Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / CAN BULLET EVIDENCE PROVE ALEX MURDAUGH IS A KILLER?

Transcript

CAN BULLET EVIDENCE PROVE ALEX MURDAUGH IS A KILLER? · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

0:05
Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. The beat goes on with
0:14
Speaker 1: jury selection for wealthy attorney turned murder defendant Alex Murdog,
0:21
Speaker 1: accused of murdering his wife Maggie and son Paul as
0:27
Speaker 1: his financial world his empire unraveled. I Nancy Grace, this
0:33
Speaker 1: is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us here
0:36
Speaker 1: at Fox Nation and Sirius XM one eleven. Right now,
0:41
Speaker 1: we believe a jury may be impaneled as early as
0:46
Speaker 1: today with me an all star panel to make sense
0:48
Speaker 1: of what we know right now. But first of all,
0:51
Speaker 1: I want you to take a listen to our cut one, three, four,
0:53
Speaker 1: our friends at NBC. The tiny town of Walter Bruce,
0:57
Speaker 1: South Carolina, tonight an epicenter of intrigue. The widely watched
1:03
Speaker 1: murder trial of former attorney Alec Murdoch now underway. Murdoch
1:08
Speaker 1: is charged with killing his wife Maggie and son Paul
1:10
Speaker 1: in June of twenty twenty one. His defense claims he's innocent,
1:14
Speaker 1: the killers still at large, but prosecutors contend he snapped
1:18
Speaker 1: under the pressure of a secret life, unraveling his motive,
1:22
Speaker 1: they say, to garner sympathy and distract from a series
1:24
Speaker 1: of financial crimes where Murdoch sold millions of dollars from
1:28
Speaker 1: his family law firm and from clients. All that unraveling
1:32
Speaker 1: before the eyes of potential jurors got an all star
1:35
Speaker 1: pound to make sense what we know right now. But
1:36
Speaker 1: first straight up to Matt Harris, formerly with w S
1:39
Speaker 1: OCTV and now star of the Murdoch Family Murders Impact
1:44
Speaker 1: of Influence. You can find him on Facebook at Murdoch Podcast. Matt,
1:48
Speaker 1: thanks for being with us. What's the latest in the
1:50
Speaker 1: jury selection? Well, today the day we think, even before
1:54
Speaker 1: the second session begins that they will finalize the jury today.
2:00
Speaker 1: The defense and prosecution are going to get to use
2:03
Speaker 1: their strikes this morning, the jurors that are left, and
2:09
Speaker 1: then it'll be whittled down again and hopefully by lunch
2:14
Speaker 1: we will have a jury. Wow. You know again Mark
2:17
Speaker 1: Tate with me, high profile lawyer out of Savannah with
2:20
Speaker 1: a Tate Lawgroup at Tate Lawgroup dot com. Again, this
2:25
Speaker 1: is not California where jury selection can take weeks and
2:29
Speaker 1: weeks and weeks. Right now, they started this jury selection
2:34
Speaker 1: with nine hundred jurars to pick twelve from twelve plus
2:39
Speaker 1: six alternates, and she should be very difficult to claim
2:44
Speaker 1: out of nine hundred people, you can't find twelve qualified jurars.
2:51
Speaker 1: You know, you're right. It's not California, it's not New
2:54
Speaker 1: Yorker or South Florida. And I've picked juries in New
2:58
Speaker 1: York and South Florida in Arkansas, and I can tell
3:00
Speaker 1: you that this judge and in South Carolina, the judge
3:04
Speaker 1: doesn't put up with a whole lot of delay and
3:08
Speaker 1: dilatory tactics from either side in selecting a jury. And
3:12
Speaker 1: you know, Nanswy, you're not really selecting the juries the jurors.
3:16
Speaker 1: You're simply eliminating the ones with your strikes that you have.
3:20
Speaker 1: And each side gets a certain number of strikes in
3:23
Speaker 1: each side has an unlimited number of you know, biased
3:26
Speaker 1: based strikes or for cause. And I agree with you.
3:30
Speaker 1: Getting down to twelve from ninety for either side should
3:34
Speaker 1: be fairly straightforward. Harpoolian's got to prove that there's a
3:37
Speaker 1: doubt that you can put a reason to and the
3:39
Speaker 1: prosecution's got to prove there is no doubt that Murdoch
3:44
Speaker 1: kill them, killed them. You know, Martin Tate, high profile
3:47
Speaker 1: lawyer out of Savannah, sewing around a lot of legal
3:50
Speaker 1: ease when he's say strike for cause. That means that
3:53
Speaker 1: there is a legal ground that this person. Let's just
3:56
Speaker 1: pretend it. See Jackie absolutely cannot be fair. For instance,
4:01
Speaker 1: let's just say she is related, she's first cousins with
4:04
Speaker 1: Alex Murdoch. Well, that's a strike for cause. I is
4:07
Speaker 1: a state. Don't have to use one of my very
4:09
Speaker 1: precious twenty strikes. When I was prosecuting for many, many years,
4:14
Speaker 1: the state got ten strikes and the defendant's got twenty.
4:17
Speaker 1: That's not fair. That said she Jack would be struck
4:23
Speaker 1: for costs, and neither side has to use one of
4:25
Speaker 1: their strikes. All right, here's a strike that i'd have
4:29
Speaker 1: to use one of mine. Up. Let's just say Jack's
4:33
Speaker 1: now a psychologist, no offense, doctor mechanic, and I look
4:37
Speaker 1: into a little bit and I find out that her
4:40
Speaker 1: dissertation when she got a PhD was about wrongfully convicted,
4:47
Speaker 1: and oh, I don't want her on my jury, bye bye.
4:51
Speaker 1: So I would have to use one of my a strike,
4:56
Speaker 1: one of my twenty selected strikes against her to to
5:00
Speaker 1: get her off, because the defense would really want her on.
