Murdaugh Murders Podcast - TSP S3 E34 - Light at the End of the Tunnel: Justice Toal Brings Order to Murdaugh Chaos

Episode Date: January 18, 2024

On today’s show, True Sunlight Co-hosts Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell finally see some hope after five months of Murdaugh chaos. This week, Justice Jean Toal sent a strong message to Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin that her courtroom will not be a place for them to put Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill on trial in their quest to get Alex Murdaugh a new trial. Left with their playbook ripped in shreds, what will Team Murdaugh’s next move be? Mandy and Liz discuss the highlights from this week’s status conference and what they think will happen in the lead up to Alex’s Jan. 29th hearing. The biggest question heading into Tuesday's hearing was how Justice Toal would interpret the law – if she will decide on Alex’s new trial based on evidence of Becky’s actions with the jurors affecting the verdict OR based on evidence showing that Becky’s communication with the jury COULD HAVE affected the verdict.  And it didn’t take long for Judge Toal to make a clear decision on that and set the tone for the hearing... 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

At Salesforce, we're all about asking more of AI. Questions like, where's the data going? Is it secure? Are you sure? Are you sure you're sure? Get answers you can trust from Salesforce at AskMoreVai.com. Yes, that's gotta be the wings. wings, nice!

Where'd you order wings from? Louisiana! Enjoy a wing night in with Popeyes. Popeyes hand-battered wings a marinated full full 12 hours in Louisiana seasonings, and with five irresistible flavors, including Ghost Pepper, Honey Garlic and Garlic Pommajon, there's something for everyone. Mmm-mmm.

We got in by Popeyes and the party more often. Make it tonight Wing Night in with Popeyes. Now, that chicken from Popeyes! I don't know how much longer the media will continue to buy Nightwing Night End. With Popeye. Yeah, take it from Popeye. I don't know how much longer the media will continue to buy into the lives of Team Murdoch, but on Tuesday, for the first time in a long time, I felt confident that our system will finally put an end to the judicial terrorism.

Finally, after almost five years, I can see a light at the end of the tunnel. And I have real hope that justice toll will be the woman to save our system. My name is Manny Mattney. This is True Sunlight, a podcast exposing crime and corruption previously known as the Murdock Murders podcast. True Sunlight is a Luna Shark production written with your analyst Liz Farrell. [♪ music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music playing, music I just want to take a moment and give our team a big pat on the back. Because once again, we were right. Our sources were right. Our legal experts were right.

Our instinct to not take the defense at their word no matter how many times we were called crazy, they were right. It's been a weird 134 days since team Murdoch set fire to the Justice System and led the media on a wild clerk of court chase accusing Becky Hill of jury tampering and convincing the media that Alec Murdoch was all but guaranteed a new trial. Now, I will be the first to admit that this story is personal to me. Next month, we'll mark five years for Liz and I, in which we've dedicated thousands of hours of our free time

in acres of our brain space and memory to investigating the Murdoch family, and exposing the deep corruption poisoning our justice system in the low country. I'm not sure how this story couldn't be personal for someone in our shoes. But because it is so personal, I remember very vivid details of what was happening in my life during different moments of Murdoch madness.

At the end of August, we took a trip to Europe to celebrate the last few years of building a company, starting two number one podcast and ultimately exposing a lot of bad people who I don't think would have ever been held accountable had it not been for us. I remember on the plane right there, I was excited about the next chapter beyond the Murdoch madness. We were starting to get deep into the Solomon story

in Tennessee, and we felt confident about our plans to begin new investigations elsewhere. A couple days into our trip, I heard from a friend who heard from Team Murdoch that they were going to be bombshells in the Murdoch case in the following week. I was annoyed, now what? Can't we just be done with them? A few days later, on September 5, 2023, those alleged bombshells dropped when Dick and Jim held a press conference and claimed to have a stack of evidence proving that Clerk of Court Becky Hill tampered with the jury. I remember it perfectly.

I was helping my friend get ready for her wedding in Florence, Italy, when I heard the news. Just like it did, on so many other Murdoch madness days in the past few years, my cell phone blew up. Immediately, I was getting messages like, Did you hear what Becky Hilded? Can you believe Elik is getting a new trial? And then, a lot of messages from our sweet fans saying, I don't buy what the media is saying. And I'm waiting to hear from y'all,

Are these accusations from the defense legit? I didn't have a lot of time, but I did at Google search. And honestly, I had to do a few takes at what I was saying. Here's David, reading a few of those headlines from September 5th, 2023. Alec Murdock alleges jury tampering demands new trial. The Greenville News. Alec Murdock's lawyers, new bombshell claims about trial. Newsweek.

Murdoch's lawyers seek new trial, saying clerk, tampered with Jerry. New York Times. South Carolina Attorney General asks for state investigation into Alec Murdoch jury tampering allegations. CNN. My head started spinning. What?

I've seen poor journalism throughout this saga, but it was clear that every single news outlet in the country that had been following this story was taking these allegations extremely seriously and lending all sorts of undeserved credibility to team Murdoch who had lied and lied to them and made them look foolish, time and time again. The person I was two years ago would have ditched my friend

and our plans for Florence that night to go hide in my hotel room and read the files line by line, tweeting my findings and writing a new podcast script for that week. I used to constantly feel like it was my obligation and my duty to correct the Murdoch misinformation, until I realized how toxic that was to my own mental health. Thankfully, Liz, the voice of reason, quickly read the defense's filings and told me to calm down. She said she wasn't seeing anything to fret over. And whatever it was, we could deal with it when we got home. No more letting team Murdoch ruining our good times.

