dick Harputlian the entire time she testified. And we will be right back.

I'm Laura Richards, criminal behavioural analyst, former New Scotland Yard and host of the podcast Crime Analyst. Listen to my 12-part investigative series about the disappearance of Marion Barter. Listen to my 12-part investigative series about the disappearance of Marion Barter. Award-winning teacher Marion Barter left Australia on 22 June 1997, having changed her whole life in a few months. She secretly changed her name, sold her house and gave away her worldly possessions. Marion left for a trip of a lifetime, landing in the UK and heading straight for Tumbridge Wells. She kept in touch with her daughter Sally whilst overseas, but what she didn't mention to anyone was that she was returning to Australia after just over a month.

Money was withdrawn from Marion's bank account every day for several weeks, then a larger amount, then nothing. Marion vanished off the face of the earth, and the police refused to accept that Marion was missing. Here's an extract from Episode 152. My interview is Sally, Marion's incredible daughter who's been searching for her mother for 27 years. I know there's a fight here for answers and I'm very close, I feel, to getting answers, so I have to keep going for her legacy to know that. And to help other people too,

I want people to know that don't give up and don't just listen to what authorities think or assume because assuming is the most annoying part of my life in this situation because all of the facts that I have been given are based on assumptions only. They're not facts. So it's very difficult to manage when people are talking about you're missing loved one and they're just assuming that she's just left on her own account for whatever given reason,

when there's no facts behind it and no proof that that is actually the case. Marion's case has recently been at the Coroner's Court in Australia, and we're awaiting a decision which will be handed down on February 29th, 2024. Join us in our search for the truth about what happened to Marion Barter. Subscribe to Crime Analysts wherever you get your podcasts and Crime Analysts YouTube channel for in-depth expert analysis, unlike anything you've heard before. Now, let's talk about that affidavit that the jurors swore and that Team Murdoch included with their motion for a new trial.

Here is Creighton. Yes, ma'am. Your Honor, in the affidavit that was given by this particular juror, paragraph 10, said I had questions about Mr. Murdoch's guilt, but I vote guilty because I felt pressured by the other jurors. We would request an inquiry as to that which is how when this motion was filed she expressed the basis for her

verdict which obviously this answers a little different now so we would request a brief inquiry from the court as to that specific issue. That's correct. Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor has two things. The first thing is, he is correct. She gave an affidavit. We would ask Your Honor to let her read her affidavit to refresh her memory.

She said other things. They're very detailed in here. We'd ask you to, and let me hand up to the court, a copy of her affidavit. So let's start with what Creighton was doing here. He wanted it on the record, but this is the first time Jersey is saying Becky affected her verdict. Dick does not want that to happen. What Dick is trying to get the court to do instead is refresh the jurors memory. Why?

Because the juror did not testify to the part he needed on the record, which is that she is claiming Becky said not to be fooled by Elix testimony. Interesting that that fact didn't automatically come out of the jurors mind on her own, right? So Crayton simply wanted to acknowledge that the juror is changing her story now by saying that Becky affected her verdict. And Dick wanted to control the exact circumstances under which Jersy's affidavit would be entered into the record. He only wanted her asked about the thing he wanted on the record and not the thing that would hurt his case. What's funny about that

is that he argued that the affidavit, the thing he wanted on the record, could not be entered as evidence because it violated a rule of procedure and that it would reveal what went on in the jury room. You might remember that during the status conference hearing and in earlier filings and in repeated arguments in court, Dick wanted to question jurors right up to the line on what went on in the jury room and not for nothing. The only reason we know about this juror setting pressure from other jurors as the basis for her verdict is because Dick put this on the record. It's his affidavit to benefit his case. And now he wants to act all offended that anyone

would want to question him on that. Here is how that went down. Your Honor, also we would ask that you not ask the question that Mr. Waters asked you to ask because it violates Rule 606B, which provides upon an impiring the validity or verdict or indictment a juror may not testify to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions. What was the question? Yeah. If you read that affidavit, it's paragraph 10, your honor. It's paragraph 10.

It's in the very affidavit that's her. She said she was influenced by other jurors. Yeah, I'm gonna ask her about that. I'm gonna give her the affidavit and then I'm gonna question her about it. We would, for the record, indicate that we object to that under 606 feet. Your Honor, from our perspective, she's put an issue.

You don't want to ask me to have her look at this affidavit, but you telling me I can't question about it. I deny that objection. Your Honor, if it's something that's inadmissible, you should not ask her about it. Well, you want me to admit it and have her examined on it. No, I want you to have her read it to her freshman. Requibling, Mr. Harper, is a requirement about things that I'm not going to take time to quibble about. My ruling is, pursuant to your request, I am going to allow the juror to examine her

affidavit, and then I'm going to question her about it. That's my ruling. Your objection is over. For the record, I just want to know your honor. Just for the record. You know that in 606, I hear you noted. In no way, waving anything or opening any door by asking you to let her examine.

But a higher court than me to decide. Well, I understand that. And that's why I want to make sure when they read this transcript, there's no confusion. I'm not asking you to put that into evidence. I'm asking you to ask the jury. Well, I understand the world. I can question the juror about something

and not put it into evidence. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Mr. Harper, when you could have been very satisfied with the answers that were already given. But you have chosen to ask about this and deny it. Your Honor, all the time we ask witnesses to examine the fire station. Mr. Hockney, I may not run. Please take your seat. All right, bring me your seat. Can I just say how refreshing it was to hear a judge finally say the thing that all of us

have been screaming at the TV for more than two years? Please take your seat, Dick. So after that exchange, Justice Toll brought your z back into the room to ask her about her affidavit. Justice Toll, Justice Toll, the clerk of court Rebecca Hill told the jury quote not to be fooled unquote by the evidence presented by mr. Murrock's attorneys which I understood to me that mr. Murrock would lie when he testifies is that what your recollection is of that statement yes ma'am is there anything in the statement that on reflection you think is not correct no ma'am. Is there anything in the statement that, on reflection, you think is not correct? No, ma'am.

All right. Number three, she also instructed the jury to, quote, watch him closely, quote, immediately before he testified, including, quote, look at his actions, quote, and, quote, look at his movements, quote, which I understood to mean he was guilty. Is that an accurate of you? Recitation of your view of the matter? Yes, ma'am.