5:03
Speaker 1: So you've got strikes for cause, and then you've got
5:05
Speaker 1: your twenty that you can have any reason you want
5:08
Speaker 1: to as long as it's not unconstitutional. So correct, that's
5:13
Speaker 1: what's happening. Matt Harris. How are the jurars? Wait, you
5:17
Speaker 1: haven't been able to see the girars, have you, Matt? No, no,
5:19
Speaker 1: And I want to talking about strikes just to let
5:21
Speaker 1: you know. I believe ten for the defense, five for
5:24
Speaker 1: the states, and unlimited for cause. As you said, so
5:27
Speaker 1: just to strikeen that out, well, that is just not
5:29
Speaker 1: fair to the state at all. So that is a
5:32
Speaker 1: derivative of the schematic I had picking jurars. So the
5:37
Speaker 1: defense gets ten strikes, the state gets five, is your understanding,
5:42
Speaker 1: and then you can strike anybody for cause? Okay? Is
5:46
Speaker 1: that your understanding of South Carolina jury strike? Yes? Yeah,
5:49
Speaker 1: absolutely in a criminal matter. Obviously it changes a little
5:53
Speaker 1: bit in civil matters with regard to who has the
5:55
Speaker 1: burden of proof, But here the state does have the
5:58
Speaker 1: burden of proof. And yeah, yep. Well, I'll still say
6:01
Speaker 1: it's unfair because the defiskis twice a number of strikes
6:05
Speaker 1: that state is. But you know what, I'll save that
6:07
Speaker 1: argument for another day, Matt Harris. I'm about to go
6:10
Speaker 1: to our experts, but can you tell me. There are
6:13
Speaker 1: some major pre trial issues that the judge was hearing.
6:17
Speaker 1: One is about blood spatter, one is about ballistics, and
6:21
Speaker 1: one is about motive for murder, all of his financial fraud.
6:26
Speaker 1: What can you tell me? What did the judge decide about?
6:28
Speaker 1: Let's talk about ballistics first. What about ballistics? Okay, ballistics
6:32
Speaker 1: would go to a big win for the States on
6:35
Speaker 1: this one. There they found the State did evidence of
6:42
Speaker 1: the ammunition. The shell casings that were around Maggie Murdoch
6:47
Speaker 1: were identical in their science to ones found on the
6:51
Speaker 1: Murdoch Moselle property at the shooting range and other areas.
6:56
Speaker 1: They say throughout the property. Let me just let that
6:59
Speaker 1: so can and you're telling me and jump in everybody
7:03
Speaker 1: on the panel. Why do I have to keep telling
7:05
Speaker 1: you this? It's not high tea at Winsor Castle with
7:08
Speaker 1: Camilla and Charles. If you have a thought, jump in there. Okay,
7:12
Speaker 1: So let me get a straight Matt Harris and you
7:15
Speaker 1: know I'm going to go to Leonard Ramiro, forensic firearms
7:18
Speaker 1: expert with ballistics firearms Expert dot com. And Cheryl McCollum,
7:25
Speaker 1: director of the Cold Case Research Institute, also a forensics
7:28
Speaker 1: expert let me understand this map. So the State says,
7:31
Speaker 1: we found shells, we found AMMO and cartridges around Maggie's
7:39
Speaker 1: dead body. Right that match up to a gun that
7:44
Speaker 1: was there on the estate. Did I get that right?
7:48
Speaker 1: That that is correct? Yes, cartridges throughout the state. They
7:51
Speaker 1: believe it's one of two Blackout rifles that Elec Murdoch
7:56
Speaker 1: purchased earlier in the year. One of those. Uh. The
8:01
Speaker 1: Defense is seeing saying is stolen, and the States is
8:04
Speaker 1: saying it's mystic. Uh huh. I think I might know
8:07
Speaker 1: where it is. I think I know who knows where
8:09
Speaker 1: it is. Alex Rondog know where where is Leonard Leonard
8:13
Speaker 1: Ramiro for forensic firearms expert. What's a blackout rifle? Let's
8:18
Speaker 1: just start with that blackout rifle. What it is is,
8:21
Speaker 1: it's a It looks like an AR fifteen rifle. It
8:25
Speaker 1: was developed in two thousand and ten. It basically fires
8:30
Speaker 1: an a K forty seven type of cartridge in it
8:34
Speaker 1: um but it maintains the same configuration or same platform
8:39
Speaker 1: as an AR fifteen rifle. It just has a different,
8:43
Speaker 1: more powerful cartridge in it. And that's the It's basically
8:48
Speaker 1: a thirty caliber rifle. But it looks like an AR fifteen.
8:52
Speaker 1: I just be looking on the wrong end of that.
8:54
Speaker 1: And the motion, by the way, Nancy, was the motion
8:57
Speaker 1: was to, yeah, say that that science is provable, that
9:02
Speaker 1: they should just stake it. But the judge letter to
9:05
Speaker 1: Cheryl McCall, you know they used to say the same
9:07
Speaker 1: thing about fingerprints. Okay. I'm Cheryl mccaullll, forensic expert, founder
9:12
Speaker 1: director of Coalcase Research Institute. You can find her at
9:15
Speaker 1: Coalcase Crimes dot org and she's a Strava brand new
9:20
Speaker 1: hit podcast And I mean to hit zone seven, Cheryl,
9:25
Speaker 1: what about this argument made by the defense that ballistic
9:31
Speaker 1: science isn't it's a little murky, it's soupy. I can't
9:37
Speaker 1: have an expert look under a microscope and tell if
9:39
Speaker 1: this bulletor car just came from that. That's total bs.
9:42
Speaker 1: It's just like a fingerprint. It is just like a
9:44
Speaker 1: fingerprint for that rifle of shotgun, no question about it.