If you days later, David and I got some time to read the filings before we recorded a cup of Justice episode. I remember looking at him and saying, is this really it? There is nothing here. Am I missing something? I say these things because no matter how often

I am right, I still doubt myself. David, who just read the exact same pile of papers that I had read, agreed. I remember him saying, I cannot believe they've made such aggressive accusations with such little evidence. In the media, just ran with it. For the next month, we were hit with several rounds of criticism and accused constantly of ignoring the Becky story because it doesn't fit our narrative. When in reality, we had more important things to cover like Corey Fleming finally getting sentenced. And we needed time to dissect the documents

that Dick and Jim had filed and talk to sources about what is really going on. need a time to dissect the documents that Dick and Jim had filed and talk to sources about what is really going on. And over those next several months, harassment against us escalated. People constantly called us Team Becky. They called us bad journalists for not being able to look at the facts. They accused us of losing our sources in the last year and claimed that we lost our way. It was hurtful.

When all along, our view stayed the same. No matter how many times people said that we were wrong and how many reporters made rude remarks about our take on this, we said that the allegations made against Becky's ethics should be separate from the allegations about jury tampering. We said all along that in less dick and gym revealed more evidence of jury tampering. We said all along that unless Dick and Jim revealed more evidence of jury tampering, the chances of a new trial for Ellie Cmurdoch were very small. And in the past 134 days, Dick and Jim did not show any more evidence of jury tampering. What did happen, though, was piece by piece. Dick and Jim, working hand in hand with their friends in the media,

attacked Becky Hill's credibility. The media and the defense managed to convince a sizable audience that the decision for Ellic getting a new trial would come down to Becky's credibility. They said this over and over again, while chipping away at Becky Hill in her reputation. Oh, and Becky did make that easy. From her emails trying to be popular with the reporters to her book that was problematic to begin with, given her position as a public servant and even more problematic now, the she plagiarized a story from BBC that was accidentally emailed to her. Becky has not made this easy.

Oh, and when Justice Tull was picked to preside over the jury tampering hearing, the same reporters who took part in convincing the public that Becky's tarnish credibility would weigh heavily against the prosecution, they all shouted what a win it was for Team Murdoch, and how smooth his path to a retrial was looking. Oh, but a win, it was not.

Judge toll was a wild card for us. We heard from several sources that she was hard to predict, but also they said it would be easy to know where she was headed right out of the gate. And boy, were those sources accurate. The biggest question, heading into this hearing on Tuesday was how Judge toll would interpret the law. If she would decide on Elic Murdoch's new trial based on evidence of Becky's actions with the jurors affecting the verdict, or based on evidence showing that Becky's communication with the jurors could have affected the verdict. It didn't

take Judge Toll long at all to make a clear decision on that and set the tone for the entire hearing. A presumption is not the way to examine this issue, but rather specific evidence about what was said, when it was said, and how it was perceived by the juror, is what I believe is required by a state versus screening and other occasions. We will get into this more, but wow. Justice Toul was incredibly decisive, confident, and clear throughout Tuesday's three-hour hearing. There was no guessing whatsoever in what she was thinking.

As it involves some questions to Ms. Hill, similarly, this is not a time to explore every mistake or incorrect statement or fault statement that ever has been made by this witness. I am the judge of the credibility of this witness or purposes of this new trial motion. I don't think it's necessary to know what I think it's proper to explore each and every point. You're providing a ledge to have been committed by the club.

And she was not having whatever made up mush Dick Arpullian was serving. If they were friends, as several people suspected and there was historical evidence of, then just as toll swept that relationship out the door and focused on the facts of the case. If that makes sense. I think it looks at me because this is not the trial of this hill. And issues about the local and the so-called and the possible provision of crimes are not what this is where I asked about. It is about her contact with any of the zero-order and what she said.

A swear. I watched Dick shrink several inches as Jessus told schooled him on the law. Oh, and she was crystal clear that she was in command. I'm perfectly capable of evaluating with George Sterling. I'm perfectly capable of evaluating with a juror's talent. And I'll do that. I think I'm also perfectly capable of evaluating the credibility of Ms. Hill, find the jurors. Just like our cup of Justice co-host,

Eric Bland told us what happened, just as told to the media control of her courtroom. For much of the status conference, the camera was mainly focused on team Murdoch, on Dick, Jim, Ellic, Phil Barber, and all of their reddening faces. And when I say reddening, I am talking all the shades of red

right down to the purple hue that Dick's face started to take on toward the end. But we'll get to that. Justice Toll was presented to viewers from home, which included Mandy and me, as mostly a disembodied voice that was strong, commanding, and free from doubt, every word she said was intentional, and felt as solid as a brick, with each brick forming an even more formidable structure. So no matter how much dick huffs and puffs throughout the next few weeks,

he's not going to be able to blow her house down. That's for sure. From the get-go, Justice tolls at the agenda. She told the state and defense that they were here to discuss four matters. First, was whether an evidentiary hearing was necessary. Even though she had already decided

