Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / Did Alex Murdaugh Use Hose to Wash Crime Scene?

Transcript

Did Alex Murdaugh Use Hose to Wash Crime Scene? · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

0:05
Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Greece. We are on a lunch
0:12
Speaker 1: break right now. The judge has just recessed for the
0:15
Speaker 1: lunch period. A lot going on in the courtroom with
0:18
Speaker 1: me an all star panel to make sense of what
0:20
Speaker 1: we know right now. But one thing we're definitely sure of.
0:24
Speaker 1: According to an expert, Paul Murdog could have survived the
0:31
Speaker 1: first gunshot wound. Now let that sink in just a moment.
0:38
Speaker 1: Paul Murdog could have survived the first gunshot wound. What
0:43
Speaker 1: did he endure lying there on the floor of a
0:47
Speaker 1: dog kennel knowing his killer was coming in for the
0:51
Speaker 1: kill shot This as we believe Maggie Murdog ran for
0:57
Speaker 1: her life. First of all, we know that they were
1:00
Speaker 1: shot at close range, both of them. Take a listen
1:05
Speaker 1: to our cut one. This is doctor Ellen Rammer. Gunpowder
1:10
Speaker 1: is basically burning and projects the projectile out of the
1:15
Speaker 1: barrel of the gun. A projectile can potentially travel a
1:21
Speaker 1: very long distance like you know many like many feet
1:25
Speaker 1: or you know yard yard rail will get depending on
1:28
Speaker 1: the projectile, until it takes something or if it doesn't
1:32
Speaker 1: pay anything, it could eventually use power and go to
1:35
Speaker 1: the ground. But the gunpowder that leaves the barrel of
1:40
Speaker 1: the weapon can travel not too far, only travels about
1:46
Speaker 1: up to three feet depending on the weapon. You don't
1:49
Speaker 1: usually see it any more than three feet. Sometimes it's
1:52
Speaker 1: within two feet, but depending on the leaf of the firearm.
1:55
Speaker 1: I can't say exactly, but it's somewhere in that range.
1:57
Speaker 1: As joining me, Ted Williams, high profile defense attorney former
2:01
Speaker 1: Washington DC police detective. Foxy's contributor started in power of attorney.
2:07
Speaker 1: I could go on and on, Ted Williams, that's not
2:11
Speaker 1: good for the defense. You think that this young man,
2:15
Speaker 1: his son, could have lived after the first gunshot, and
2:19
Speaker 1: what was he doing crawling along trying to get away
2:24
Speaker 1: from his killer? Think about that? What is the jury
2:28
Speaker 1: thinking about right now? Well, I think what the jury
2:32
Speaker 1: actually is thinking right now is that this was very tragic,
2:35
Speaker 1: that it was traumatic testimony, It was shocking testimony. But
2:41
Speaker 1: what it does not do is connect Alex directly with
2:46
Speaker 1: the shooting of Paul All Maggie and you are looking
2:51
Speaker 1: for the prosecution to connect the dots, and Nan say,
2:57
Speaker 1: I've got to tell you they haven't done that. Yes,
3:00
Speaker 1: they put on that very gruesome testimony. Doctor Raymond was
3:05
Speaker 1: excellent in explaining the depth of these two people. But
3:10
Speaker 1: above and beyond that, what the prosecution must do. They've
3:15
Speaker 1: got to connect the dots to Alex. And I gotta
3:19
Speaker 1: tell you that is what the jury is looking for.
3:22
Speaker 1: The jury, I'm sure Ted Williams. You keep saying connect
3:30
Speaker 1: the dots, Connect the dots. I'd like to see him also, Christine,
3:35
Speaker 1: connect the dots. Connect the dots, Connect the dots. They're
3:37
Speaker 1: not tying it to him. You mean other than the
3:39
Speaker 1: gunshot residue on his hands and his clothes, and the
3:43
Speaker 1: victim's blood on his steering wheel and all of his
3:46
Speaker 1: lies and the video take placing him in the kennels
3:50
Speaker 1: about two minutes before the gunshots. What more do you want? Man?
3:54
Speaker 1: A video of the murder, Nancy. What I want is
3:57
Speaker 1: just this, the prosecution and to prove that Alex Murdole
4:03
Speaker 1: murdered his wife and his son, and to prove that
4:08
Speaker 1: beyond a reasonable doubt. And there is reasonable doubt when
4:13
Speaker 1: you talk about the blood on the steering wheel, when
4:16
Speaker 1: you talk about the blood on the shirt, those kind
4:21
Speaker 1: of things can be explained. And I think you're gonna
4:26
Speaker 1: find that. The defense when they start their case they're
4:30
Speaker 1: gonna try to explain some of the things that you've
4:34
Speaker 1: talked about here they have not shown to me, meaning
4:37
Speaker 1: the prosecution, that they've so far to date proved their
4:41
Speaker 1: case beyond any reasonable doubts. Okay R. Brandt, Senior Inspector,
4:47
Speaker 1: US Marshal Service, DJ author. So a shot just out
4:54
Speaker 1: on Amazon. He's been sent all around the world on prosecutions.
4:58
Speaker 1: Can you help me? And Christina New York? Did you
5:02
Speaker 1: please check Ted Williams IFB because I don't think he's
5:06
Speaker 1: hearing the evidence. He's missing somehow. He's missed that. Alex
5:10
Speaker 1: Murdog has gunshot residue on his hands, on his clothes,
5:16
Speaker 1: there's blood from Maggie, and there's his DNA and Maggie's
5:21
Speaker 1: blood on his steering wheel. He lied about his alibi,
5:25
Speaker 1: He's asked witnesses to lie. And the weapons used in
5:29
Speaker 1: the murder are from the Murdog dog kennels there from
5:35
Speaker 1: there they belong to a Murdog. I mean, what else
5:39
Speaker 1: do I need to stand out on Third Avenue and
5:42
Speaker 1: scream Alex Murdog shot his wife and son or Brent.