Immediately number four paragraph four. Immediately after he testified, the four person said Mr Murdock was crying on shoes. Is that an accurate statement of what you saw and heard yes, ma'am Five the full person criticized the former full person for Handing mr. Murdoch a box of tissues when he was crying on the stand while testifying about his murder soon She told the jury we cannot interact with Mr. Murdock because that's what the defense wants us to do. Do you still stand by that recitation of that conversation? Yes ma'am. Number six, the jury frequently discussed the case during breaks before deliberation. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. All right. Number seven, toward the

end of the trial, Ms. Hill came into the jury room a lot. Is that your recollection? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Hill and the foreperson had private conversations on multiple occasions. The foreperson would tell the bailiff that she needed to speak with Ms. Hill. Ms. Hill would arrive and then she and the foreperson would go to another room for a private conversation. The conversations typically lasted 5 to 10 minutes. The foreperson never said anything about the content of the conversation. For example, she never communicated logistical information after these conversations. This happened two or more times, more frequently towards the end of the trial. Is that still your recollection of the interaction?

Yes, ma'am. Like we said earlier, the juror she's accusing of this denies that this occurred except for once and she said it wasn't about the trial but notice how Jersey says it happened once or twice but more frequently toward the end how does something happen once or twice but also frequently it's those kinds of inconsistencies that are driving us nuts in this case now when we began deliberations, Mr. Miss Hill told us this shouldn't take of us long quote.

And if we deliberated past 11 PM, we would be taken directly to a hotel. We had driven from our homes that morning and were not prepared to stay overnight. Additionally, smokers on the jury asked to be allowed to take smoke breaks, but they were told they could not smoke until after the deliberations were complete. Did you hear that? Yes ma'am. Including the business about the smokers? Yes ma'am. Right? Number ten, I had questions about Mr. Murdoch's

guilt, but voted guilty because I felt pressured by the other jurors. Is that an accurate statement about your verdict? Yes, ma'am. Again, how can Becky have affected her verdict if she went into deliberations questioning Elix's guilt? That right there raises another inconsistency about Jersey's claims. If Becky is the reason for this jurors verdict, then Becky didn't do a very good job at it. Juror Z, I asked you previously, was your verdict on March the 2nd, 2023 influenced in any way by communications from Becky Hill, the clerk of court. You answered that question, yes. In light of what you said in the affidavit, which is I had questions about Mr. Murdoch's guilt, but voted guilty because I felt pressured by the other jurors, Is that answer that I just read a more accurate statement of how you felt?

Yes. Over room. Yes, ma'am. So you do stand by the affidavit? Yes, ma'am. Very good, thank you. All right. And with that, Justice Toll put a nice neat bow

on the situation. The juror believes the affidavit is a more accurate statement of her feelings about her verdict. And boy, Dick did not like that one bit. Yes, sir. Mr. Harper. Your Honor, we objected to the questioning because this jurist gave two statements under oath, one in an affidavit and one here to you today. The

one here today was Becky Hill influenced her verdict. The one she gave in an affidavit six months ago was based on jurors. It could be both. Your honor did picked out the one in the affidavit from six months ago and said is that a more accurate statement? That priest supposes and suggests to her what she should say. And we believe that this juror's testimony, and you're on, I'm afraid what you're going to say is, well, she said that Athedavid was more accurate than what she testified under oath here today, and therefore I'm not going to consider her testimony.

And I think that's where we're heading here. I'd ask you to bring her back in, explain to her there's nothing wrong with it both being true. I decline to do that and overrule the objection. The next juror to testify was juror F. Did you hear Ms. Becky Hill make any comment about this case before you were hurt? No, ma'am.

Was that was your verdict on March the 2nd, 2023 influenced in any way by any communications by the clerk of court, Becky Hill, in this case? Absolutely not. After jur was brought back for adi of something that Rhonda clerk of court told sled had given a ride to jurr just as toll asked the jur

Alright, what's your posi water? You're on an obje All right, what's your position on that, Mr. Water? Your Honor, I have no objection to that. Yes, all right. All right, bring the juror. This is juror C, returning to the stand. The same juror. Yes. Thank you, ma'am.

Of course, you're still under oath. And I have this question for you. During the trial, did Becky Hill either drive or ride with you in a vehicle before or after court? If so, what, if anything, did Becky Hill and you discuss? Do you recall that at all? Could you please ask that again? Ma'am?

Could you please ask the question again? Sure. Sorry. During the trial, did Becky Hill either drive or ride with you in a vehicle before or after court? No, ma'am. All right. I don't need to ask a second question.

All right. So, juror F denied that this ever happened, which adds to the strangeness of this entire case. We will talk about this more in a minute when we get to Rhonda's testimony. After Jur F, where Jur's L and E, both men said they didn't hear Becky make any comments about the merits of the case and that Becky did not affect their verdicts. Then it got a little confusing with Jur P, who testified that Becky told them to watch Ellick Murdoch's body language. Did you hear Becky Hill clerk of Court for

Clarendon County make any comment about this case before your verdict? I did yes ma'am. What did she say? It was the day that Mr. Murdoch was taking the stand. Yes, sir. And she made a comment about watch his body language. Watch his body language. His body language, I see. Yes, ma'am. And what else?

That's how I can recall. All right, sir. All right. Was your verdict on Metmarks the 2nd, 2023 influenced in any way with any communications by the clerk of court, Becky Hill, in this case? No. All right. Jurors O, Y, W, Q, and K all said that they did not hear Becky comment on the case

and that their verdicts were unaffected by her. So somewhere in all that testimony, we finally had our answer from the wild card, Jurr578, the man who wouldn't speak to Sled or to the defense. He testified that his verdict was not affected by Becky Hill. Now, at this point, it felt like we knew in our guts that Team Murdoch's motion for a new trial would be denied. Only two jurors were saying that Becky had said anything at all. And only one juror was claiming that it affected her verdict. But that juror's testimony was inconsistent. After lunch, the energy in the room changed. When the hearing was called back into session, Dick started whining to Justice Toll about

how he wasn't allowed to cross-examine the jurors, so therefore he should be allowed to call witnesses since the burden of proof was on them. Creighton said the state's position was that it was up to the judge how this hearing should be run and that they believed she had made the right decision in limiting the scope of the hearing. Then Dick told Justice Toll that it really wasn't up to her, and he started to whine again about the Remmer case. Real quick, I'm using the word whine here because of how it was coming across, but what

Dick was doing was putting his arguments and objections on the record for their appeal. Team Murdock essentially knew in the status conference that they had lost their motion. Why? Well, again, because they had nothing. They needed this to have gone a very certain way for it to have worked. That said, one of the elements they needed was a rumor hearing, a hearing in which they would have been given a much broader ability to call and question witnesses. Justice Toull denied them that, very clearly denied them that during the status conference. But listen to Dick try to change history on that so that he could accommodate his own excuses. Factually argue this with you.