9:47
Speaker 1: And the jury is going to be, you know, sophisticated
9:50
Speaker 1: enough to understand this, Nancy. But the most compelling thing
9:54
Speaker 1: to me is that you've got two separate weapons involved
9:58
Speaker 1: with these murders, and you've got evidence of those two
10:01
Speaker 1: weapons being fired on that property before the murders. And again,
10:06
Speaker 1: people are going to be able to understand that with
10:08
Speaker 1: no problem. I don't mean to jump in, but I'd
10:11
Speaker 1: like to talk about that what they're going to see.
10:13
Speaker 1: And you know juries I don't necessarily know. Very frequently
10:17
Speaker 1: are accused of being sophisticated when it comes to science.
10:22
Speaker 1: And at this point you got to remember that Harpullian
10:25
Speaker 1: was a prosecutor, and not only that, he knows how
10:29
Speaker 1: to properly cross examine a ballistics expert. And there may
10:33
Speaker 1: be a general level of science that supports the conclusions,
10:38
Speaker 1: but the facts that have been input to reach those
10:41
Speaker 1: conclusions can be challenged and may be wrong, and there
10:44
Speaker 1: are or as wrong, and there are certainly studies that
10:47
Speaker 1: call into question at least some of the science behind
10:51
Speaker 1: making these markings and determinations. And again, Harpoulian doesn't have
10:55
Speaker 1: to win. All he has to do is have something
10:58
Speaker 1: out there, a piece of admissible evidence from whence he
11:02
Speaker 1: can draw a reasonable in print in his closing arguments
11:05
Speaker 1: and he can shove it right down the prosecution's throat.
11:09
Speaker 1: That's so funny you said that I was thinking of
11:11
Speaker 1: the defense shoving it in the exact opposite direction. But
11:17
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what. We got a problem. We got
11:20
Speaker 1: a problem. The problem is exactly what Mark take just said.
11:25
Speaker 1: He's right high profile while you're out of Savannah. He's
11:27
Speaker 1: try cases in this jurisdiction before he knows what he's
11:30
Speaker 1: talking about. And he's right. Hartpoolian is the defense attorney.
11:34
Speaker 1: He's as wildly of vromint as I've ever seen. The
11:38
Speaker 1: state has got to be ready. This guy's a former prosecutor.
11:43
Speaker 1: He knows every trick in the trade. And this is
11:45
Speaker 1: what I would do. I'm telling you right now, prosecutors,
11:48
Speaker 1: listen to me, please. I had to do this in
11:50
Speaker 1: a fingerprint case, same thing. I had to get the
11:54
Speaker 1: fingerprint known fingerprint of the defendant, and I had to
11:58
Speaker 1: get the latent rent found at the murder scene. I
12:02
Speaker 1: had to make up glossy comparisons and give one to
12:08
Speaker 1: each like a big you know, the big postcards you
12:11
Speaker 1: can get, not the little ones when you're at a
12:13
Speaker 1: tourist attraction, and side by side. I put the known
12:17
Speaker 1: and the latent and circled in red the comparisons because
12:23
Speaker 1: my fingerprint analysis was under fire. That's what they need
12:27
Speaker 1: to do. With this ballistics. Cheryl got mad me on this.
12:31
Speaker 1: Wait a minute. They need to get the known cartridge
12:36
Speaker 1: or bullet, and they need to put it under the
12:39
Speaker 1: microscope and show the striation marks, in other words, the
12:43
Speaker 1: little marks that only one gun in the world will
12:47
Speaker 1: leave on the bullet as it hurdles down the barrel
12:50
Speaker 1: at high speed. Then they need to get the questionable
12:55
Speaker 1: one under a microscope, put them both on a little
12:58
Speaker 1: card where the jurors can see. Yeah, that's the same
13:02
Speaker 1: gun he's jumping in. Is that, Sheryl me? This is no,
13:06
Speaker 1: this is doctor. Here's the problem that we don't have.
13:10
Speaker 1: We don't have the actual gun that fired that bullet.
13:13
Speaker 1: We have one gun, Matt Harris, don't we have one gun? Yes,
13:16
Speaker 1: but that's the problem. And if we're talking about a shotgun,
13:20
Speaker 1: they have a smooth bore, they don't cause rifling marks
13:24
Speaker 1: on the bullet. And secondly, if we're just looking at
13:26
Speaker 1: the shell casing itself, that's all we'd have to go
13:29
Speaker 1: with it, and we'd have to go with that um
13:31
Speaker 1: that firing pin mark and objector mark or something of
13:34
Speaker 1: that nature to compare it to. And we don't have
13:37
Speaker 1: anything positively to compare it to I hear you doctor
13:40
Speaker 1: Michelle Dupree joining me. She literally wrote the book Homicide Investigation.
13:44
Speaker 1: Field Guy, Matt Harris, don't we have one of the guns,
13:46
Speaker 1: the shotgun which with the bird shot and the buckshot
13:51
Speaker 1: that killed Paul, that one which won't have rifling marks
13:55
Speaker 1: on it? Well, guess what you're right? What with the
13:58
Speaker 1: blackout gun? What they can do, because there's two. My
14:02
Speaker 1: understanding is there's two possible blackout guns that are there,
14:05
Speaker 1: of which one is missing, like y'all just mentioned. What
14:09
Speaker 1: they can do is they can take the cartridge cases
14:12
Speaker 1: they were fined on the property and any cartridges unfired
14:17
Speaker 1: cartridges and compare them and to see if they were
14:20
Speaker 1: cycled through the same firearm. What they could say is
14:24
Speaker 1: all of those cartridge cases were fired in one gun,
14:28
Speaker 1: and those cartridges were cycled in the same gun as
14:33
Speaker 1: those ones that were fired. For the shot shells, what
14:36
Speaker 1: they're going to have to do is just look at
14:39
Speaker 1: the shelves and look at the firing pin impressions, and
14:42
Speaker 1: look at the holes and look at any ejection marks
14:45
Speaker 1: on those. Of course, you know their pellets, and the
14:49
Speaker 1: pellets are consistent with the shot shells that were found. Guys,
14:53
Speaker 1: you're hearing Leonard Romero twenty three years experience is a
14:58
Speaker 1: firearms examiner. I didn't mean interrupt you go ahead, Leonard.