5:46
Speaker 1: Can you talk to him? Oh? Yeah, Nancy, I'd love
5:48
Speaker 1: to talk to mister Williams. I know he was a detective.
5:52
Speaker 1: Now he's a defense attorney, and it's always been my
5:56
Speaker 1: experience with the defense that they put reasonable doubt and
6:04
Speaker 1: beyond the shadow of a doubt and without a doubt,
6:08
Speaker 1: they always put it together. What he was saying, I understand,
6:14
Speaker 1: but it's reasonable. Everything that the prosecution has put together
6:19
Speaker 1: is reasonable, and every person sitting on that jury's going
6:24
Speaker 1: to come to the same conclusion that he murdered his wife.
6:28
Speaker 1: Hold on, hold on, I'm hearing him. My heir. Joining
6:31
Speaker 1: us straight out of the courtroom is Katie Cammon, breaking
6:35
Speaker 1: news anchor, investigative reporter at Live five News out of Charleston. Katie,
6:41
Speaker 1: first of all, how was the jury reacting? I saw
6:44
Speaker 1: a murdog tune up. He turned on the waterworks. But
6:49
Speaker 1: you know what, every time I look at him, I
6:52
Speaker 1: would be tempted to feel sorry for him when he
6:53
Speaker 1: starts crying. But then I think back on the bodycam
6:59
Speaker 1: footage where he was going, But there were no tears.
7:06
Speaker 1: That was fake. The whole thing was fake, no tears
7:09
Speaker 1: at all. I mean, who should I believe, Katie? Him?
7:12
Speaker 1: Are my lying eyes? Come on? What's the jury doing?
7:15
Speaker 1: That's really all that matters. Ted Williams can say anything
7:18
Speaker 1: he wants to, but all that really matters is what
7:19
Speaker 1: the jury thinks. Well, Nancy, first of all, thank you
7:22
Speaker 1: for having me. We have obviously seen some changes in
7:24
Speaker 1: the jury because of COVID and some illnesses last week.
7:28
Speaker 1: The jury is always very they're listening intently always. It
7:33
Speaker 1: was hard for the jury to listen. Some of them
7:35
Speaker 1: were getting really emotional, some of them looking away. I mean,
7:39
Speaker 1: it is such gruesome graphic testimony. I mean, it hurts
7:43
Speaker 1: your heart to think about a mother and her son
7:46
Speaker 1: being slaughtered in this way. I think it's having an
7:50
Speaker 1: impact on them in one way or another. But you
7:52
Speaker 1: also have to think that they've been instructed to come
7:55
Speaker 1: into this courtroom thinking that Murdoch is entirely innocent. He's
7:59
Speaker 1: innocent until proven guilty. They come in with a clean slate,
8:02
Speaker 1: so they're really having to put all of this through
8:04
Speaker 1: their brains. They're really having to think this over and
8:07
Speaker 1: it certainly is a lot. But I do know that
8:08
Speaker 1: they are getting emotional. It's weighing on them heavily what
8:11
Speaker 1: they've had to hear today and yesterday. Now I'm going
8:14
Speaker 1: to interpret what Katie Camon just said to mean they
8:18
Speaker 1: showed no emotion. No, I think I think there are
8:21
Speaker 1: some there. They do feel emotion. Hearing that yesterday. I
8:25
Speaker 1: think one of the women there was maybe even crying,
8:27
Speaker 1: shaking her head, had to be consoled by another jury.
8:30
Speaker 1: I do think that this is weighing heavily on them.
8:32
Speaker 1: I do think that especially what we heard from doctor
8:36
Speaker 1: Reemer yesterday, that's hard to listen to hear about the
8:40
Speaker 1: gunshot wounds and what's happening to the victims or what
8:43
Speaker 1: happened to the victims. I think it is weighing on them.
8:46
Speaker 1: I think they are getting emotional. But I do think
8:48
Speaker 1: that they have to have a different perspective than all
8:51
Speaker 1: of the rest of us who are hearing media reports,
8:53
Speaker 1: who are reading stuff on the internet. Yeah, when I'm
8:55
Speaker 1: talking about jury reaction, that's what I'm talking about, because
8:58
Speaker 1: I find it really hard to believe a jury could
9:02
Speaker 1: hear all that evidence and not have and see those
9:05
Speaker 1: pictures and not have any reaction at all. But I
9:10
Speaker 1: did notice this doctor Michelle dupre joining me pathologists, medical examiner,
9:16
Speaker 1: former detective, author of homicide Investigation field Guide, Doctor Dupree,
9:24
Speaker 1: you and I have repeatedly gone over and over that
9:28
Speaker 1: body Kim footage, and we see by the time the
9:32
Speaker 1: cops got there anyway, Alex Murdog has on a clean
9:36
Speaker 1: white tshirt, clean shorts, clean hands, clean everything, and as
9:43
Speaker 1: much as he contorts his face, I mean, for Pete's
9:47
Speaker 1: saying they get there, he's standing right there in front
9:50
Speaker 1: of his wife and son's dead bodies trying to say,
9:53
Speaker 1: oh yeah, this has something to do with that boat accident.
9:56
Speaker 1: I mean, he's getting his story in with a very
10:01
Speaker 1: very methodical description, and there are no tears, Doctor Dupree,
10:08
Speaker 1: no tears at all. We've both seen it. Nancy. I
10:11
Speaker 1: agree with you. I you know, I don't think that
10:13
Speaker 1: he is acting appropriately, but then everybody does grieve differently.
10:17
Speaker 1: And I'm sure that he's in shock, whether he did
10:19
Speaker 1: it or not, I'm sure that he is still in shock.
10:22
Speaker 1: But I think these videos are telltale to me. When
10:25
Speaker 1: he is interviewed in the car that night, he is calculating,
10:29
Speaker 1: he is thinking. I can see his wheels turning in
10:32
Speaker 1: his head. He's thinking about what he's going to say
10:34
Speaker 1: before he says it, and he has I think inappropriate
10:40
Speaker 1: responses on several occasions when he asked that person. I'm
10:44
Speaker 1: later the crime scene. Hey, how you doing? That isn't
10:47
Speaker 1: something that you're likely to say when your wife, doctor
10:51
Speaker 1: du Pree, Doctor Dupree. Guys, doctor Dufree is right there
10:56
Speaker 1: on the scene in South Carolina. She's been to the scene,
10:59
Speaker 1: she's been to the crash. She knows everything, the ins
11:03
Speaker 1: and outs of this case. She knows what she's talking about.