there would be a hearing, she wanted the arguments preserved for the record. The second was determining who had the burden of proof, what must be shown to meet that burden of proof, and what must be shown to contest that burden of proof. Third was hearing from both sides about the procedural timing issue, in which the state believes that Dick and Jim knew about the allegations from the Egg Lady juror immediately after the trial, and therefore they're arguing that all of this is moot because Team Murdoch was required to bring these allegations to the court's

attention within 10 days if they wanted to use it as a reason for a new trial. And then fourth and finally, and what just told called the heart and soul of her agenda, they were to discuss the guidelines for who would be a witness, what evidence would be allowed, and who would do the questioning. So for both me and you and me, this was our first time seeing justice, toll, and action, and we were both struck by how thorough she was and how clear. When someone is that thorough and that clear, you immediately know that person is aware of their own thoroughness and their own clarity, and by golly, you had better be listening with both ears. Meaning, if she were your professor, you'd be sitting up straight and taking notes. But not our dick Harpothian. When he stood up to address the court, but you just took it. Mr. Pryman is going to address those.

He said, I assume you want to address the issues in the order you very deliberately raised them, and I've already forgotten what that order was. So here's the thing about that. We all know that Justice Tull has a series of firsts on her resume. She became a lawyer at a time when she wasn't even legally allowed to be a juror as a woman. She was the first woman on the State Supreme Court and the first woman to become Chief Justice. She has spent her entire career having to contend with the buffoonery that the state's good old boy attorneys could and continue to get away with. This goes without saying, but there are very few, if any, women attorneys or attorneys

of color who would ever think they could get away with standing in front of a South Carolina judge mere moments after being given instructions and essentially say, eh, it wasn't that important to me so I've already forgotten what you said. The point being, Dick should have had a conversation with himself in the mirror before he got to the courtroom Tuesday morning and advised himself to be less of a dick harpoonian because his usual power wrangling wasn't going to work on her. And God are we here for that? Like we said, throughout the proceeding she put Dick on notice over and over. So let's talk about what Dick and Jim wanted and what they got.

The first thing they wanted was to have a hearing, and they got that. Justice Toll has scheduled an evidentiary hearing for January 29th and possibly the 30th and 31st in Richland County Courthouse. The state argued against this thing that a hearing wasn't necessary because A, Dick and Jim knew about these allegations right after the trial and therefore missed their window in terms of raising the issue, and B, the only deliberating juror that Dick and Jim have who is making allegations against Becky is juror 630, and she doesn't cite Becky as the reason for her guilty verdict. She cites other jurors. And of course, the law is crystal clear in multiple cases. That that sort of internal debate is actually in the 606B.

That that's not any sort of misconduct or anything that is an appropriate venue or mechanism in order to attack the verdict. Yesterday during the status conference, we fielded a few questions in our live stream from soak up the Sun members about an argument that Jim Griffin was making in regards to having the hearing. Jim cited a case called Remmer and referred to the hearing as a Remmer hearing. Remmer v. United States is a case that one of essentially granted the defense wider latitude

during this evidentiary hearing at the end of the month. This is important, it's one of the key things that Dick and Jim have wanted. Because remember what we said in the last episode. They have nothing, they do not have evidence of jury tampering. They wanted to use this hearing as a fishing expedition and justice toll shut down any notion of that a few times. First, she told Jim this was not going to be a rumour hearing, so even though the hearing is the one win the Defense can point to yesterday, it's far in a way not the hearing they wanted. Here's what Justice Tull said. I don't think we need to go back in four to many times with this.

I think I understand your position. Here's my positional man. First of all, this is not, a river here in the river. It is a 1954 decision of the United States Supreme Court that deals with questions of influence of the jury and a motion for a new trial on the basis of after-discovered evidence of that youth. I rely on the cyclone. Well, decision of ice cream, caught off, just as Kichrich, State versus Green, and the Green decision specifically says that rumor is not the guidance that Saccharonic Projecture should look to and conduct in hearings on activist

cover-up. Now that says nothing about what the burden of birth should be and I don't intend to say anything thereby, but I do intend to tell you right away that I will be relying on saccharinitis jurisprudence and saccharinitis jurisprudence, specifically on what was approved in a hearing of this nature, and who bears the burden of that and who bears a burden that proves all right. So right there, right there in that moment, Team Murdoch knew that their house of cards was falling to the ground. Just as Tull was essentially telling them, I'm going to use the case law that does not favor your position to make my decisions. The same case law they argued against being used in their pre-hearing briefs.

Because don't forget, they needed the rules of the game to be totally in their favor in order to get anywhere. They were hoping that all that pre-hearing publicity, all the publicity that had nothing to do with the allegations of jury tampering, would help stir things up enough so that by the time they had their evidentiary hearing, witnesses to include the jurors might have become so influenced by the media, by the power of suggestion, and through the wild theories and accusations and misinformation being spread on social media that when questioned, they might say something that would help Alex Case. Team Murdoch wanted the court to use a standard of presumption where it's presumed that

Becky's alleged statement about, quote, watching Alex body language could affect the verdict. Instead of the standard of prejudice in which the court wants to see evidence of an actual prejudicing of the jury. So the next big issue, the defense lost on, the burden of proof. Team Murdoch's argument was that all they had to do was produce some evidence that supported their claim of jury tampering and that they had done that. That it was now up to the state to prove that jury tampering didn't occur. That the jurors' verdicts were not influenced by Becky Hill. Now, in making that argument, they

basically cited one case, which we've talked about a few times on the show. State V Cameron. Obviously, the state disagreed with that. And not only disagreed, but BCE came on the metaphorical stage with his metaphorical guitar, ready to metaphorically shred. Big, crane energy came on strong by citing nine cases that supported the state's position, including state V Cameron. He took the defenses own case law and sent it back to them as an origami swan. Cameron is a case that they rely on a lot. And I would say this about