15:02
Speaker 1: Oh no, ma'am, no problem. Yeah. So what they're gonna do,
15:05
Speaker 1: my understanding is basically they can tell what the caliber
15:09
Speaker 1: or the gun is from the stamp on the cartridge case.
15:15
Speaker 1: So they know what the caliber is, Okay, they can
15:18
Speaker 1: go ahead and compare the fired cartridge cases to each
15:21
Speaker 1: other to see if they were fired from the same firearm.
15:25
Speaker 1: If there's any unfired cartridges on the property or within
15:30
Speaker 1: his residence, or within anything of his person that they recovered,
15:35
Speaker 1: they could look to see if there were cycling marks
15:37
Speaker 1: on though. Okay, when you say cycling marks, that's the
15:41
Speaker 1: same evidence as being relied on in the Delphi double
15:45
Speaker 1: murrer cases of Abbey and Libby. Hold On, Sheryl McCallum,
15:49
Speaker 1: I'm gonna circle back to you because Delphi is your
15:52
Speaker 1: Bailly way, but I want you to hear our cut
15:54
Speaker 1: a from Anne Amerson. Yesterday was a day that or
16:00
Speaker 1: we literally got to have some witness on the stand.
16:04
Speaker 1: We got our first witness on the stand and it
16:05
Speaker 1: was Paul Greer. He was sled and they wanted to
16:09
Speaker 1: see if they could bring him in as an expert
16:12
Speaker 1: on ballistics, and that was what this hearing was about yesterday.
16:16
Speaker 1: They wanted to see if Greer could be brought in
16:19
Speaker 1: to discuss ballistics because that is a critical part of
16:23
Speaker 1: the evidence for the prosecution. Now Greer is talking about
16:27
Speaker 1: the shell casings and about a rifle, a rifle that
16:31
Speaker 1: the state is trying to link to Maggie Murdochs especially
16:37
Speaker 1: Now the problem with this, of course, is they don't
16:40
Speaker 1: have a murder weapon, but what they do have are
16:42
Speaker 1: shell casings that have markings on them. And those shell
16:46
Speaker 1: casings were found at Maggie's body, as well as a
16:51
Speaker 1: range where they shoot guns on that property and in
16:55
Speaker 1: the gun room where Paul Murdoch's body was found as well.
16:59
Speaker 1: So those cartridges by Maggie's body match cartridge is found
17:03
Speaker 1: at the gun range on the same estate and inside
17:07
Speaker 1: the house. So that's how we know it was a
17:10
Speaker 1: Murdoch gun. And what the two people one shot one
17:13
Speaker 1: and then the other shot themselves and then they hid
17:16
Speaker 1: the bullet, hid the gun. No, the perp had the
17:19
Speaker 1: Murdoch weapon and got rid of it. Whoever that perp
17:23
Speaker 1: may be. And take a listen to more from Anne
17:26
Speaker 1: Emerson WCIV. This explains it all. The important thing about
17:31
Speaker 1: this is that we don't have that murder weapon, but
17:34
Speaker 1: we have these shell casings that can talk about the
17:36
Speaker 1: signature of a gun. So what they did is they
17:39
Speaker 1: went in and they shot test fired a blackout rifle
17:43
Speaker 1: which was the same gun as the one that they
17:47
Speaker 1: think killed Maggie, and they fired it and they had
17:52
Speaker 1: these tests done with the shell casings and came to
17:54
Speaker 1: a conclusion, at least on some of these shell casings
17:58
Speaker 1: that they were a match with what they think is
18:02
Speaker 1: the missing blackout rifle. So right now this is critical
18:07
Speaker 1: evidence for the persecution to move forward. And they were
18:12
Speaker 1: allowed to bring in that expert witness and that was
18:15
Speaker 1: a bit of a blow for the defense. So we're
18:18
Speaker 1: going to see how they handle all of this gun
18:21
Speaker 1: evidence that's going to be coming in probably very quickly.
18:25
Speaker 1: Sharon McCollum, that made perfect sense to me. Of course,
18:27
Speaker 1: it makes perfect sense. It's logical. And I remember you
18:30
Speaker 1: as a young prosecutor telling a jury when evidence was
18:34
Speaker 1: missing that this person should know where it was, such
18:36
Speaker 1: as a blackout weapon. Don't reward him for being a
18:40
Speaker 1: good criminal. Just because he's gotten rid of this weapon
18:43
Speaker 1: is not going to absolve him. To me, having the
18:48
Speaker 1: exact same type of evidence in other places on that property,
18:52
Speaker 1: such as the range where he's practicing shooting, is an
18:57
Speaker 1: incredible piece of evidence. Joining me is Mendy beat Mechanic,
19:01
Speaker 1: Professor Psychology Emeritus, California State University, Fullerton, forensic psychologist, doctor Mechanic,
19:07
Speaker 1: thank you for being with us yesterday and today. Alex
19:12
Speaker 1: and murdog on trial for a double murder, was saying
19:15
Speaker 1: smiling and smiling and even smirking in front of the jury,
19:21
Speaker 1: the jury pool. What do you make of that? I'm
19:25
Speaker 1: surprised his lawyers didn't admonish him to keep a neutral face.