11:05
Speaker 1: But I really don't think you did that, justice, doctor Dupree,
11:09
Speaker 1: when you said he said hey to somebody. No, no, no no,
11:11
Speaker 1: no way, back up, back it up. Doctor. He's right
11:15
Speaker 1: in the middle trying to cry and carry on in
11:21
Speaker 1: front of the cops. He's trying to tell what happened.
11:23
Speaker 1: And then right in the middle of it, he's going, oh,
11:26
Speaker 1: my wife, my son, And then he sees somebody he
11:28
Speaker 1: knows walking by and he goes, hey, hey doing that's
11:33
Speaker 1: what she's talking about. I mean, complete and another thing.
11:36
Speaker 1: While we're on the subject of tears. He never cried then.
11:40
Speaker 1: But in front of the jury, Oh, don't you know
11:43
Speaker 1: Hartpooligan had this orchestrated. He's got a clean Kleenex box
11:47
Speaker 1: right in front of him, and the jury's about what
11:50
Speaker 1: would you say, Katie camming about twenty feet away. He's like,
11:55
Speaker 1: I can't get it fast enough. Let me just take
11:58
Speaker 1: all the Kleenex out of the box. You know, it's
12:00
Speaker 1: just so obvious because when he is not in front
12:06
Speaker 1: of the jury, no tears, but in front of the jury,
12:10
Speaker 1: he can't get in that Gleenex box fast enough. Yeah,
12:12
Speaker 1: you're exactly right, Nancy. You know, he seems to put
12:16
Speaker 1: on a show when it's needed and when he's going
12:18
Speaker 1: to be seen by the appropriate people such as the jury.
12:22
Speaker 1: He even sort of tries to have some sniffles and
12:25
Speaker 1: a little bit of tears or crying when he's being interviewed.
12:29
Speaker 1: But he really puts on the show, as you said,
12:32
Speaker 1: when the jury is in the room. To Katie cam
12:35
Speaker 1: In joining us Breakie News anchor out of Live five.
12:38
Speaker 1: You can find her on Facebook, Katie Cam and TV. Katie.
12:41
Speaker 1: Did he start crying in court today? Yes, he was
12:44
Speaker 1: once again very emotional today, very emotional yesterday. I think
12:47
Speaker 1: he's been more emotional today yesterday than I've seen this
12:51
Speaker 1: entire trial. But it, you know, it was very gruesome testimony.
12:54
Speaker 1: He listened to what motivations you want to believe he has, obviously,
12:58
Speaker 1: but extreme emotional crying. Yesterday he got very angry as well.
13:02
Speaker 1: It seemed about what that was when one of the
13:04
Speaker 1: sled agents took the took the stand the DNA expert
13:08
Speaker 1: and she was going through each test that was taken
13:11
Speaker 1: and identifying who might have contributed to that DNA. He
13:16
Speaker 1: seemed to be scowling at her, giving her side eye.
13:18
Speaker 1: Even haven't seen that side eye today, but definitely seen
13:22
Speaker 1: some tears from him today. Okay, Kenny Cammon, what do
13:25
Speaker 1: you mean by side eye? Um, like a scowl like
13:29
Speaker 1: beyond just a sassy look, like an angry look, not
13:34
Speaker 1: necessarily looking directly at who's testifying, but as you might
13:38
Speaker 1: guess kind of from the side time stories with me,
13:57
Speaker 1: it's he grace ted William. Do I need to harken
14:02
Speaker 1: back to the ultimate ultimate courtroom show masterpiece of O. J. Simpson?
14:10
Speaker 1: Not once did you ever see? I'm telling you, Johnny Cochrane,
14:15
Speaker 1: God rests his soul, my old co anchor. He knew
14:19
Speaker 1: what he was doing. He had. Simpson was kicked back,
14:23
Speaker 1: not like he's you know, putting his feet up on
14:25
Speaker 1: the table, but he was relaxed. His smile at the
14:29
Speaker 1: jury when he would watch a witness. He would act
14:33
Speaker 1: like he was taking an end. Wright knows he's probably
14:35
Speaker 1: playing Tic Tac two with himself, but he looked like
14:38
Speaker 1: he was taking actual notes. He'd lean over and something
14:42
Speaker 1: to Cochrane. Never once did he come off angry. Once
14:47
Speaker 1: in a while he would look like, you know, he
14:50
Speaker 1: questioned the witness what they were saying, look in disbelief.
14:54
Speaker 1: But number one rule, you do not want your client
14:58
Speaker 1: to look angry. Charge your client charged with murder. And
15:02
Speaker 1: one of those lady Gerards looks over there and sees
15:05
Speaker 1: Alex Murdock looking all angry and mad, and the next thing,
15:08
Speaker 1: you know, and her mind, she'll have him hold him
15:11
Speaker 1: that pump shotgun in his hand. You have to control
15:14
Speaker 1: your witness unless he cannot be controlled. And hart Putley
15:18
Speaker 1: and listen, I've talked to a lot of lawyers that
15:20
Speaker 1: know hart Putleian and when he's not in court, he's
15:24
Speaker 1: the kind of guy which reminds me a lot of
15:26
Speaker 1: Cochrane that you want to be with. He can tell
15:30
Speaker 1: a joke, he can tell a story, he can spin
15:33
Speaker 1: a yarn. In other words, make people like him. I
15:38
Speaker 1: guarantee you Hart Putleyan cannot control Alex Murdock. And there
15:42
Speaker 1: he's sitting there looking like he wants to take somebody's
15:45
Speaker 1: head off. What Nancy yesterday, I don't think his attorney
15:50
Speaker 1: wanted to control him. Look, that jury when all of
15:55
Speaker 1: his testimony did saw for the pathologists was speaking doctor
15:59
Speaker 1: Ryan out there understand and telling how these people brains
16:04
Speaker 1: were blown out, how tragic this was, how their bodies
16:11
Speaker 1: were found. The jurors were not looking at the doctor.