Cameron, that camera of course goes on to say that the mere fact of any official communication does not necessarily mean that the jury was prejudiced and went on again to do a prejudice analysis and harmless error analysis. So the case law in South Carolina, both from our State Supreme Court as well as our State Court appeals, is clear it's in sync, it's uniform that has the defendant's burden to show prejudice. And that's of course only after there's a determination that any sort of extraneous influence occur. And that will be the state's position

that it is the defendant's burden. And again, we can address at the appropriate time that the state's position is as to the order of which the evidence should be. And here is Justice Toul delivering one of the biggest blows to the defense. I do not regard state versus Cameron as the God was that needs to be used by me in making a determination about this case.

It's a cordial wheels case. Sixth that case in 1993, there have been several cases including Green and Alder and others that very specifically talk about this issue of what the burden is, one emotion for a new problem, basis of after-scuffed evidence that embossed tampering or ledge tampering with the jury. All those cases say that prejudice must be proved, not presumed. And it may very well be that that is what's going to be shown. But for purposes of What the Defendant must show as the case goes forward to an evidentiary hearing The presumption simply by the contact

Which we don't have any sworn evidence about, except in the area of one juror at this time, a presumption is not the way to examine this. You have no idea how good it felt to hear Justice Hall say the thing that we've been screaming from the rooftops since this began. Teh Murdoch has one affidavit from one juror and it boils down to that. It also felt good to hear her say that there have been several cases since state v. Cameron, the case that the defense is almost fully relying on here, but deal with the issue of the burden of proof.

Meaning, you might see news agencies or people online or talking heads who continue to carry the water for Dick and Jim by claiming that Justice toll is stumping on Alex Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. But Justice toll is very clearly saying here that subsequent caseloah supports her decision. They have not made any definitive showing that Jerry tampering occurred. They have one juror saying she felt pressured by her fellow members of the jury.

Justice toll not only told the defense, sorry, but your case law ain't casing for me, she gave them a good idea of just how restrictive the questioning of the jury would be. Like we said at the beginning of the show. She told them she expected to ask jurors three questions, what was said, when it was said, and how it was perceived by the juror. And with that, the defense fishing expedition was cancelled. We'll be right back. I'm sure y'all know how much I love fitness, justice, and travel, but I'm also deeply passionate

about cheering on successful women. That's why I want to tell you about my amazing and inspiring friend, Jenny Fisher. You might have seen her in fitness magazines or on her own platform, fitfishmom.com, but now Jenny is offering an amazing opportunity to join her salt squad on the Magical Greek Island of Crete this April. It's six life-changing days of purposeful movement, fueling, mindfulness, and empowering others. It's a fitness and wellness retreat that will leave you feeling renewed in your confidence

and ready to share your love with the women around you. Spots are very limited. Click the link in the description or visit TravelGems.com slash get-sultie-retreat to join the salt squad for a trip of a lifetime. That's travelgems.com slash get-sultie-retreat. After determining who had the burden of proof, the defense, Justice toll then discussed her thoughts on the state's assertion that Dick and Jim missed their window of opportunity to make a motion to file for a new trial on after-discovered evidence because they discovered this so-called evidence when the egg-ladied juror obtained counsel. Counsel, being Dick's bestie, Joe McCullough,

who sat behind the defense on Tuesday, along with Tick-Tock Laurie by his side for some reason, just as toll informed the defense that she was going to conduct a hearing to determine when they found out about the alleged contact between Becky and the jurors. Luna Shark reporter Beth Brayden contacted First Amendment attorney and media liaison for this hearing, Jay Bender, to ask whether Justice toll intended to hold this hearing separate in a part from the January 29th hearing. We were told that she will handle all matters in this case, including this one at that time. Now, for the heart and soul part of the status conference,

this is where things got gnarly for Old Dick and Jim. Remember, at this point in the proceeding, they already know they've lost big time. Justice Toll had already told them that the rules of the game were not going to be the rules they were not just hoping for, but depending on, she was about to call their bluff in an epic way. So another question we got from Soakup the Sun members

during our live stream chat on Tuesday was about Dix, fixation with sleds in the OIs. I want to take a quick second to explain that issue before we get into who is testifying and how. Team Murdoch wants to question the jurors in Becky, and if they can't question them, they want to be able to provide questions to the judge for her to ask them. Remember the perfectly capable quote from the beginning of the show? That's when Justice Toul reminded reminded Dick that she has got this. As a part of its investigation into jury tampering allegations, Flett provided the Attorney

General's Office with Memoranda of Investigation or M.O.I.s. They are summaries of what they found, summaries of interviews, summaries of facts, etc. Dick and Jim contend that those M.O.I.'s are written in such a way that they are favorable to the state, and that because of that, the judge cannot rely solely on them when determining what to ask the witnesses. Really, what they want is for the record to reflect anything that makes Becky look bad. According to their pre-hearing brief filed earlier this month, they specifically want to know what the Barnwell clerk of court Rhonda McElvin told investigators.