We did not understand, we assumed you to adopt Remmer because that was the case. Well, I don't know why you assumed that when the San Canaan Supreme Court said very clearly that we do not go by the guidance of the 1950s case of our USB rumor. We do not believe that's what Justice Kittridge has said in the Senate. They said it straight out as clear as a bell can be, but I ruled on that. Yes, ma'am.

I'm saying- And the South Carolina Supreme Court's going to have plenty of chances to decide that they want to modify green. Well, we were somewhat taken aback by a ruling as a result. And that ruling came at a point where we didn't know what these witnesses were going to testify to. So we now, and by the way, you've set aside three days for this.

What's the hurry this gentleman is you know It's facing life with no parole. We should take this in a very deliberate way. He's got a 14th Amendment right To have to ensure that he had a fair crime. It should have been made before this time Why well this but how couldn't I've told you how to go handle this thing your objections are noted and that's I've told you how to go handle this thing. Your objections are noted and that's on record. But right now what I'm gonna do is what I said I would do. We're gonna call Ms. Hill and see what she has to say. I have no idea who all you want to call

as witnesses or whether they're here in the courtroom at the present time. But we'll get to that after Ms. Hill testifies. Yes, your honor. All right. After this exchange and before Becky Hill was called to the stand by the state, Justice Toll got an email that she shared with the room. Let me go to a little something here that I'm just getting an email on and put this on the record right now.

I have a communication from Mr. McCullough. And I'm a team today. That's only, that is copied to Mr. Harputlian, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Waters, and Attorney General Wilson. And basically says his client, Juro Aziz, wants to enhance the testimony she gave to some sort of affidavit that he wants me to look at. And I have looked at it. I want to hear from the state and the defense, but I can tell you, I'm not inclined to get back into the testimony that's already been taken by these jurors. Her inconsistencies, whatever they are, are in the record, and she now wants to have another

bite at the apple. I'm not at all enthusiastic about that. Enhance the testimony. I mean, what in the world? I'm not at all enthusiastic about that. Enhance the testimony. I mean, what in the world? Isn't this such great insight, by the way, into the things that the good old boys try and not only try but succeed at doing in other courtrooms in South Carolina? This isn't their first rodeo.

Also, I hope that enhance the testimony is a specifically legal term because otherwise they're really bad in English. Enhance is what you do to the truth to make a lie. Justice Toll allowed the state and defense to make their arguments about the affidavit. Crane was like, uh, no, she doesn't get to do a do-over on that. I think you know how Dick felt about it, though. You're right, I'd note two things. The first thing is, we asked to be able to examine this juror. You denied that request. Number two, she's not our witness.

She's not Mr. Waters' witness. She was the court's witness and a juror that, and you commended all of them on their honesty. She's attempting to be honest. This is, this process we're going through is an effort to seek the truth. This is the truth. I don't understand why it can't come in. I think I understand what your position is.

So we'd ask you to make it a part of the record. You can say you're gonna consider it. You're not gonna consider it, but it should be a part of the record. I just thought, well, this thing should be a part of the record, but I can tell you this. Witnesses don't get to get on the stand and testify under oath and then seek to add or change or deal in any way with their testimony. There's questions with very open-ended questions

that I asked for her responses and she gave them if they're inconsistent. She can't come up now and try to close the loop of consistency by some additional testimony. And I am not thinking about allowing that to be done. Here's what Jersey's enhanced testimony said, by the way. This is what they wanted added to the record. Quote, I would like to clarify my testimony today.

As I testified, I felt influenced to find Mr. Murdock guilty before I entered the jury room. Once deliberations began, as I stated in paragraph 10 of my earlier affidavit, I felt further additional pressure to reach the guilty verdict. I'm not trying to brag here, but her words are very close to words that I had used in a tweet earlier in the day and earlier in the month, calling out her inconsistencies in that original affidavit and boiling her words down to the bone to say what they actually meant. I want to talk about that real quick. Why was Jersey's original affidavits so loose?

How did Team Murdoch not seal that up tight? They're presumable even ones who typed up that original affidavit for her to sign. Why not be super precise with that language? Unless they were super precise. For years we have heard about how smart and calculating Dick, Jim, and Joe McCullough are, how cunning they are as attorneys, and quick-minded. I find it really hard to believe that they wouldn't have seized on the opportunity if Juror Z had actually used the words Becky affected my testimony from the beginning. The original affidavits said what it said because that's what the juror said. It's that simple. And one thing we need to talk about that we haven't really discussed with you all before,

why did it take so long for juror 630 to come forward? And not only come forward, why did it reportedly take the defense going to her for this to be alleged at all? We'll be right back. So next came Becky's testimony and this is where things got sweaty. So many of our SokkaPthesun members pointed out that Becky was coming across much more credibly in her testimony than they had expected.

And she was. At first. During Creighton's direct examination of her, Becky denied all the allegations being made against her, indicating that some of the things she said were said to the bailiff or to Rhonda McElven, the Barnwell Clerk of Court, who was assisting Becky, or to other staff members. During the first half of her testimony, she came across the same way she did during the trial, which is sweet, calm, and patient. And she maintained that demeanor throughout most of Dick's cross-examination even when things got heated. But she started to come off as less credible. During those six weeks you were helpful to me in a number of

different ways. Accommodating friends that I had that wanted to come watch the trial for instance, correct? That's correct. You even allowed me to use the private restroom down on the first floor so I didn't have to stand in line with the rest of the people trying to get breaks, correct? Correct. Okay, if you all didn't watch the hearing, we highly recommend you fast forward to the part

where Dick said that about the restroom. The look on his face when he paused before saying, rest of the people shows you just how above everyone Dick finds himself to be. Then Dick got into Becky's so-called quest for fame and fortune. And did you tell her you're going to write a book because you thought it would make a lot of money? Oh, no, sir.