16:16
Speaker 1: The jurors were looking at Harpoleion's client. And that is
16:22
Speaker 1: Alex murder And what did you want him to do
16:26
Speaker 1: just to set their storic when he hears about the
16:30
Speaker 1: persons he loved and he's saying that he did not
16:34
Speaker 1: kill them, that their brains were all over the place.
16:39
Speaker 1: So you just wanted to sit down a storic manner.
16:42
Speaker 1: That isn't gonna happen. And if it did happen, and
16:45
Speaker 1: if he did not show any emotions, that jury would
16:49
Speaker 1: hang him in a heartbeat. So when he showed those emotions,
16:55
Speaker 1: he played and I'm sorry the prosecution loud Alec Murdo
17:01
Speaker 1: without at this stage getting known to stand to look
17:06
Speaker 1: very very sympathetic in the eyes of that jury. They
17:11
Speaker 1: would have expected him to cry under the scenario and
17:15
Speaker 1: circumstances of what you heard, even if you were just
17:19
Speaker 1: outside the court room, you wanted to cry. But when
17:23
Speaker 1: you heard about how these people were murdered under these circumstances,
17:27
Speaker 1: can I see Ted Williams again place Ted? If the
17:30
Speaker 1: whole TV star thing doesn't work out, have you considered
17:37
Speaker 1: taking to the pulpit Because all that preaching you just
17:40
Speaker 1: did reminded me when I was a little girl, and
17:43
Speaker 1: the preacher will be telling us we're all gonna go
17:46
Speaker 1: to hell if we don't. X y z Man, you
17:49
Speaker 1: can really lay out. But see, that's not the question
17:51
Speaker 1: I asked you. I asked you something entirely different. I
17:55
Speaker 1: asked you not about him crying in front of the jury.
18:00
Speaker 1: I asked you about him looking angry the way that
18:03
Speaker 1: Katy Cammon just described him looking angry at the scientist
18:08
Speaker 1: who's just up there talking about the DNA and it
18:12
Speaker 1: made him mad. It made him mad. Let's examine why
18:16
Speaker 1: it made him mad. And in that vein joining me
18:19
Speaker 1: is a world renowned DNA expert, Chief development officer at
18:25
Speaker 1: Authramincauthram dot com or DNA solves dot com, and one
18:33
Speaker 1: of their expertise is to take degraded or mixed DNA
18:40
Speaker 1: DNA that's been underwater, DNA that's been in mud, DNA
18:44
Speaker 1: that's the result of an exclamation, digging up a dead body,
18:48
Speaker 1: and somehow finding a way to make a proper DNA
18:55
Speaker 1: analysis and get results. Doctor Christen Middleman, thank you for
19:00
Speaker 1: being with us. Could you venture to hypothesize why Alex
19:07
Speaker 1: Burdog probably was angry about the expert on the stand? Absolutely, first,
19:13
Speaker 1: thank you for having me, Nancy, And yes, he was
19:16
Speaker 1: angry because DNA doesn't lie. There was blood on that
19:20
Speaker 1: steering wheel. There was blood that contained his own DNA
19:25
Speaker 1: and also DNA that belonged to the victims on the
19:28
Speaker 1: steering wheel of his car. Why was there blood in
19:31
Speaker 1: the steering wheel when there was no blood in his
19:34
Speaker 1: hands when the police and the detectives arrived. There was
19:37
Speaker 1: no blood on his clothing, which you would have expected.
19:40
Speaker 1: Right if I saw my husband and my child in
19:46
Speaker 1: a crime scene, I would probably touch them in a
19:49
Speaker 1: way that there would be blood or DNA from that
19:52
Speaker 1: blood transferred onto my clothing. There was nothing. There was
19:55
Speaker 1: nothing on his hands. Like you said, he was calm
19:57
Speaker 1: and collected when even brought up motive when law enforcement arrived.
20:04
Speaker 1: Yet there was blood on the steering wheel. Why did
20:08
Speaker 1: he even go back to the car? I thought he
20:10
Speaker 1: drove home and then found you. No, I'm curious about
20:14
Speaker 1: his scowl during the DNA expert up on the stand,
20:18
Speaker 1: the crime lab person. Let's go back to investigative reporter
20:22
Speaker 1: joining us, Katie Camon. Katie, could you give me? Could
20:27
Speaker 1: you give everyone who may have missed some of the testimony.
20:30
Speaker 1: This morning's been a very packed morning, and I want
20:33
Speaker 1: them to get through this evidence, Katie, because I don't
20:35
Speaker 1: want to lose any more jurars. What would you say
20:39
Speaker 1: it's the crux of the testimony this morning before lunch break? Well,
20:43
Speaker 1: it's certainly been a pack morning. We've heard from multiple witnesses.
20:47
Speaker 1: We had heard more from doctor Reemer. She was at
20:50
Speaker 1: forensic pathologist yesterday that went into that grizzly, gruesome detail
20:55
Speaker 1: about the wounds that Maggie and Paul sustained during the murders.
21:00
Speaker 1: When Harpoolian cross examined her, he was trying to get
21:03
Speaker 1: her to basically say that the gun was right up
21:08
Speaker 1: against Paul's head. He was trying to get her to
21:11
Speaker 1: adjust what her belief was where that entry wound was.
21:15
Speaker 1: She did not budge. She had a great quote for
21:18
Speaker 1: him as well, kind of putting Harpoolian in his place
21:20
Speaker 1: a bit. We also heard from a man who he
21:24
Speaker 1: used to take care of the dogs the kennels there
21:28
Speaker 1: at Mozelle out in that rural part of Colleton County.