Becky, who calls Rhonda one of her closest friends in her book, enlisted Rhonda's help during the trial. Here is David with what the defense wrote about Rhonda. Mr. Murdock also plans to call Rhonda McElvin, the barnwell clerk of court who assisted at the trial. The state presumably would object to her for the same reason Mr. Murdock objects to calling persons who were not in the jury room to say they never heard something allegedly said in the jury room. She was not in the jury room. She was not in the jury room. Mr. Murdock, however, believes based on her sled interview that she will corroborate expected juror testimony about Ms. Hill's statements because she will testify that Ms. Hill

made substantively identical statements to her during trial. And because she received several complaints from court staff about Ms. Hill having inappropriate and excessive contacts with jurors. She, therefore, may have personal knowledge of facts, probative of whether Ms. Hill made the statement's jurors say she made. If the state objects to her testimony, Mr. Murdock would ask the court to review her video recorded interview with Sled and decide for itself whether her testimony would assist the court as fact finder. If the court does so, however, it is important to review the video recording of her entire interview and not the Sled Memorandum summarizing it.

In their list of expected exhibits, Team Murdoch listed two things. The affidavits of George 630 and 785, aka the egg lady in this interview. That is how critical they think this interview is to their case. But here is the thing. Now that Justice Toll has put the burden of proof

on the defense, and now that she has said that the prejudice must be proven. Meaning, show that a juror felt pressured by Becky to change their verdict, it dramatically changes the playing field for Team Murdoch, and that should have been clear to Dick at this part of the hearing. But he's Dick. So even though this is when he started to become the incredibly shrinking dick Harputlian, he forged on a head, trying to get everyone of his war toys on the field.

Now, we figured out that dick has a tell. When he's losing an argument, he'll say, we'll do that thing later. Or that's fine. Here, while politely suggesting that he and Jim could submit questions to the judge so that she doesn't have to rely on the MOIs, he subconsciously admits defeat while telling on himself. Meaning he admits they have nothing and she has left them with nothing. Now, if your honor is going to be very restricted in the end, ask did the corporate community do something to you, and did it affect your decision? I guess that's what we're doing with your honor

when you're following State Board 3. If you're going to say that, ask those questions. I mean, there's some of these jurors who indicated they heard with the court would say what the jurors indicated they had to take for us, say, and I think they're going to say it didn't affect that. Which is fine. This is the part in the DICK documentary where the narrator would say, it was not fine. So DICK admits to the judge that they don't got it, but that's okay because they have one juror and in Team Murdoch's opinion anyway, they only need the one.

Except they don't have that juror. We'll keep saying this until it hurts. Juror 630 does not say she was affected by Becky. In fact, let's take a second to talk about what she did say. In line two of her affidavit, Juror 630 says that Becky quote, told the jury quote, not to be fooled. She says the jury. Becky told the jury, but according to the written statements provided to said, no juror corroborates that. In line three, she says again, the Becky quote told the jury to quote, watch him closely. Now, no juror corroborates that. Again, according to the statements that have been made public, but a few jurors noted that Becky

had advised them generally to pay attention and one juror noted that they remember Becky saying to pay attention to Alex Body language. And again, no juror says that their verdict was influenced by these comments, but it's interesting to note that juror 630 doesn't say, Becky said this to me, but rather to the jury as a whole, and no one remembers being told, quote, not to be fooled or, quote, watch him closely. Finally, in line 10 of her affidavit, juror 630 says, quote, I had questions about Mr. Murdoch's guilt, but voted guilty because I felt pressured by the

other jurors. Not only is this evidence of what the state has been saying, about juror 630 being influenced by other jurors. It shows that even if Becky said what juror 630 said she heard, juror 630 was not affected by it because she went into those deliberations with questions about his guilt, meaning Becky didn't change her mind before juror 630 went into that room. Juror 630 says it right there, herself. Okay, so one of the other major components of Team Murdoch's strategy is they want to impeach Becky's character. There is this one part where Dick Oso casually acts like, Team Murdoch has merely been a witness to the ongoing demolition of Becky's reputation,

and this is another Dick's strategy, by the way. He tells the judge what he's not going to do as a way of getting derogatory information about his opponent on the record. So we think that the examination of the court should be wide open. And we think that the exhibits would be used to a picture. We would attempt to keep it relevant to the specific issues in this case. and we think that the exhibits would be used to a feature,

we would attempt to keep it relevant to the specific issues in this case. I mean, her son has been in that presence, her son has been indicted for a wiretapping. There seems to be some inference, we've been reading it again in the paper, if we don't have any questions, we've knowledge that she was aware of that,

and then wiretapping was in relation to some ethics blame about her. That's not relevant. We're not going to ask her about it. Now, we're continuing to examine whether or not there is some connection there and we're investigating that. But at this point, I will tell you, that's not what we're going to do. He also uses this OSO casual approach to bringing up the egg lady and the Facebook post. What we are building, by the way, is we have been furnished an email that she got on February 24th from somebody, which was a photo, a screenshot of a, looks like a posting on some of her Facebook page, where the ex-husband of age or the ugly, a lens that his ex-wife is talking about the case and she is going to fall both guilty because she hates men. Now, we know she got it. We know she got it on February 24.