19:30
Speaker 1: My understanding some defense attorneys I've worked with it is
19:34
Speaker 1: that they always talk to their clients about keeping neutral,
19:38
Speaker 1: not looking disgusted, not looking angry, certainly not smirking. So
19:42
Speaker 1: I can only imagine that he couldn't help himself. You know,
19:46
Speaker 1: he looks a lot different than he did with his
19:48
Speaker 1: shaved head and his little band aid on his head
19:50
Speaker 1: where he said he had a botched suicide attempt. Time
20:06
Speaker 1: Stories with Nancy Grace. Matt Harris joining me from formerly
20:13
Speaker 1: w s OCTV, now radio host and star of the
20:16
Speaker 1: Murdoch Family Murders Impact of Influence podcast. So, Matt Harris,
20:23
Speaker 1: not only is there the issue of ballistics, which we've explained,
20:26
Speaker 1: but there's also blood spatter evidence and I'm referring specifically
20:31
Speaker 1: to Alex Murdock's clothing the night of the murders. What
20:37
Speaker 1: is the evidence we're talking about, and what, if any,
20:40
Speaker 1: was the judge's ruling as to whether it will come
20:42
Speaker 1: in or be deemed inadmissible. Okay, the blood spatter the
20:50
Speaker 1: issue there is the expert Tom Beble originally said okay,
20:58
Speaker 1: we can't tell econclusive the sled agents went to him
21:03
Speaker 1: with a better picture of said blood spattered shirt. He
21:08
Speaker 1: changed his conclusion. Harpuleian and the defense team is saying, well,
21:12
Speaker 1: he was basically bullied into changing that a ruling or
21:17
Speaker 1: that discovery, and so it shouldn't hold up. They also
21:21
Speaker 1: had the issue of the shirt has been destroyed due
21:25
Speaker 1: to all the testing that has taken place, so the
21:27
Speaker 1: defense cannot have their own people do the scientific study
21:33
Speaker 1: of the shirt. So what Judge Newman has said is
21:37
Speaker 1: I'm not ruling it completely out. What we will do
21:40
Speaker 1: is on a base a case by case, argument by
21:44
Speaker 1: argument basis, he will make the ruling whether it is
21:48
Speaker 1: allowed in or not. So that's really going to be
21:52
Speaker 1: a fluid situation as the trial goes on. So what
21:57
Speaker 1: do you make of the potential blood spatter evidence and
22:01
Speaker 1: the controversy swirling around it? To forensics expert Cheryl McCollum,
22:07
Speaker 1: director of the Cold Case Research Institute, what about it,
22:09
Speaker 1: Cheryl Nancy, They're gonna look at it for high velocity
22:13
Speaker 1: and that's little bitty tiny specks, and they're going to say,
22:17
Speaker 1: this guy was close when the fire, you know, the
22:21
Speaker 1: weapon was fired. That is not a smudge. That is
22:25
Speaker 1: not something where he knelt down and got blood on
22:28
Speaker 1: him because he was looking for signs of life. That
22:31
Speaker 1: happened because he was standing there when that weapon was fired, period,
22:35
Speaker 1: And a photograph will show high velocity versus low velocity
22:39
Speaker 1: by itself. I remember their long guns, both of these,
22:44
Speaker 1: which they talked about. We talked to the long long guns,
22:48
Speaker 1: which of course, you know put you a little bit
22:50
Speaker 1: of distance away anyway. And there was some transfer blood
22:56
Speaker 1: on the bottom of the shirt. The spatter up a
22:59
Speaker 1: little high good point. To doctor Michelle Dupre forensic pathologists
23:05
Speaker 1: former detective doctor Dupree, The defense motion is referring to
23:11
Speaker 1: a blood spatter blood on a white T shirt Alex
23:18
Speaker 1: Murdoch wore the night his wife and son were murdered.
23:23
Speaker 1: Murdoch's team is arguing the blood expert should not be
23:28
Speaker 1: allowed to testify because the T shirt was ruined or
23:34
Speaker 1: used up during forensic testing. They are also claiming an
23:39
Speaker 1: expert first said that it was a transfer mark that
23:43
Speaker 1: Murdoch may have gotten when he reached down to touch
23:47
Speaker 1: Maggie or Paul, but upon close examination, for instance, under
23:53
Speaker 1: a microscope, that actually blood spatter is visible. What is
24:00
Speaker 1: the difference and why is it important, doctor Michelle Dupree,
24:04
Speaker 1: between transfer and spatter fnancy. Transfer means, of course that
24:08
Speaker 1: you touch something and then you transport for it to
24:10
Speaker 1: your clothing, which would be absolutely reasonable if he were
24:14
Speaker 1: checking on the checking on the person to see if
24:17
Speaker 1: they were so alive or not. Spatter, however, is very different.
24:21
Speaker 1: Spatter comes from actually shooting a weapon close to someone
24:25
Speaker 1: and getting that back spatter from that person. So if
24:28
Speaker 1: that is the case, that would be very damning for him.
24:32
Speaker 1: The other thing is that they actually found the blood
24:35
Speaker 1: spatter they're talking about is up by the shoulders. It's
24:38
Speaker 1: not down at the bottom as Bath said, So you know,
24:41
Speaker 1: there are at least three locations that is not consistent
24:45
Speaker 1: with transfer. In addition to that, they actually found three
24:49
Speaker 1: gunshot residue particles on the shirt that he was wearing,
24:53
Speaker 1: and those are absolutely definitive that he was in contact
24:57
Speaker 1: with a gun very recently. So why are they not asking,
25:02
Speaker 1: you know, asking about that. Where did that gunshot residue
25:05
Speaker 1: come from? Did he hold a gun that day? If so,
25:07
Speaker 1: where is it you tell us about it? Nothing has
25:10
Speaker 1: been said about that. Well, the one thing they did
25:12
Speaker 1: mention was and I don't know if this puts gun
25:15
Speaker 1: residue on you, but they said, when found the bodies,
25:19
Speaker 1: he went back to his house after he called nine
25:21
Speaker 1: one to get a gun in case the truder was
25:24
Speaker 1: still around or whatever. So I don't know if just
25:26
Speaker 1: picking up the gun from the house would get that,
25:29
Speaker 1: but he mentioned that. Yeah, it's very it's called primer
25:32
Speaker 1: gunshot residue. And you're going to come up with three conclusions.