21:31
Speaker 1: Now he was detailing, you know, everything from how he
21:34
Speaker 1: wrapped up the hose at the kennels to where the
21:37
Speaker 1: dogs were located, talking about how well kept he kept
21:41
Speaker 1: all of those dogs, where they had the guns kept
21:44
Speaker 1: on the property. Those are probably the two most interesting
21:47
Speaker 1: and intriguing bits of testimony today. A man from General Motors.
21:52
Speaker 1: He took the stand just to introduce evidence. We heard
21:56
Speaker 1: yesterday that General Motors maybe has some more data that
21:59
Speaker 1: just was shared with the prosecution over the weekend. We
22:03
Speaker 1: expect to hear more from them. Right before we went
22:06
Speaker 1: on lunch break, we heard from someone with the Attorney
22:08
Speaker 1: General's Office, a forensic accountant who was testifying about some
22:12
Speaker 1: of Murdoch's financial situation in the months leading up to
22:16
Speaker 1: the murders. I guess the defense will have their chance
22:18
Speaker 1: at cross examination with him after lunch, but that kind
22:21
Speaker 1: of sums up this morning. Definitely been a packed morning,
22:24
Speaker 1: Definitely been an interesting morning as well. Guys. And once
22:26
Speaker 1: you take a listen to our cut twelve. This is
22:29
Speaker 1: regarding Alex and Maggie's DNA on the shotgun. This would
22:36
Speaker 1: be Safey Gibit two fifty nine, and by that two
22:48
Speaker 1: fifty nine contains SLIT items fifteen and sixteen, which were
22:55
Speaker 1: swabs from the Camo Banelli twelve game shotgun. The comparisons
23:02
Speaker 1: would now be Margaret Murda and Virchard Alexander Murdach contributed
23:06
Speaker 1: to the mixture versus two unidentified unrelated individuals contributed to
23:11
Speaker 1: the mixture, And the result of that comparison is the
23:15
Speaker 1: DNA profile is approximately forty eight Quintocilian times more likely
23:20
Speaker 1: if Margaret Murda and Richard Alexander Murda contributed to the
23:24
Speaker 1: profile than if two unidentified unrelated individuals contributed to the profile. Okay,
23:29
Speaker 1: let's examine that Katie Cammon with us. The DNA found
23:34
Speaker 1: on the shotgun is Maggie's and it is also Alex Mordog's.
23:42
Speaker 1: Explain to me the defense theory if we know it
23:46
Speaker 1: yet as to how Maggie's DNA is on the shotgun. Nancy,
23:50
Speaker 1: I'll be honest with you, there was so much information
23:53
Speaker 1: shared during that Winness's testimony. I think that I and
23:56
Speaker 1: a lot of people, including the jury, probably have some
23:59
Speaker 1: difficulties sifting through all of that. Why the defendion made
24:03
Speaker 1: that they why they talked about this. So I'm gonna
24:05
Speaker 1: have to defer to somebody else on that one. Unfortunately,
24:07
Speaker 1: well I can tell you well, probably because they haven't
24:11
Speaker 1: laid it out in their cross examination. But what I
24:14
Speaker 1: think they're gonna say, or of Brandt, is that Alex
24:18
Speaker 1: Murdog touched Maggie to get her pulse even though she
24:23
Speaker 1: was obviously dead, and then touched his shotgun, ran into
24:28
Speaker 1: the house to get a shotgun because he thought a
24:30
Speaker 1: purp was still there. But the problem with that is
24:34
Speaker 1: when the cops got there, and Christine, if you can
24:36
Speaker 1: show that body cam video of him in the car,
24:39
Speaker 1: in the patrol car, he doesn't have blood on him.
24:43
Speaker 1: It's not on a shirt or that you can see,
24:46
Speaker 1: it's not on his hands. So there's got to be
24:50
Speaker 1: some other way that he got blood on that shotgun.
24:55
Speaker 1: Many would argue it's because the shotgun was present at
24:58
Speaker 1: the time of the shooting, not that it was the
25:00
Speaker 1: murder weapon, but that it was present. What about that theory,
25:04
Speaker 1: earth Brand. I think you're exactly right, Nancy. There's only
25:09
Speaker 1: so many ways you can explain it, and that seems
25:13
Speaker 1: to be the most logical explanation that you just laid out.
25:18
Speaker 1: Unless something else in the testimony comes later that gives
25:24
Speaker 1: you a different perspective. I think that one is the
25:27
Speaker 1: correct one. Also, take a listen to our cut thirteen.
25:31
Speaker 1: This is about Alex and Mordog's short reportedly big positive
25:35
Speaker 1: for blood. The white shirt from Richard Murdo was submitted
25:38
Speaker 1: with a blood request on June ninth of twenty twenty one.
25:45
Speaker 1: I process this item for the possible presence of blood,
25:48
Speaker 1: so that entails. I first visually examined the shirt for
25:52
Speaker 1: any areas that are consistent with the staining of blood.
25:55
Speaker 1: Then I tested these items that I have indicated with
25:59
Speaker 1: our funal kit. Failing presumptive tests for blood, two stains
26:03
Speaker 1: were indicated or were tested. Both stains were positive for
26:08
Speaker 1: the possible presence of blood. So the shorts also were
26:12
Speaker 1: submitted with a blood request. They were processed in a
26:14
Speaker 1: similar manner. Several stains were tested. However, two were positive
26:19
Speaker 1: for the possible presence of blood. A stain located at
26:23
Speaker 1: the front left interior pocket of the pair of green
26:27
Speaker 1: shorts was forwarded for further analysis. This was processed on
26:31
Speaker 1: the same June ninth day of twenty twenty one. The
26:34
Speaker 1: shorts were also additionally processed. At the same time. The
26:37
Speaker 1: short was additionally processed to retrieve a second stain that
26:42
Speaker 1: was indicated as the possible presence of blood. So the
26:45
Speaker 1: presumptive results for this stain, or that it was positive
26:49
Speaker 1: for the possible presence of blood, well, Ted Williams. Ted Williams,
26:53
Speaker 1: You're gonna have a field day with this, because reportedly,
26:56
Speaker 1: when the state did the testing on the short, the
27:00
Speaker 1: shirt ended up getting turned blue or purple. In other words,
27:04
Speaker 1: it ruined the shirt for further testing by the defense.