You never said that? No, sir. And did you tell her that you were going to write a book to make a bunch of money so you could buy a lake lot and build a house on it? No, sir. And did you tell her that you were going to write a book to make a bunch of money so you could buy a lake life and build a house on it? No, sir. Okay. Now, did you ever tell her that you had given a juror a ride home that you had accompanied Mr. Bill, what's his last name?

Bill Polk. Right. Did you and he took a juror home one night? Did you tell her that? Did you take a juror home one night? I didn't take a juror home one night? Did you tell her that? Did you take a juror home one night? I didn't take a juror home one night. No, sir. Mr. Polk, did you take a juror home one night?

No, sir. We did. You never gave a juror ride in a car with Mr. Polk or without? No, sir. OK. So not only do we have juror F denying that this ride happened, we have Becky denying it. Several people have asked us why the bailiff did not get called to the stand.

Bill Polk was interviewed by Sled and submitted a written statement to them in which he denied witnessing Becky or any other court official doing anything or saying anything to the jurors beyond Becky helping jurors with a couple of personal issues unrelated to the trial. As you know, Becky said she was asked for feminine products and band-aids by the jurors. She helped with their coffee and food orders, and she helped one juror sort out his child support issues so that he could serve.

I should note that Bill Polk was the jury coordinator. He was the primary person with the jury at all times. Additionally, he takes credit for not taking the jurors on smoke breaks during deliberations and said that has always been the policy at Colleton County Courthouse. After this, Dick got into Becky's book some more. Throughout Dick's questioning, Creighton objected about half a dozen times. Each objection was overruled. We've been asked why Justice Toll

allowed these doors to be open. The answer is because the defense had the right to impeach Becky's testimony and question her credibility. Now, you have described in your book, your role as Switzerland, is that correct? Correct. Okay, and that is that you should not be in any way opinionated about what's going on in the trial, is that correct? That's true. Okay.

Yet in your book you indicated a number of different points during the trial, you had concluded he was guilty, is that correct? I think... You are right at this point. I don't know if her conclusions in the book are in any way relevant to what occurred during the trial and whether or not there was any communications with the jurors, which is the sole issue that we're here for today is whether or not Ms. Hill had any extraneous influence on the jurors. And so I think this is going a little farther than we would object to the. Oh, the roof. I can see you. Let me give you an example. You indicate, writing back from Mo Zell,

that you and three other people were in a car. And you all decided, adamantly, I think, was the word you used, that he was guilty, that he had killed his wife and son. Is that what you put in the book? I can't remember if I put that in the book, but if you say I did, then I will agree with you. We did have a conversation about what each of us thought.

And they all four agreed that he was guilty, correct? And none of us were jurors. No, trust me, I know that. But you had an abiding conviction, at least by the time of the Moselle visit, that he was guilty. And the other people in the car with you were bailiffs, were they not? No. Who were they? Some were not bailiffs.

One was a court reporter, one was our security officer, head security, and another was a deputy sheriff. Okay, but the four of y'all wrote out there, and based on what, I mean, I can, well, you want me to review how chilled you were and how you felt this, poor Paul and Maggie had been executed by him on that scene, that visiting the scene convinced you

that he was a horrible, horrible murder? You want me to read that to you? Or you will concede that's what you wrote? I will concede that's what I wrote, but if I may, I would say that a lot of that is poetic license in writing a book and in making it sound like that. Okay, so some of it's poetic license and some of it you just stole. You pervoided from that BBC writer, right? Here we are at the heart of our frustration, at the core issue behind all of this.

Why did Becky Hill write this book? Her book is the reason for all of this chaos in this case, and in her life right now. Before this book, the only chance Elik had at a new trial or an overturned verdict was his appeal on the grounds that Judge Newman shouldn't have allowed testimony about Elik's financial crimes and that chance seemed to be slim. Next, Dick asks Becky about her plagiarism. I did plagiarize Mr. Hartfield. That's the one, isn't it? It is. And for that, I'm very sorry.

And I have apologized. Okay. And that makes it okay? What I did, I did. And I apologized for that. Okay. And part of the book is you say literary license, exaggeration? I wouldn't call it exaggeration.

Okay. Now let me ask you this is Switzerland and this is that you're saying this is happening while you're supposed to be Switzerland. You decided the defendants guilty and if Ms. McElmine says that you're gonna make you more money if you if he found guilty don't you think it's reasonable to assume that you may have crossed the line from time to time? Creighton continued to object to Dick's questions about what was in the book. It was so irritating to hear Becky talk about poetic license as if that's something normal

in the nonfiction world. It's not. And she said it with a smile like she was proud. Additionally, I feel like I kind of understand what she was trying to say there, and it's this. This book was written after the verdict and after Becky had time to reflect on the sum total of her trial impressions and her experiences, including any conversations she might have had with Jur's post-conviction when Jur's are allowed to talk about how they arrived at their opinions.

What she wrote was not from her diary of that day's events. She was looking back on the events with her current understanding of them. That's not poetic license. That's how memoirs are written. You're not making stuff up. You're writing from a position of time having passed and your experience that you didn't have in that moment and recasting that moment in a way that comports. Unsurprisingly, Dick started down the egg lady route. Surprisingly,

Justice Toll let him do it, but in a limited way. I remember reading one night something on Walter Burr word of mouth and when I was in the courtroom on a Monday morning listening to the judge and the attorneys talking about a matter, it sounded like it was relevant to each other. OK. And you became aware somehow that this juror had a restraining order out for her ex-husband?

She told me that herself. OK. And tell me how it came for her to tell you about that. Where did she tell you? She was very talkative and when I was instructed by Judge Newman to go and get her from out of the jury room with a deputy following me, she was talking to me all the way back to the judge's chamber since she mentioned that there were restraining orders out when they had divorced. So how did the judge who brought it to the

judge's attention about this Walter Burr word of mouth thing? I let the judge know, thinking that it could be related. Okay and you let the judge know what? That I had read something on Walter Berwer of Mouth. Okay, and that you knew it was tied to that juror? I didn't know that it was. I wasn't sure at all. Who do you think it was tied to? From what y'all were talking about at the bench, I felt like I needed to let him know, just in case it was related.