25:36
Speaker 1: One that the individual was in close proximity to a
25:39
Speaker 1: gun that was being fired, the individual fired a gun,
25:43
Speaker 1: or the individual was in an environment where there were
25:48
Speaker 1: gunshot residue particles. So it's very easily transferable. I mean,
25:53
Speaker 1: if you're picking up ammunition or you're handling a gun,
25:56
Speaker 1: you can pick it up. What's interesting here is was
25:59
Speaker 1: there any back spatter on the muzzle of the gun
26:02
Speaker 1: the rifle that was used. I don't know if there
26:06
Speaker 1: was any blood that was detected, or was there any
26:08
Speaker 1: distance determination on the clothing that was looked at to
26:13
Speaker 1: see if there's a possibility that they can do a
26:17
Speaker 1: muscle to target distance determination. I know there's no rifle
26:21
Speaker 1: you would need that to do that, but you can
26:23
Speaker 1: look under even though the clothing is heavily blooded. You
26:27
Speaker 1: can look under an IR photograph and see if there
26:32
Speaker 1: is a discernible pattern there to give you a We
26:35
Speaker 1: do know that there was stiplink. Yeah, there was stiplingk,
26:37
Speaker 1: which is a contact one. Guys. We also learned from
26:41
Speaker 1: motions yesterday detailed information that we didn't know before about
26:47
Speaker 1: how Maggie and her son, Paul Murnov were murdered. Reports
26:51
Speaker 1: from the state's crime scene expert concluded that twenty two
26:57
Speaker 1: year old Paul was standing in the so called feed
27:00
Speaker 1: room of the dog kennels. When he was shot in
27:04
Speaker 1: the chest and the head, he stumbled forward before he
27:08
Speaker 1: was shot the second time in the head. Maggie, however,
27:12
Speaker 1: took five bullets gunshot wounds, including a fatal gunshot wound
27:19
Speaker 1: to the head. Now, based on what we know about
27:23
Speaker 1: bullet casing patterns and other analysis, we learn that Maggie
27:28
Speaker 1: and the shooter were both moving when Maggie was murdered.
27:36
Speaker 1: Maggie was shot six times, five and then the final
27:41
Speaker 1: shot to the head. Now, let's just think about that
27:46
Speaker 1: for a moment. To Cheryl McCollum and to Bark Tate,
27:52
Speaker 1: I'll start with you, Mark Tate, high profile lawyer out
27:54
Speaker 1: of Savannah. That means just one thing. Maggie Murdoch was
27:59
Speaker 1: running for her life. She was shot six times, including
28:05
Speaker 1: in the head. It's absolutely yeah, it's a horrible, horrible
28:10
Speaker 1: thing to hear, and the jury is going to hear
28:13
Speaker 1: the absolute details of the horror of what kind of
28:17
Speaker 1: a person would shoot their child twice in the chest
28:22
Speaker 1: and then you know, once in the head. And by
28:25
Speaker 1: the way, what an excellent shot. That's a guy, you know.
28:28
Speaker 1: Apparently there were new casings found that were missed. This
28:31
Speaker 1: is this guy's a good shot and then was able
28:34
Speaker 1: to maintain the you know, the resolute nature needed to
28:40
Speaker 1: chase down his wife and shotgun her to death. Oh.
28:43
Speaker 1: I appreciate you complimenting the shooter. I got what a
28:48
Speaker 1: great shot he is. Now I don't now, I don't
28:52
Speaker 1: he was shooting his wife a close range. Absolutely to
28:57
Speaker 1: do that. It's hard to believe that a father would
29:00
Speaker 1: do that to his son or mother. And I think
29:02
Speaker 1: that's what Prpulian is going to seize on to make
29:05
Speaker 1: a jury. Wonder do you recall the moment in Harry
29:09
Speaker 1: Potter where the belief Olivander, who owned the wand store, said, um, yeah,
29:21
Speaker 1: valdemort was terrible, but he did great things. Kind of
29:27
Speaker 1: sounds like what Mark Tates saying. I don't like it.
29:30
Speaker 1: I think it's pretty cool to bring Harry Potter and
29:32
Speaker 1: Valdemot into this whole thing, because you know, I agree
29:35
Speaker 1: with your analogy. That's a brilliant thinking on your feet
29:39
Speaker 1: analogy to come up with, Nancy amount of sucking up
29:45
Speaker 1: well from my mind that you complimented the killer being
29:52
Speaker 1: a quote great shot. Okay, that said, that's one of
29:55
Speaker 1: the ballistics. Guys, is that a good shot? That's not
29:58
Speaker 1: a Navice shooter. It's just not be Everybody on this
30:01
Speaker 1: panel lost their mind. Okay, I think Matt Harris helped
30:05
Speaker 1: me out what's going to happen today, Matt. They will
30:09
Speaker 1: hopefully wrap up the jury situation and find their jurors
30:13
Speaker 1: and alternative and then after lunch at some point they
30:19
Speaker 1: will get into and begin their opening an argument, and
30:23
Speaker 1: then we'll be off and running and this trial that
30:26
Speaker 1: we've waited till long or time stories with Nancy Grace. Guys.