27:09
Speaker 1: You know absolutely here Again, when you're talking about the
27:14
Speaker 1: blood that was supposed to have been found, you still
27:19
Speaker 1: even that witness understand did not connect the dots. All
27:24
Speaker 1: you could do is say that that was blood. They
27:27
Speaker 1: did not talk about it. This was Paul's blood or
27:31
Speaker 1: it was Maggot's blood. But this is the key, the
27:34
Speaker 1: fact about it is he's not saying that he never
27:38
Speaker 1: touched their bodies, or he's saying that when he found
27:42
Speaker 1: them he tried to find a pause. So there are
27:45
Speaker 1: a lot of ways that that can be explained, Nancy,
27:49
Speaker 1: and I think that you're gonna find at some sage
27:52
Speaker 1: or another, the defense will give more of an explanation
27:56
Speaker 1: of it. I just wish that the process execution would
28:01
Speaker 1: have put on a more crystallized case those witnesses, the
28:06
Speaker 1: woman that testified yesterday. The problem was the testimony was
28:11
Speaker 1: all over the page, and I'm sure that a jury
28:15
Speaker 1: that wanted to be focused on these various items or
28:20
Speaker 1: they I'm sure at some stage some of them had
28:23
Speaker 1: to lose focus. I listened to this testimony and I
28:26
Speaker 1: wonder when the hell was at all going because it
28:29
Speaker 1: was all over the page. And so I find that
28:34
Speaker 1: to be very troubling, and that does not help the prosecution.
28:40
Speaker 1: I believe to prove that Alec Murdo murdered his son
28:45
Speaker 1: and his wife, not by any stretch of imagination. Well,
28:49
Speaker 1: we can't let it would be disallowed given the right objection.
28:53
Speaker 1: You can't let a crime lab scientist connect the dots,
28:58
Speaker 1: as you are saying, because the crime lab scientist is
29:03
Speaker 1: not the one to say, Hey, the reason there's blood
29:06
Speaker 1: on his shirt is because he shot them. That's for
29:08
Speaker 1: the state to do in opening and closing statements. So
29:12
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to wait for that. But I agree
29:15
Speaker 1: with you as it stands right now, the jury may
29:18
Speaker 1: be wondering, Okay, what does this mean? But we didn't
29:23
Speaker 1: learn something regarding that garden hose you just heard about.
29:27
Speaker 1: I want you to take a listen to our cut ten.
29:31
Speaker 1: Where is in this picture? Where is the hose you're
29:33
Speaker 1: talking about located this back towards the left hand side,
29:37
Speaker 1: back towards the forest inn Is that that yellow looking hose?
29:44
Speaker 1: Were you pretty particular about how you wound that hose? Yes?
29:48
Speaker 1: And why would you do it that way? And did
29:49
Speaker 1: you do it that way every time? Hey? Every time?
29:51
Speaker 1: The picture that you're reading seeing therese is that the
29:56
Speaker 1: way you would re wind it up? Nope? How do
30:00
Speaker 1: you know? I'm very particularly how I rolled a hose up.
30:04
Speaker 1: And it's kin if you notice there's pressure on a hose,
30:10
Speaker 1: somebody use a hose out the idea because it is twisted.
30:15
Speaker 1: Okay to Katie Cammon joining us from Live five News,
30:19
Speaker 1: tell me the significance of that garden hose out by
30:22
Speaker 1: the kennels. Well, Nancy back, you know, one of those
30:24
Speaker 1: first days of testimony, when we're watching that bodycam footage,
30:27
Speaker 1: or we're hearing about that bodycam footage, at least when
30:30
Speaker 1: they're out at the kennels, they keep mentioning these puddles
30:32
Speaker 1: of water by the kennels close to where Paul's body
30:37
Speaker 1: was found. For days. We've kind of been wondering why
30:41
Speaker 1: this water kept being brought up in other testimony from
30:44
Speaker 1: other witnesses. So now it's brought up again, this hose.
30:48
Speaker 1: What we think that the state is getting at is
30:50
Speaker 1: that after they allege Murdoch killed Paul killed Maggie, he
30:55
Speaker 1: may be used that hose to clean himself off, clean
30:59
Speaker 1: up the crime seen a little bit, and that's why
31:01
Speaker 1: there would be water there. Of course, the dog keeper,
31:04
Speaker 1: the man that took care of the kennels, testified when
31:06
Speaker 1: he left that hose was exactly where he put it.
31:10
Speaker 1: There was no water, it was all dried. So we'll
31:13
Speaker 1: see what the jury thinks, I guess at the end
31:15
Speaker 1: of all of this. So, wow, what about that, Ted Williams.