There was something about an ex-husband and an ex-wife and somebody being on the jury. You didn't tell the judge that you had found what we call the apology post. You didn't tell the judge that? I didn't call it that, no. You don't remember producing it saying that,cing it to the judge saying this is a post in which the guy that posted it on Friday night says the devil got in him and Drinking and he apologized for what he posted you didn't produce that my staff did one of my staff But you gave that to the judge and gave it to us. Did you know yes, we did as if it were from That jurors ex-husband, correct?

Correct. And you know it wasn't? I don't know that, Mr. Hart Boolean. No. So, and this, you did not take that juror out and talk to her before you took her to the judge? Is that your? I never talked to that juror about stuff like that.

Now, this is where Dick and Jim's battle for the headlines pays off for them. When they ask Becky questions related to situations that most of us only know about through their bombastic and hyperbolic filings and the media's glomming on to those bombastic and hyperbolic accusations, it's easy to lose sight of what actually happened. It's hard to know sometimes if Becky's lying, if she's just splitting hairs, or if she's telling the truth in her responses. But here's some new insight on the matter, right? Becky says that she didn't bring the Facebook post to the judge's attention independently of the matter they were discussing regarding the egg

lady's conversations with her tenants. She mentioned it in conjunction with that. It's yet another example of Becky trying to be queen of the courthouse, the keeper of knowledge, of trying to be important and relevant. And it's yet another example of how this did not serve her well. Speaking of, Dick asked Becky about her email to a member of the media. The reporter had asked Becky if the jurors would be sequestered throughout the weekend as they deliberated and Becky informed her that she wasn't expecting deliberations to go past Friday at that point. Did you text email or communicate on the morning before final

arguments were completed that to people that they, this was on a Thursday, that they probably, if they're going to see the trial, should come on that Thursday because it'd be over by the next day. The jury would not be out very long. Did you ever communicate that? Email, text, or verbally? I do remember saying that, yes. And why did you think the jury would not be out very long?

Had you communicated with jurors? I had not communicated with jurors about anything related to this trial at all. I've been a court reporter for at least 14 years. I was clerk of court for three. And you just get to where you kind of see things happen as they progress, and it's a guess, it's a gut feeling, and that's all that I meant by that. Well, why are you telling this young man who wanted passes for the next day in an email,

you know, it won't be happening tomorrow? That was your, or did you say, you didn't say, I don't think, you just said you better come today if you're coming. Remember doing that? I don't say, I don't think, you just said, you better come today if you're coming. Remember doing that? I don't remember that. But you know, if he wanted to come, I knew that the trial would be ending shortly, as far as testimony. So if he wanted to come, he needed to come.

Why wouldn't the jury have been out a week on a six-week trial? They could have. But you apparently were telling the press and others that it would be a quick verdict. Were you not? That was just a gut feeling that I had and that was my opinion. You were right. The jury was out three hours on a six-week trial, correct? That's true. I know it's already preposterous that Dick wants the world to believe this woman got 12 individuals to vote a certain way against a man who had all of the evidence against him.

But he really must think Becky is talented if he believes she also rushed the jury to find him guilty within three hours so she could get to writing that book. Becky's sloppy and imprecise testimony opened the door wide open for Dick Harputlian. Did you tell jurors at the end of the trial after President's Day break, President's Day break would have been a Monday, correct? Correct. But before Mr. Murdoch testified, did you tell the jury not to be fooled by the evidence presented by Mr. Murdoch's lawyer? Mr. Hart-Pooley and I never talked to the jurors about any of the evidence in this case. If he asked you would he yes or no, then you can explain. Did you say that? No. Okay. Did you ever instruct the jury to watch him closely immediately before he testified, looking

at his actions, looking at his movements? Did you ever tell the jury to do that? No. Did you ever tell the jury to pay attention to Mr. Murdoch's testimony? To pay attention, not specifically to his testimony. I did tell the jury to pay attention. To what? Just generally in the hallway when I was speaking.

Not to him? No. Just any witness? Right. OK. Did you ever warn the jurors the defense is about to do their side? This is right before the beginning of the defense case.

They are going to say things that will try to confuse you, don't let them confuse you or convince you or throw you off. Did you ever tell the jury that? No, sir. Okay. Did you ever tell the jury if you get emotional, we want to see your face, because that is what they want to see.

You ever tell them that? No, sir. Did you ever tell the jury that Mr. Murdoch was about to testify? I didn't tell the jurors that. This is important. Again, Justice Toll decided to drop the words, merits of the case from her question about the comments Becky may have made to jurors. But still, jurors who previously told Sled that Becky had only generally told them to pay attention throughout the trial

did not let the court know this was the case. So important context was missing. If Becky was generally warning the jury to pay attention as they walked to the hall to the courtroom, then it's possible that jurors Z and P missed those earlier warnings and only picked up on it the day that Ellick testified. To make sure the record was tight, though, Creighton attempted to clean it up. At any time did you have any conversation with any juror in which you tried to influence their decision? I did not have a conversation with any juror about anything related to this case. After this, Judge Toll began to

question Becky. And this is when Becky became even more sloppy in her testimony. I'm sure she was advised by her attorney to only answer the question asked of her, and not to offer any additional information. But she continued to split hairs with Justice Toll. For instance, the egg lady. Well then let's go back and talk about that juror. The Egg Lady. Well, you asked her direct questions, and that came out in the hearing that Judge Newman had. You asked her questions before she was even examined

by the judge, did you not? Your Honor, I did not ask her any questions. There was a big pause from Justice Toll after that. She seemed frustrated because she very clearly had a transcript from Judge Newman's hearing in front of her in which the egg lady had told the judge that Becky told her about the Facebook post, and here Becky seemed to be denying that. But was Becky really denying it? She said she didn't ask any questions, not that she didn't speak with the juror. Justice Toll didn't drop it. She said she didn't ask any questions, not that she didn't speak with the juror.