30:47
Speaker 1: People are coming from all around literally hundreds and hundreds
30:52
Speaker 1: of miles away to see the Merlin trial. One thing
30:56
Speaker 1: that remains to be seen as to whether this is
30:59
Speaker 1: jury will ever find out about motive evidence. Take a
31:05
Speaker 1: listen to our cut one four four our friends at
31:08
Speaker 1: w CSC when it comes to the financial crimes. Though
31:11
Speaker 1: Judge Clifton Newman has ruled in that case, the state
31:14
Speaker 1: was trying to get that evidence introduced what they call
31:18
Speaker 1: in linemen, which Judge Newman says is basically what typically
31:21
Speaker 1: is used to take away evidence. But the seat is
31:23
Speaker 1: wanting to introduce it, and he just did not feel comfortable.
31:25
Speaker 1: So the seat did agree to introduce that evidence as
31:29
Speaker 1: it was needed once trial actually starts. It's actually called
31:32
Speaker 1: emotion in lemanee. Emotion in lemony, and what that is
31:38
Speaker 1: is you believe the other side is going to introduce
31:41
Speaker 1: evidence that you believe is should be disallowed. So you
31:46
Speaker 1: have a motion in lemony, which means before it can happen,
31:51
Speaker 1: you want the judge to rule against it. What about it?
31:54
Speaker 1: Straight out to you, Mark Tape, Well, the judges agreed
31:58
Speaker 1: to hold that in a base answer, hold any ruling
32:01
Speaker 1: on that until he hears some evidence. I believe that's proper,
32:05
Speaker 1: and I think Harpoolian strategically smart. Obviously, I'm going to
32:09
Speaker 1: get his contact information in case, you know, you decide
32:13
Speaker 1: to come after me over my complimenting Murdo and his
32:16
Speaker 1: shooting ability. But you know, I think it's a smart
32:20
Speaker 1: move from the defense side to try to keep the
32:22
Speaker 1: evidence out. And I think that you should count on
32:26
Speaker 1: account on the fact that if it comes in once again,
32:29
Speaker 1: Harpoolian knows how to cause that evidence to dissemble and
32:33
Speaker 1: each and every argument, if you want a clue, how
32:36
Speaker 1: he's going to cross examine the expert who is going
32:39
Speaker 1: to put that evidence in for the prosecution. If we
32:41
Speaker 1: want a clue on how Harpoolian is going to try
32:44
Speaker 1: to dismantle and discredit that testimony, take a look at
32:46
Speaker 1: his motion and limited to exclude it, and he will
32:49
Speaker 1: have in there all of the arguments that he has
32:52
Speaker 1: that show that it's inadmissible or should be inadmissible, and
32:54
Speaker 1: he'll use that to attack that attack that witness, except
32:58
Speaker 1: he'll do it with the Harpulian, lifelong prosecutor, defense lawyers, politician,
33:05
Speaker 1: and smooth operator in South Carolina's skill to dismantle an
33:10
Speaker 1: expert on the standard. And Nancy, I think, as you know,
33:15
Speaker 1: and as we've mentioned Yi earlier in the broadcast, that
33:19
Speaker 1: the prosecution does not have to have motive. However, I
33:24
Speaker 1: think the state wants to show motive so they can
33:27
Speaker 1: bring in the prior bad deed. I would want to
33:30
Speaker 1: bring in motive to explain to a jury why a
33:33
Speaker 1: man would kill his wife and his own son, and
33:37
Speaker 1: speaking a financial motive. Take a listen to one four
33:40
Speaker 1: six from WYF. Prosecutors believe Murdock's financial crimes were to
33:45
Speaker 1: be exposed the friday before the murder, thus fueling a motive.
33:49
Speaker 1: He had been stealing for over a decade, ninety nine
33:54
Speaker 1: counts to date, and facing essentially life without role on
33:58
Speaker 1: these particular financial accounts. And that's the significance of what
34:02
Speaker 1: he was trying to prevent from being exposed. His theory,
34:05
Speaker 1: and this is sort of is that he knew the
34:09
Speaker 1: jig was up, so he went home and butchered, blew
34:13
Speaker 1: the head off his son, and butchered his wife. There's
34:17
Speaker 1: not one shred of evidence there was any problems between
34:21
Speaker 1: any of them, really, because that's not what we have
34:25
Speaker 1: been told. Matt Harris. Isn't it true that Maggie had
34:30
Speaker 1: been meeting with a divorce lawyer? If it is true,
34:35
Speaker 1: and I'm pretty sure there was at least forensic accountant
34:41
Speaker 1: as part of a divorce than going on, I don't know.
34:45
Speaker 1: It's never going to be appearing before the jury because
34:48
Speaker 1: no attorney or accountant has come forward with that information.