So this is interesting. It's the first time we've heard anything about this February 24th email. We had reported Beth Brady and looked through Becky's emails, the ones that were provided in those two data dumps. And because those emails are just emails that Becky sent, it was not among them. What Dick seems to be saying here is that Becky received notice of this Facebook post from a third party, and that she waited three days to say something, and that when she did finally say something, she took credit for finding the post. What Dick didn't say to Justice Toll is that February 24th was a Friday, and that three

days after that was a Monday. Meaning, Becky doesn't so much appear to have said on it, she appears to have experienced what we in the non-goodle boy lawyer community where things get twisted would call a normal weekend. At any rate, Dick was dropping these little bombs about Becky and the hopes of persuading the judge to allow Team Murdoch to question Becky freely and not have limits put on it. He told Justice Tull that he wanted to trade Becky as a hostile witness, which would allow him to ask her leading questions.

By the way, since we're on the topic of the egg lady, Dick repeatedly referred to her as just that, the egg lady juror, which is highly unprofessional, but likely a calculated move on his part. For the court record, she is juror 785, but in the press and on social media became known as the egg lady juror because after getting dismissed from the jury by Judge Newman,

she asked for somebody to retrieve a dozen eggs that another juror had brought in for her and her fellow members of the jury. I'm trying to make sure I understand your picture, just rule. Are you ruling that we cannot call the alternate juror or the so-called egg lady to corroborate what was said to the alternate juror, or the so-called egg weighty, to corroborate what was said to the city jurors, as they were all told this at the same time.

The fact that Dick continued to use that nomenclature for her was likely purposeful, because of how he wants the headlines to go. If he calls her juror 785, the judge will fully understand to whom he is referring to, but he runs the risk of the media, not recognizing that he is talking about the egg lady. Calling her the egg lady sure does seem like a dog whistle to his friends in the media, or at least shows how much team Murdoch's case relies on this being a big old circus. Another issue Dick raised was about how the jurors would be questioned. The jurors, by the way, are going to be subpoenaed and will appear in open court. Their names will not be used.

Media will be barred from photographing them, and they will likely be referred to by new numbers to further protect them from being identified. And by jurors, we mean not the egg lady and not alternate jurors 741. Because again, like we have been saying, they didn't render verdicts, so they do not factor into this. Something that Justice toll made very clear on Tuesday.

Dixing very interested in leaving open the possibility that jurors could be questioned about what went on during deliberation if he and Jim are able to prove what Becky said to the jurors. And Justice toll was like no, that is not what the rule says. So he asked again, again, she was like no, that is not the rule.

Again, she was like, no, that is not the rule. I think it's very important to understand that no one, myself or anyone else is going to be asking the juror about the specifics of their deliberation and the rules, quite clear about that. Okay. But then, I'm going to have a question that's just one thing for our food. Yeah. And I'm trying to perceive what you all are asking. I'm about to say thank you.

After Dick sat down, Big Crate and Energy came on strong, the way Big Crate and Energy does. Speaking for nearly 10 minutes, Crate and told the court that he agreed with the judges' interpretation of the rule. After we published last week's episode, the defense submitted a revised pre-hearing brief adding Craten waters in his parallel goal, Carly Jewel, to the witness list. The defense contends that Becky favored the state during the trial and as evidence, they are using forwarded emails from Becky to the prosecution. The emails are from people who were watching the trial asking her to

forward these emails to Creighton. According to Creighton on Tuesday, the state and the defense traded all correspondence they received from Becky during the trial and low and behold the defense was also receiving information from Becky. Meaning she wasn't just favoring the state as they claim. Additionally, Creighton put this on the record. The only juror that we have is the one who filed the affidavit, that's 630 and even she, or that person only said that she eventually

voted guilty because she felt pressured by the other jurors to not even mention any external impact. And so unless she's going to change her story, that as well as in her appetite. Unless she is going to change her story. That's a very important point moving forward, by the way. Now that the defense has been hobbled and told the stick to the facts, what do they have? The jurors are locked in by their statements.

If they change their stories on January 29th, there goes their credibility. Not to mention, each one of those jurors was pulled by Judge Newman. They already attested to their verdict being impartially theirs. The jurors have little wiggle room for changing what they have already said. Okay, so Creighton's flawless 10 minutes in front of the judge in Rage Dick. It was clear he had been holding it together as best as he could thus far. When Justice Toul asked him if he would like to reply, here is how that went.

404, that's not a thing. It's somewhat ironic. Staying in the police will for your honor. One of the exceptions to 404, I know it's a big surprise into the waters of Modil, as if he'd never heard that before. He told me this morning, one of the assistants that worked for his hill during this trial was told by this hill during the trial that a guilty verdict would be good for sales or the budget,

moated, selling the cost. So we believe we should be able to get into that. We should be able to ask Michelle about it if she denied it, to call that witness, that assistant, and have her testify that she was told that. I mean, why would a court do what we go edge and get? We think it's important for your honor in terms of credibility and content. That's number one. It's super trippy to hear Dick Harpoulyan of all people talk

about the importance of credibility. So this book sales thing. We've talked about this before, but in no way would any rational person believe the argument that a guilty verdict would be better for book sales of a self-published book by a small town clerk of court, a job most people don't understand or even know exists than a not guilty verdict would have. But here Dick is beating that drum again, and here Justice Tull shuts him down. I can tell you that I am very, very reluctant to turn this hearing about your contact into a wholesale

expiration of every piece of conduct by the clerk alleged to have been in popular on its own, indicative of her or characteristics of personality or anything of that nature. This is a very focused inquiry that deals with this jury and what impact, contact any had on this jury. So I am very mindful of the limited nature of it.