Justice Toll didn't drop it. For more than 10 minutes, she tried to suss out what Becky had said to the egg lady. It was incredibly frustrating to listen to because ultimately it seems like Becky was trying to say that she didn't do anything improper but was being accused of doing something improper because the egg lady was a chatty person who was asking her questions on the way to Judge Newman's chambers. It seemed like Becky was saying that she answered those questions, that the egg lady initiated these conversations and because of that, to Becky's mind, she didn't do anything improper there.

The second hang up with Justice Toll was the question of Becky sharing sealed evidence with the media. Did you ever allow anyone in the press to view these sealed exhibits? No ma'am. Did you allow Netflix to ever examine the exhibits to trial? No ma'am. How did you handle exhibits? Because you did have the press have great access to the exhibits. And you say several times in your book that you had to stay after to be sure

that you interacted with the press about these exhibits. That's true, is it not? That is true. We had Mr. J. Bender, then we had the pull photographers and someone from maybe the state of a leave or the posting career, along with the court reporters, someone from court administration, and then someone from the clerk's office every night that would go over the exhibits to make sure everything was correct and within our

domain. Were any press people ever allowed to view the exhibits, even the sealed exhibits that you had on file? No ma'am. No ma'am. Now again, Justice Toll had evidence in front of her that Becky had shared sealed exhibits. And again, Becky was splitting hairs and not being articulate. What she should have said was this. The evidence was erroneously not sealed, so it was not sealed when I sent it to Netflix. Additionally, the exhibits were available to the media each night, and so I stayed to facilitate that. The exhibits that you're saying I shared were not sealed until after I had given them to the media.

Things got a little confusing when Justice Toll turned to Becky's book, quoting a passage that does not appear in the Kindle version that I have. I could not find anywhere in Becky's book where she says she met eyes with the jurors at Moselle, but I will say just like with her testimony, her language and grammar in the book were often imprecise. To the point where the use of the pronoun we and the use of the word all could be grossly misinterpreted.

And again, she's using the words poetic license or literary license in the incorrect way. Well, in your book, you suggest that the guilty verdict was what you wanted and you were fearful that a guilty verdict would not be rendered. You say that a lot about your feeling about warning a guilty verdict, do you not? I do agree that that is said in the book and part of that is because I think it was a guilty verdict. Well, this is why you were describing a time way before the verdict was rendered when you

wrote about those things in the book. Isn't that correct? It is, yes. And you even have something where you said your eyes met with jurors and others at Moselle and y'all have an understanding, unspoken, that he was guilty. You said that in the book, did you not? I did say that in the book, and I would consider that part of the literary, the word that we just said.

But there was nothing spoken with a juror at all at Moselle or anywhere else at the courthouse or anywhere. I think that's part of that poetic license that we write to make something more apparent. But at no time did I read or try to read someone else's eyes, and that was just one of those gut feelings that I wrote in the book. After Justice Toll was done questioning Becky, Creighton and Dick asked additional questions about the sealed evidence. Finally, Creighton cleared up the confusion by explaining to Justice Toll that the exhibits had not been sealed at the time Becky had shared them with the media.

That clarifies that issue for me so far. I frankly, that puts my mind at ease about what happened there now. Next, the defense called Barnwell Clerk of Court, Rhonda McHelving. Rhonda is Becky's former friend, whom she enlisted for clerk guidance and help during the trial. Rhonda was there for one reason and one reason only, to make Becky look bad, which she succeeded at. The problem? I think she made herself look bad in the process.

Rhonda is the president of the South Carolina Clerk of Courts Association, meaning she should have known the rules for clerks in a jury trial better than anyone. And she should have spoken up over a year ago if she witnessed anything that could possibly compromise the validity of that verdict. Now, I don't know Rhonda, but she came across as the friend that no one would ever want. I have met a lot of Rhonda types in the last three years.

People who insert themselves in the Murdoch mess, simply because they see opportunity in being close to the fire. Ronda also seemed to have a friendly rapport with Dikarpoolian, and she appeared to use her testimony time to practice her stand-up jokes about how she doesn't trust Sunday School teachers and also to remind the audience of her bid for reelection.

Kirkacourt, an ROD for Barnwell County. Kirkacourt in what? Register of Deeds. I have two titles. Two titles. And is that an appointed or an elected position? Elected. So you're elected by the people of Barnwell County? Yes, sir. And how long have you been the Corpo Court of Barnwell County?

This is my 16th year. 16 years. And... And I'm running again, sir. You up this year? 24 years. Yes, sir. All right.

I don't think I'm allowed to plug that, but um... I didn't find that funny. Because she is presenting herself as a public official who offered her expertise during the trial of the century. But really, she just seemed to be there as a busybody, collecting gossip and ammo to hurt Becky with later on and to promote herself in her reelection bid. I thought it was especially odd how Rhonda casually spoke about her and Becky's big book idea.

Did she ever discuss with you that she was going to write a book? Yes, sir. She wanted to write a book. She wanted to write a book. Did she indicate what the book was going to be about? About the trial. About the Murdoch trial? Yes, sir.

And did she discuss with you, what if anything, did she discuss with you about how she felt the verdict should turn out to be in the Murdoch trial? These would be in reference to the book. What would help the book? A guilty verdict. And tell us, tell the judge and me, what exactly she said to you that you remember. This is

prior to the trial. Okay. Well, first of all, she said, we might want to write a book because she needed a lake house and I needed a retire. And then further conversations on guilty verdict would sell more books. And we looked at that, we did this before, even in December. And when did she ever say that again to you during the weeks you spent there? Several times. It could be said it was, you know, amongst friends in her office or might be having dinner or that kind of stuff, but that's about it.

She needed a guilty verdict to sell more books. That would be the best way to sell books, yes sir. The best way to sell books. This all should sound familiar because it is the entire motive of the defenses theory. That Becky tampered with the jury to secure a guilty verdict so she could sell more books. It appears like we now know the source of that theory, Becky's ex-friend. But I need to talk about a couple things here.

The first one being, what kind of book was Becky banking on here that could buy out Rhonda's retirement and get a lake house for Becky? And was Rhonda supposed to be the co-author that Becky cut out? This is important because Rhonda could have been angry about spending so much of her time helping out with the trial of the century and not getting her into the deal. Most importantly, why didn't Rhonda say anything to Judge Newman about this? Or why didn't she say anything else that she claimed to find troubling over a year ago? If I had a friend who was in a powerful position like Becky during one of the most consequential trials of our state's history.