34:53
Speaker 1: I think what will be important is the Snapchat video
34:58
Speaker 1: that Paul sent his friend in a couple hours before
35:01
Speaker 1: the murder. Maybe there's some mention it up there. Also,
35:04
Speaker 1: Buster the other Sun is used as a witness, so
35:07
Speaker 1: maybe he'll be asked about that. Otherwise, I don't know
35:13
Speaker 1: what the state has up its sleeve to prove there
35:17
Speaker 1: was some marital discord. And I don't think the state
35:21
Speaker 1: is going in that direction anyway. They're they're going into
35:23
Speaker 1: acutely just throwing it out there so he can mentioned
35:26
Speaker 1: everybody that it was a great marriage. He's the state
35:29
Speaker 1: is going in the direction of he did this to
35:32
Speaker 1: delay being found out that he had ripped off all
35:35
Speaker 1: these people. Maybe do a shell game somebody around. He
35:38
Speaker 1: would never get caught, get a lot of sympathy, and
35:42
Speaker 1: the bright shining light would not be on it for
35:45
Speaker 1: a little while. That the state motive not because the
35:49
Speaker 1: marriage must messed up, because he just needed to try
35:53
Speaker 1: to figure out how to just keep pushing of the
35:56
Speaker 1: day of reckoning down the line a little bit. Guys,
36:00
Speaker 1: financial disaster claims of stealing millions and millions of dollars
36:06
Speaker 1: from his clients. It was all about to explode. Why
36:12
Speaker 1: because one thing, and one thing only, the death of
36:16
Speaker 1: a beautiful teen girl named Mallory Beach. Guys, what do
36:24
Speaker 1: we know about what Mallory Beach's case has to do
36:29
Speaker 1: with this murder case? To you, Matt Harris, explain how
36:34
Speaker 1: Mallory Beach is boating death at the hands of a
36:39
Speaker 1: murdog has anything to do with this murder trial. Well,
36:43
Speaker 1: they could bring this up, so they can bring it in,
36:46
Speaker 1: which is that two days after the murders, it was
36:49
Speaker 1: supposed to be a hearing on the beach lawsuit against
36:54
Speaker 1: Paul and Maggie and Nellick and a number of others
36:58
Speaker 1: where it was going to be decided how much financial
37:01
Speaker 1: information documentation would have to be turned over. So the
37:05
Speaker 1: state has said that along with the fact that this
37:09
Speaker 1: morning of the murder, one of his co workers at
37:14
Speaker 1: the law firm confronted him on this smissing huge check
37:16
Speaker 1: from Chris Wilson, another attorney, it was showing that it
37:21
Speaker 1: was starting to bubble up. The gig was up, and
37:24
Speaker 1: this the hearing that was going to happen because of
37:27
Speaker 1: the beach death and the boating fatality, that was another
37:31
Speaker 1: reason that thing's going to start to come to light.
37:33
Speaker 1: So state's going to bring that in a showing Hey,
37:37
Speaker 1: well that was thrown out as soon as the murders happened.
37:41
Speaker 1: That motion was kicked away. Take a listen to our
37:44
Speaker 1: cut one three six our friends from NBC. One possible
37:47
Speaker 1: piece of evidence that jurors will need to take into
37:49
Speaker 1: account a Snapchat video taken just before Paul and Maggie
37:53
Speaker 1: Murdoch were killed. As jurors are vetted inside outside an
37:57
Speaker 1: invasion of cameras, tense and trucks on every corner of
38:00
Speaker 1: the courthouse, eyes wide as a man who once trying
38:04
Speaker 1: cases here as a prominent attorney, awaits his fate in handcuffs.
38:08
Speaker 1: That snapchat was sent at about seven fifty six. Out
38:12
Speaker 1: to you, Matt Harris. Do we know the content of
38:16
Speaker 1: the snap No, we do not. I know that they
38:19
Speaker 1: have the poenut and put somebody on the witness list
38:22
Speaker 1: from Snapchat to tell us what that is all about.
38:26
Speaker 1: We have heard about a video at eight forty four
38:30
Speaker 1: that Paul and Maggie and Alec are in, which was
38:36
Speaker 1: a video where Paul was showing one of the animals
38:39
Speaker 1: in the kennel was injured. He was sending it to
38:42
Speaker 1: his friend because they were taking care of that dog.
38:44
Speaker 1: Now Hartfoodley and has said, oh they were. This will
38:46
Speaker 1: prove that they were just chumming it up. I've heard
38:49
Speaker 1: otherwise that it wasn't that chummy chummy. So I've interested
38:53
Speaker 1: what's on the snapchat because you know, we have to
38:57
Speaker 1: imagine if it's being used that Paul had to be
39:02
Speaker 1: saying something about Elec or the marriage, or why Maggie
39:06
Speaker 1: showed up there that night to have dinner, because she
39:08
Speaker 1: was somewhat suspicious. According to reports, she said to her friends,
39:13
Speaker 1: wis wanting to meet me because she lived. She was
39:15
Speaker 1: living in Edisto, which is like an hour and a
39:17
Speaker 1: half away, right And according to her friends, Maggie said
39:21
Speaker 1: that Alex Murdog convinced her to come there a guesst
39:25
Speaker 1: her better judgment to go visit his father because the
39:29
Speaker 1: dad was about to pass away. That she said, quote,
39:32
Speaker 1: something fishy is up. I wonder what Alex is up to.
39:38
Speaker 1: She was very very leery of going. Now tell me
39:42
Speaker 1: again who was in the video on the video at
39:45
Speaker 1: the eight forty four I don't know about the snapchat
39:46
Speaker 1: video Snapchat videos between Paul and some friends. The eight
39:50
Speaker 1: forty four video is Eleck, Maggie and Paul, and that
39:56
Speaker 1: is at eight forty four and then at nine oh six,
40:00
Speaker 1: that is when he alleged to leave that his truck started.
40:02
Speaker 1: He leaves so that the window right there and in
40:06
Speaker 1: that video, from what I've been told, it is a
40:09
Speaker 1: video of Paul showing the dog. But you can hear
40:12
Speaker 1: Paul and Maggie Elec talking and that's just moments before
40:17
Speaker 1: the murder would have occurred. Murders, But I thought Alex
40:20
Speaker 1: Murdog told nine one one he had just gotten there
40:24
Speaker 1: and found the dead bodies. With that video you're referring
40:27
Speaker 1: to wild show that he had been there earlier. Yes,
40:29
Speaker 1: and he left to go see his mother about a
40:33
Speaker 1: fifteen to twenty minute drive away, and they said that
40:36
Speaker 1: twenty minutes and then came home. Originally, originally we had
40:39
Speaker 1: heard he was not there. He was not there, and
40:41
Speaker 1: all that day that he just showed up a nine
40:42
Speaker 1: of six. Turns out they all had dinner together that evening, Paul,
40:47
Speaker 1: Maggie and Aleck. We wait for the jury to be
40:49
Speaker 1: seated and just as unfold. Goodbye friend,