As I said, I'm not excluding submission and advance of information that would take the questions beyond the limited questions I would issue indicating. But I would be very hesitant about any of those questions as it involves propounding those questions to the jury. As it involves questions to Miss Heel similarly, this is not a time to explore every mistake or incorrect statement or fault statement that there has been made by this witness. I am the judge of the credibility of this witness or purposes of this new trial motion.

I don't think it's necessary to know what I think it's proper to explore each and every point. You're deprived of alleged you've been committed by the clerk. She said what she said. We're narrowing the scope and we're not going to handle the case the way team Murnoch wants it to be handled. So our legal sources have pointed out that a lot of what Dick was doing in his arguments was preparing for a future appeal of Justice Touls decision if she ends up denying them a new trial. In limiting the scope of the evidentiary hearing, she's limiting what they can bring up,

not just in terms of who gets questioned and who does the questioning, but in terms of the timeline. She's limiting them to the six weeks of trial. Anything Becky did outside of that timeframe is not considered material unless it relates directly to allegations of the jury tampering, meaning the ethics complaints, the books, all of it, is not going to be allowed. In response to that, Dick wanted to offer a proffer, a written record of the allegations against Becky that they want to raise and that the judge won't allow. Here's how justice toll responded to that. But I will put certain limitations on just a whole set of exploration of every problematic problematic piece of conduct, ethical dealings with accounting and so forth. This is a very focused

inquiry about this year and its ability to render the verdict, it runs in an impartial realm. park and room. So I say that to tell you that when the clerk is offered, and I think the clerk is going to have to be offered as a whole allocation of the consention that the clerk made contact with the jury about matters and material to their verdict, that that contact was improper, and that it impacted their verdict. There's a whole lot more that Mr. Hawke-Kruppling has is indicated he likely explored that I regard as totally extraneous to the inquiry that we maintain. I'm not going to allow those questions to be asked by a way of proper and then have the clerk answer those questions and have that being the proper, although I consider

a irrelevant question to not go, and on the case of that word. Totally extraneous to the inquiry, irrelevant questions. These are not phrases that are music to team Murdoch's ears. Not only was Justice Tulla saying, I'm going to limit what you can ask in court, I'm going to limit what you say in your proper. And then she called them out for their antics. But I also think the record of the cases, not to be used as a platform to explore each and every thought of each and every

witness whether it be the juror or all the court. And I'm not going to have a head hearing conducted in that man. Like they're always preserving topics that I rule should not be pursued than having those questions asked and answered, even though I rule with them, not properly. So I hope that explains where I am on the subject of how questions are asked. And even after that, Dick still pressed on with his quest to destroy Becky, and Justice Toll was not having it.

After Justice Toll allowed the room to take a 20 minute break, Dick came back with more. Again, admitting they have nothing. Please go and join our discussion. One, we don't know who we're going to call to compete this year. Because we don't know what you're going to say. So it's difficult for us. I mean, once you testify at that point, we'd like to call so and so and so and such and

such and such. Number one So it or maybe no, I mean she may could see Every issue we have for instance, she did tell according to the state she did tell one of her sisters what are people? Helper You know, I hope we found the only because it'll help bookshales now Last time you don to repeat that until I ask for a game. Mr. No Carpenter, I told you that I can't imagine a situation in which I would go that far. Some statement like that, and might as well consider it to be to her credibility.

And I don't mind, well, I'm not that strong, even proper as I am, but I'm less than wrong in that. And Dick still didn't drop it. He told the judge, if Becky did what they're accusing her of, then it's a crime, and so they have to get to the why of that. That's when this exchange happens. If that makes sense. I can go to make a bluixen to me because this is not the trial of this deal.

And if you're about to look at the so-called the classical provision of crimes, or not what this is about, it is about her contact with any of the jurors and what she said. So I will be trading very carefully with the video what you say about what you might online at So one last thing about Tuesday's status conference, that's important. Even though Justice Tull effectively ruined Dick and Jim's dastardly plans to trick this system into allowing Ella to have a new trial, she did so artfully. And according to the law, she was clear about her reasoning, she offered support for her opinions, and she was circumspect. She not only ruled on the matters in front of her, but on matters that

may come out of any future appeal, meaning she didn't shut them down completely on everything. She quite consciously left open the possibility that she might change her mind if the defense is able to provide more evidence than they have thus far. So, the biggest question right now is what will Dick and Jim do next? On our livestream chat with Soak Up the Sun members, we joke that the only solution for them moving forward would be to withdraw their motion for a new trial, because it's quite possible that after the jurors testify the hearing is over. Now, do we believe that will happen?