And that friend told me that she had motives not only beyond her duty, but contradictory to her duty as clerk of court. I would have said something, not only to Becky herself, but to Judge Newman. At the very least, Judge Newman could have reminded Becky before the trial started of what she could and couldn't do when it comes to her role as clerk of court. Because really, in Becky's defense, there was no exact playbook for a trial of this magnitude. Anyone who noticed that Becky was not capable of handling the role should have spoken up about it a year ago. Rhonda said under oath that Becky gave a juror a ride home, and she scolded Becky about it.

But she didn't think it was enough to go to Judge Newman. The juror and Becky said that this didn't happen, which is yet another example of how confusing the truth is in this case. Thankfully, Big Creighton Energy cleaned up the confusion on cross-exam with this simple question. All right, and if that had happened, if you had observed anything untoward or improper going on

at this particular trial, you would have immediately gone to Judge Newman as part of your obligation. Is that correct? That is correct. And you never did that because you never observed anything like that. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Despite how Rhonda feels about Becky, ultimately, she testified that she never witnessed Becky saying anything improper or untoward to the jury. Which is what matters here. And we'll be right back. Now, the last witness to be called by the defense was Juror 741, aka the Blanket Lady. She's called Blanket Lady because she was the alternate juror known for rarely

paying attention and at times, putting a blanket over her head and covering her ears. Blanket Lady never rendered a verdict. And before this week, she never signed an affidavit. She was a juror whose affidavit of her testimony was signed by Dick's clerk, Holly Miller. Blanket Lady testified that Dick came to our house on a Sunday afternoon in August while she was cooking dinner to ask questions about her time as an alternate juror.

I keep thinking about this and how startling it must have been for these jurors who were just minding their own business at their own house in August, thinking the murder trial was finally behind them, and then Dick Harputlian shows up on their porch on a Sunday. I would have had a heart attack. But anyways, she testified that Dick didn't ask her to sign an affidavit when he visited her in August, which is odd, right? Maybe it's because they knew her testimony was simply fluff

to add to their pile of accusations to make it look to the press like they had more evidence than they did. The affidavit which she testified to claimed that Becky told the jury that, quote, the defense is going to try to confuse you and not to let them. This was to discredit Becky further and to make the other jurors look less credible. Blanket Lady said in her affidavit this week that she heard that Hill gave another juror a ride home. But oddly, Dick didn't ask her about this.

Prosecutor Metters honed in on this, but oh boy, it did not end well for him. So again, let's start putting it in ass here, but when you're in your sec, But oh boy, it did not end well for him. So again, Mr. Harpenter didn't ask you, but when you, in your sec, in the affidavit of today, I also overheard discussions in the jury room that Miss Hill drove a juror home. I believe it was a juror whose nickname was Boston. Is that something that was added after your lawyer was with Mr. Harpenter today? I don't know if I added it. We talked about it today, but I don't know if I added it.

We talked about it today, but I don't know if I mentioned it in September or not. But I know it. You've never talked about it, wasn't it? No, it's not no reason to raise objection. The first thing is, Mr. Madam, I'm gonna caution you one more time about this.

You cannot talk over a witness. The second thing is you don't need to be marching all back around. Yeah, you talking only to me, not jury or anything else. So let's slow down and you know, this is repetitive of questions that have been asked before. If you want to take this tone with her, I don't know exactly what you're trying to accomplish. I'm not trying to take tone.

I apologize. She knows that. I'm sorry. Well, you're just talking to me. That's it. This is not some drama thing for the jury. I know, I'm sorry. All right. This was one of those confusing moments

that felt like the prosecution was losing, when really, the testimony wasn't important at all to the scope of the hearing. There were several exchanges like this one Monday afternoon, when toll sided with the defense and scolded the prosecution. Thankfully, Creighton brought everyone back to reality during his closing arguments. So we have this juror who's given answers all over the place that are inconsistent with 11 other

jurors who were very strong and unequivocal that yes, this was our verdict. It was based solely on the evidence, the law, and the testimony that there were no communications from Becky Hill that influenced that verdict. And I think ultimately when you look at the case law in the end, it's up to your honor to make that ultimate determination and looking at all that law together. We cited another number of decisions,

including as we discussed the questions to be had. I sent an email where we set out some questions that it's not uncommon, perhaps, for a juror to have a second thought. But the law is very clear that it does not recognize that, because what that would do would be to consistently and constantly put every verdict that occurs in any courtroom in this state or in the nation at risk. Jurors don't have to vote in perpetuity. They vote on one day and one day only.

And here, Your Honor, the evidence is overwhelming that those jurors' verdict was the product of honest deliberation, and the only bit of contrary evidence to that effect is from a juror who, frankly, not only said that it was purely the result of honest deliberation, but then has answers all over the place. And, Your Honor, I would say that the other 11 jurors are credible. They were strong. They were clear with Your Honor, and I think that ultimately that carries the day.

Now, we've had testimony from other people since the jurors were here. We've had testimony obviously from Miss Hill. We've had testimony from Miss Rhonda. And we've had testimony from this alternate juror. But again, none of that testimony at all goes to what is the ultimate test for your honor, and that is whether or not this verdict was the product of honest deliberation. And on that, again, the evidence is overwhelming and strong and clear that it was the product

of honest deliberation. I appreciate what Creighton said here, that essentially overturning this verdict based on jurors flip floppy statements months later, that would compromise every verdict in the country. We cannot have a system where jurors vote and swear under oath that they stand by their verdict, and then two powerful defense attorneys waltz into town six months later and twist that all around. Vertics are final, as they should be.

And had Monday gone differently, I don't wanna think about the kind of harassment and pressure other expensive defense attorneys would put on jurors to bully them into making claims to increase their chances at a new trial. It would be chaos, and it would only benefit the privileged defendants who can afford to pay lawyers to play such silly games. And then there was Jim Griffin, who hadn't said much all day.