31:20
Speaker 1: The kennel was dry and the video that Paul took
31:25
Speaker 1: of the dog for his friend Rogie Rogan Gibson. There
31:30
Speaker 1: wasn't puddles of water, And now after Maggie and Paul
31:36
Speaker 1: are shot dead, they're puddles of water and the garden
31:41
Speaker 1: hose is unfurled, it's kinked up. So wow, Ted Williams,
31:47
Speaker 1: what killer would take the time to hose off the kennel? Well,
31:52
Speaker 1: let me just use the word soul. What And when
31:56
Speaker 1: I used that, man said, I don't use it in
31:58
Speaker 1: a flipping a manner. I am saying that the I
32:02
Speaker 1: don't know how the host got the way it was
32:06
Speaker 1: put there. But let's say or that Alex wanted to
32:12
Speaker 1: clean himself off, Let's say he wanted to even clean
32:15
Speaker 1: some of the blood. Or don't you think that when
32:19
Speaker 1: the authorities arrived there, saw that area, saw that puddle,
32:25
Speaker 1: that they would have even have looked in that puddle
32:28
Speaker 1: and and taken some evidence from that puddle. Don't you
32:32
Speaker 1: think that the crime scene search people in preservation of
32:37
Speaker 1: that crime scene would have used or picked up anything
32:42
Speaker 1: they could in the sense of that kind of fluid,
32:44
Speaker 1: Because guess what, even if he cleaned his body off
32:50
Speaker 1: and there was some blood that went in that water,
32:53
Speaker 1: they could still be would be able to find that,
32:57
Speaker 1: meaning the crime scene search people. So I don't make
33:01
Speaker 1: a big deal out of this and the prosecution again, Nancy,
33:06
Speaker 1: we want the prosecution to connect these damned dots. Will
33:11
Speaker 1: tell us tell that jury what is the connection between
33:15
Speaker 1: that hose, that water and Alex just to infer you
33:21
Speaker 1: want to convict this man a murder because you want
33:26
Speaker 1: an inference to be drawn with a hose or that's
33:29
Speaker 1: not gonna happen in this case, doctor Michelle Dpree not
33:32
Speaker 1: only pathologists medical examiner, but former detective and author of
33:38
Speaker 1: Homicide Investigation Field Guide. If there's a random killer, you
33:44
Speaker 1: never see staging of the scene because they don't have
33:47
Speaker 1: anything to cover up. If you see a killer connected
33:51
Speaker 1: to the victims, then you see staging. Staging simply means
33:56
Speaker 1: the scene was altered. I had one case where mom
34:01
Speaker 1: victim was found naked on her bed dead and the
34:04
Speaker 1: killer had put a wicker trash backet basket over her head.
34:08
Speaker 1: I've seen cases where the body was moved or in
34:11
Speaker 1: serial killer cases, those freaks will redress the woman's body
34:18
Speaker 1: and Ted Bundy even applied makeup and washed the victim's
34:21
Speaker 1: hair post mortem. That is extreme staging. But in this case,
34:28
Speaker 1: it's very clear that the killer wanted to get rid
34:33
Speaker 1: of evidence. They weren't worried about getting caught. They had
34:39
Speaker 1: time in their mind to hose out the kennel for
34:42
Speaker 1: Pete's sake. They knew nobody was going to kind of
34:45
Speaker 1: catch them, and that's only one person, Alex Murdog exactly, Nancy.
34:50
Speaker 1: And there's something interesting about this. We keep saying that
34:54
Speaker 1: the blood on the T shirt, if you are checking
34:58
Speaker 1: a body for a pulse, you're not going to have
35:00
Speaker 1: droplets like that. You may have transfer, which has been
35:03
Speaker 1: talked about before, but where this blood is located, where
35:07
Speaker 1: this blood was found, it's not going to be as
35:10
Speaker 1: if you were checking a pause. And in addition, we
35:12
Speaker 1: want to know what that looks like. It's not a
35:14
Speaker 1: smear or a streak of blood. It's basically small droplets,
35:19
Speaker 1: and again you don't get those from checking someone's pulse
35:23
Speaker 1: if in fact he really did check someone's paulse Guys,
35:26
Speaker 1: we have been taking your calls, your questions, your emails,
35:31
Speaker 1: a lot of it on social media, and here's a
35:33
Speaker 1: really good one. It's from Stephanie Marie, Why as Aleximer
35:39
Speaker 1: like silent on the nine one one call until they
35:44
Speaker 1: pick up. There's no crying, there's no sobbing, there's nothing.
35:51
Speaker 1: But the minute that nine one one caller dispatch picks up,
35:56
Speaker 1: everything changes. Katie Kimmon, who is listen to the nine
36:00
Speaker 1: one one call like the rest of us? Isn't that true?
36:04
Speaker 1: Stephanie is Stephanie whis right? There's no sound from him
36:08
Speaker 1: at all until the dispatcher picks up. Yes, Nancy, that
36:12
Speaker 1: is true. I've listened to it, the unredacted version months
36:15
Speaker 1: and months ago. Listen to it again now, Yeah, it
36:19
Speaker 1: is silent. And you've ever called nine one one before?
36:21
Speaker 1: You do hear at the beginning they record you the
36:23
Speaker 1: second that you dial those numbers, So certainly something interesting
36:27
Speaker 1: to think about that. As soon as he hears that operator,
36:30
Speaker 1: that's when he starts crying, and you could actually hear
36:33
Speaker 1: that emotion, you know. Beverly a Bear has a good question.
36:37
Speaker 1: Why would Maggie's phone be moved and discarded but Paul's
36:42
Speaker 1: left behind? That's a really good question. What was on
36:46
Speaker 1: Maggie's phone that needed to be discarded? Why did Alex
36:49
Speaker 1: Murdock delete blew. It was seventy three entries in his phone.
36:55
Speaker 1: Question to you, doctor Kristen Middleman, Paul's phone was laid
37:03
Speaker 1: neatly on his body and there had to be DNA
37:07
Speaker 1: evidence on that phone. What does that signify to you?
37:12
Speaker 1: I know you look at not only DNA but the
37:15
Speaker 1: placement of DNA. Yeah, so it is odd. It's odd
37:20
Speaker 1: that one person's phone was laid neatly on their body
37:23
Speaker 1: and obviously mixed DNA would be there, and then the
37:27
Speaker 1: other phone was discarded as to hide something or to
37:30
Speaker 1: not allow it to be found because of the information
37:33
Speaker 1: that was probably on the phone. I think in this
37:36
Speaker 1: case he wasn't as worried about as DNA being on
37:39
Speaker 1: all these items because he belonged to the family and
37:44
Speaker 1: so he believed that that would just be excluded. So
37:47
Speaker 1: I don't think he worried about the DNA being all
37:50
Speaker 1: over the crime scene as you say it was. And
37:53
Speaker 1: I think that what you have to do is you
37:55
Speaker 1: have to put that in context of where it is,
37:58
Speaker 1: how it is. Just like the vious person just said,
38:01
Speaker 1: it wasn't like a smear of blood from hugging someone.