No. We believe Dick and Jim are already implementing their plan B through the media by introducing more misdirection. For instance, a state news agency posted what appeared to be sled evidence from the jury tampering investigation, presenting it as somehow pro-defense. That evidence was under a protective order issued by Justice Total Meaning, how they get that, and what motive lies behind that leak. On Tuesday, the defense also filed its reply to the state's pre-hearing brief. Their reply is a reiteration of previous points, but presented in a much more tabloid manner. It's filled with accusations, stated as fact, and glib arguments that sound like a high school or wrote them frankly, and their reply continues to focus on impeaching Becky's

character in a broad way that goes outside the scope that Justice Tull has now sat for them. One thing we might expect to see at this point is attempts to delay the proceedings, but we're not sure how far a team or not can get without considering what we said earlier about huffing and puffing, and not being able to blow Justice Tull's house down. And we'll be right back. As pleasantly surprised I was to see Jean Toll's poetic destruction of Team Murdoch's chance of a new trial, I was equally disappointed to see the headlines that covered the hearing. Headlines matter. Any reporter who takes journalism seriously understands how important they are, especially

in a world of social media scrolling and a lot of news tucked behind paywalls. Headlines should not be misleading, meaning reporters writing their headlines should expect a majority of people to not click on their stories. And headlines should be written in a way that the audience take away from just the headline alone is accurate. When I worked from a clatchy, we were taught to use the most aggressive form of the truth in our headlines to generate more clicks for the company. In this case, has been an example of how that goes wrong and how dangerous that practice is because of how often it leads

to widespread misinformation. A quick case in point of that being a bad strategy, C-reporter and net livis, Lawncrime pre-hearing story titled, She Pees in Every Quarter of the Court Room, fireworks expected at Ellic Murdoch new trial status conference. That aggressive quote, of course, came from Cup of Justice and was taken completely out of context. It was originally a dick quote, repeated by Eric Bland, by the way, which our fans understand, and I don't feel like we need to explain how that aggressive form of the truth was wildly misleading. The thing was, there were fireworks on Tuesday, but apparently not the fireworks that mainstream media reporters wanted. The fireworks were from Justice toll

calling out Dick and Jim's nonsense and making them look like rookie attorneys who had no clue what they were doing. Silly me, I was thinking I would see just a few reporters, at least, admit that they misled their audience with their months of destroyed Becky and get Alec Murdoch a new trial coverage. Maybe I thought they finally realized that the whispers from Dick and Jim to write certain stories in exchange for tips, leaks, and access weren't worth it. Because maybe they realized that they look foolish and untrustworthy

after all of that hype, panned out to be nothing. But alas, I was wrong again. The headlines yesterday were confirmation. Nothing has changed for the media. They will continue to cover this case for clicks and nothing else. Just from yesterday's headline of the status conference alone, you would think it focused primarily on Becky and her bad deeds. Haluk Murdoch's lawyer accuses Court Clerk of jury tampering to boost book sales. NBC.

Murdoch clerk said guilty verdict would boost her book sales. Defense lawyers. Daily Beast. Murdock clerk said guilty verdict would boost her book sales defense lawyers Daily Beast Judge orders clerk of court Becky Hill to testify in Alec Murdock's bid for new trial the state Alec Murdock in court as Judge Orders Becky Hill to be subpoenaed court TV It's like the media so desperately once the public take down a Becky Hill to grant Ellic Murdoch a new trial. So honestly, they don't have to find another story that people click on.

They want the new trial to happen to make their jobs easier, no matter what it does to our justice system, no matter what it means for the victims of Elik Murdoch. It's like they've been trying to make Becky Hill a thing when it comes to Elik's chances of a new trial. They still want to exaggerate her role to justify their previous coverage. As Justice Touls said, this is not the trial of Becky Hill. The media was unfortunately duped again into thinking it would be. But even after one of the brightest and most respected legal minds in our state

made it clear that those shenanigans would not be happening, the media still favors the defense and their headlines. Inside note, I hope that we get answers for what Becky did in her position of Clerk of Court. I hope that the media, who covered every step of her downfall when they were hopeful of it bringing a new trial for Ellic Murdoch, I hope that they still care about her being held accountable aside from that. I hope that she is held accountable if she did something illegal.

And I hope it doesn't just fizzle out because her downfall is no longer linked to Ella Kmyrdok's escape plan. The scary thing is, we don't know what Dick and Jim will do next, but we do know, whatever wild and crazy move they make, those same reporters who have been fooled and embarrassed time and time again will legitimize the defense with their headlines and their slanted articles. The chaos will continue as long as the media, and frankly, the South Carolina Supreme Court allows these attorneys to lie and deceive the public on behalf of a murderer.

Think about the amount of taxpayer-funded time and resources that have been sucked up by these allegations of jury tampering that aren't at all supported by evidence. Think about the media space, the TV time, the newspaper stories, podcasts, etc., etc. That have been wasted on dissecting Dick and Jim's nonsensical journey to get their client a murderer, liar, and thief out of prison. And by the way, deceiving the public is not a lawyer's duty. I don't regret the last four months covering this case because we were in the minority view all along.

And without us, shouting from the rooftops that Becky's bad credibility does not equal a new trial, I don't want to think about where they would have spun the narrative had we not been there. I'm angry about the time that it wasted. I am angry about the cases like Steven Smith that didn't get the attention they deserve because of this monster, Elik Murdoch. And I worry what will be next if this long-shot plan of theirs fails like the others did.

Also, I worry about the amount of dedication Elik Murdoch's legal team spins on the court of opinion alone. I worry that maybe there's a long game in mind that we haven't thought about before. However, after Tuesday, I felt hopeful, more so than ever, that Team Murdoch's reign of judicial terror will in soon, and that justice toll just might be the woman to finish the job. Stay tuned, stay pesky, and co-hosted by journalist Liz Farrell.

Learn more about our mission and membership at luna sharkmedia.com. Interruptions provided by Luna and Joe pesky. Ha ha ha ha!