Jim had the same unsure tone that he had a year ago when he gave a disjointed closing argument at the end of Ellick Murdock's murder trial. Then, like now, Jim had very little facts to work with. This time, he honed in on the one thing Team Murdock has been successful at, attacking Becky's credibility. I mean, this is prejudice, and this has been proven. I mean, Miss Hill is not credible. Miss Hill is not credible. And she's talking about her book, talking about taking literary to lie, literary license to lie is what she thinks a literary license is. So her testimony should not be credited. We have proven, we have met our burden of proving that there was extraneous contact

with these jurors. Three of the 12 deliberating jurors have testified to that. One of the 12 says it influenced my verdict. How is that not prejudice? And that's all we have to prove. We believe for the record there is a presumption of prejudice that they have to overcome but we have proven prejudice. And your honor we respectfully request that a new trial should be granted based on the record developed today. Thank you.

And finally, at five o'clock, Justice Toll announced her decision, denying Ellick Mardock a new trial. Her recitation of the case was thorough. For instance, she put on the record that Alec was accusing Becky of tampering quote with a jury by expressing her opinion to the jurors about what their verdict should be and about the credibility of the defendant. That feels important because again, it goes back to the precision. Becky didn't express to the jurors her opinion about what the verdict should be.

And there's only one juror saying that she took Becky's comments to mean that Elick wasn't credible. Here is what Justice Toll ruled on the facts of the case. Did Clark of Court Hill make comments to any juror which expressed her opinion of what the verdict would be? Ms. Hill denies a and so the question becomes, was her denial credible? I find that the Clark of Court is not completely credible as a witness. Ms. Hill was attracted by the siren call of celebrity. She wanted to write a book about the trial and express that as early as November 2022,

long before the trial began. She denies that this is so, but I find that she stated to the clerk of court, Rhonda McElven and others, her desire for a guilty verdict because it would sell books. She made comments about Murdoch's demeanor as he testified, and she made some of those comments before he testified to at least one and maybe more jurors. Did Clark of Court Hill's comments have any impact on the verdict of the jury? I find that the answer to this question is no. Each member of this jury took their involuntary assignment very seriously. They obeyed the instructions of the court.

They obeyed their oath. These good and decent citizens of Colleton County stood to their due and rendered their verdict without fear or favor. It was a difficult task. 11 of the jurors very unconditionally said that either heard no comment or if they heard a comment it had no effect. One juror was ambivalent in her testimony. She was then examined on her previous affidavit in which

she said the effect, if any, that she had was pressure she felt from other jurors. The cases are merrily that pressure from fellow jurors is a part of the normal give and take of jury deliberations. The court is not in quite any way about what is said in those deliberations. But the juror was somewhat ambivalent, said on her oath at the time of trial twice, and said on her oath before me in these proceedings that she stood to her oath. The clerk of court allowed public attention of the moment to overcome her duty. I have read the entire transcript of this lengthy trial, not an easy task. I have studied in detail all of the authority cited.

I have independently researched the case law, and learned treatises, and scholarly articles on the subject. Although there is certainly a split in the federal circuits and in the states on the subject. Although there is certainly a split in the federal circuits and in the states on the standard of review, I simply do not believe that the authority of our Sarkalina Supreme Court requires a new trial in a very lengthy trial such as this on the strength of some fleeting and foolish comments by

publicity influence Clark or court. This is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge and I am the trial judge at this moment. I do not feel that I abuse my discretion when I find the defendant's motion for a new trial on the factual record before me must be denied and it is so ordered." And there was the resolution we had hoped for. Though some believe that Justice Toll has helped the defense by putting it on the record that she did believe Becky was driven by a desire for fame and attention. Something we've come to agree with after hearing the testimony, and though Justice Toll acknowledged that Becky made fleeting and foolish comments to people during

the trial, to include comments to one or more jurors, we still consider this a huge win. We believe that Eleg does not stand a chance of appealing his case successfully at the state level, but we can see how Team Murdoch thinks they not stand a chance of appealing his case successfully at the state level, but we can see how Team Murdoch thinks they might have a chance at the federal level. In 1960, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a split ruling that a new trial is warranted when a court official has had private communications with jurors that could have harmed the verdict. Justice Tull noted during the status conference that there had been several cases since that and since the 1993 ruling in state v Cameron which relied heavily on the federal ruling that have clarified the court's view of a quote automatic new

trial. In other words, we have hoped that the U.S. Court of Appeals will not open the door any wider for Elec Murdoch to get a new trial because of just how strange and unique this case is. One juror came forward five months after the fact and only after the defense seemed to go looking for her, but she didn't say the things she needed them to say in her affidavit. Instead, she told the truth about how she arrived at her decision about Ellic. She felt pressured by other jurors to render a guilty verdict. It seems highly unlikely that any court is going to look at Alec Murdoch's case and think to themselves, an injustice has been done here.

We need to make this right for future cases. Another thing not on his side, here's how Justice Toll left things in the courtroom. But I will say this about the record now that I have read it. And I will say this about the record now that I have read it. And I will say this about the testimony that I heard Friday and today. Judge Newman said it best in his sentence when he discussed the weight and the measure of the case presented in the testimony and evidence submitted in this case when it was tried. It is a very compelling case supporting the verdict that the jurors reached. He said

it with a lot more detail than I do, but now that I've read the record, I say as the successor trial judge, I agree that the evidence was overwhelming and the jury verdict not surprising. This matter is now adjourned. So, does Ehrlich actually have a chance at an appeal? That is a question we'll explore down the road after Justice Toll files her written order and after the defense and the state make their filings with the appellate court. In the meantime, we are moving on. For those of you who watched the hearing, you might have noticed someone sitting smack dab in the middle of sled agents in the AG's office.

She was dressed in green, her son's favorite color. On what would have been Steven Smith's 28th birthday, his mother Sandy Smith sat in the courtroom for seven hours and watched Ellick Murdoch's evidentiary hearing on Monday. She was there as a reminder, not just a law enforcement, that she's not going away anytime soon, she was there as a reminder to the world of the injustice that continues to exist, that Steven's killers have not been identified or arrested. Next week, we will start from scratch. I don't know who killed Steven Smith, but we are going to find out.

Stay tuned, stay pesky, and co-hosted by journalist Liz Farrell. Learn more about our mission and membership at lunasharkmedia.com. Interruptions provided by Luna and Joe Pesky.