38:04
Speaker 1: It was spatter. It was a droplet of blood found
38:07
Speaker 1: on the shirt. The position of that DNA found on
38:11
Speaker 1: the gun, that's very important. That will start to tell
38:14
Speaker 1: the story. Where was Maggie's DNA on that weapon? Where
38:18
Speaker 1: was Alex's DNA on that weapon? I think that that's
38:22
Speaker 1: what we need to hear next. We've heard from the
38:26
Speaker 1: analyst in the lab sort of that yes, the presence
38:29
Speaker 1: of DNA is there, and at what sort of degree
38:31
Speaker 1: they can exclude other people from having DNA there. We
38:35
Speaker 1: even heard the defense take on the fingernail clippings and
38:38
Speaker 1: make a big deal about the fact that his DNA
38:41
Speaker 1: was not under the fingernails, although I don't think that
38:44
Speaker 1: means anything. There was no defensive wounds, so there shouldn't
38:48
Speaker 1: have been a struggle. And as you can see, someone
38:51
Speaker 1: made a note that she had gone to the nail
38:54
Speaker 1: salon earlier. I wonder if if they would want to,
39:00
Speaker 1: instead of just tell the presence or absence of DNA
39:04
Speaker 1: and on all these items, start to discuss what where
39:08
Speaker 1: exactly on these items that DNA was. I think that's
39:11
Speaker 1: going to start to tell the story of what actually
39:14
Speaker 1: happened and what would probably let us know whether or
39:20
Speaker 1: not Alex was involved in murdering these two people or
39:24
Speaker 1: whether he was just there. Obviously he was there. There
39:27
Speaker 1: is the audio, there is now, there's blood on the
39:31
Speaker 1: steering wheel, there's DNA everywhere. But the question is how
39:36
Speaker 1: was he involved? And the placement of DNA could start
39:39
Speaker 1: to tell that story. Crime stories with Nancy Grace. The
39:59
Speaker 1: internet is on fire right now with rumors speculation that
40:04
Speaker 1: Alex Murdoch is going to take the stand in his
40:08
Speaker 1: own defense. To Katie Cammon, what's the word at the courthouse?
40:13
Speaker 1: How much longer do you expect the state's case to last?
40:17
Speaker 1: When will Curtis Edward Smith testify? And most important, what
40:22
Speaker 1: about the theory that Murdoch will take the stand? Well, Nancy,
40:25
Speaker 1: we expect the states their case, all of their witnesses.
40:29
Speaker 1: We expect that to wrap up tomorrow, even with the
40:32
Speaker 1: addition of some of this new evidence from GM that
40:35
Speaker 1: they introduced or expect to introduce. They said middle of
40:38
Speaker 1: the week, so tomorrow, even with his COVID stuff. Obviously,
40:43
Speaker 1: we would expect Curtis Eddie Smith to testify before then.
40:48
Speaker 1: We've been hearing about it since last week though, heard
40:52
Speaker 1: it from officials and off the record, and he still
40:55
Speaker 1: hasn't taken the stand, So at this point we're wondering
40:58
Speaker 1: if there was some sort of controversy behind the scenes,
41:00
Speaker 1: because we've seen his attorney in court, notcher if he's
41:04
Speaker 1: going to take the stand or not. So many people
41:07
Speaker 1: want to hear from him, though obviously you know the story, Nancy,
41:10
Speaker 1: but for folks who maybe don't, he is allegedly involved
41:14
Speaker 1: in an insurance plot, a suicide for hire with Murdoch
41:17
Speaker 1: back after the murders, So we definitely would like to
41:20
Speaker 1: hear from him. As far as the defense, they we
41:23
Speaker 1: expect them to start their testimony with their witnesses maybe Thursday.
41:27
Speaker 1: They expect that take a week as well. And we're
41:29
Speaker 1: also hearing some grumbling, some rumors that Alec Murdoch himself
41:34
Speaker 1: may take the stand at the end of all of this.
41:37
Speaker 1: Might be true, might not be true. We'll just have
41:39
Speaker 1: to see on that one. I guess Katie Kevin, are
41:42
Speaker 1: you telling me that Kurtis Edward Smith's lawyer has been
41:45
Speaker 1: in the courtroom as of today or yesterday? Yeah, I'm
41:48
Speaker 1: not sure exactly what day it was, but one of
41:50
Speaker 1: our other investigator reporters said that she did see his
41:53
Speaker 1: attorney in the courtroom at least in the past week. Okay,
41:56
Speaker 1: that means he is still set to testify as of
41:59
Speaker 1: that moment, because there's no way she's going to spend
42:02
Speaker 1: her time sitting in the courtroom if her client is
42:05
Speaker 1: not involved. I'm sure she's got a thriving practice with
42:09
Speaker 1: clients waiting for her to show up or do something.
42:12
Speaker 1: Long story short, She's not just sitting there watching the
42:15
Speaker 1: trial without any purpose from what I know about her.
42:19
Speaker 1: Here's another question, who will the defenses from T. L. Barber?
42:22
Speaker 1: Who will the defense call for questioning character witnesses? Fat
42:28
Speaker 1: chance like a snowball's chance in H E. Double L
42:32
Speaker 1: Ted Williams. The reality is, once a defense brings on
42:37
Speaker 1: good character, the state can then respond with bad character,
42:41
Speaker 1: and there's plenty of it. Well, a state has already
42:45
Speaker 1: tried to respond as best it could with bad character evidence.
42:51
Speaker 1: I can tell you that the defense has been very
42:54
Speaker 1: slick in this case, and they have with witnesses that
42:58
Speaker 1: have been on the stand. They have been able to
43:01
Speaker 1: put on sublanially character evidence, or that Alex is not
43:07
Speaker 1: such a bad guy that has come out through or
43:11
Speaker 1: witnesses understand now who they are. Anticipated. I believe that
43:16
Speaker 1: the defense is going to call in their case in
43:19
Speaker 1: chief is that they're going to call quite a few
43:23
Speaker 1: experts to dispute the experts that they've already taken place,
43:28
Speaker 1: for instance, doctor Rama or the pathologists. I would have
43:33
Speaker 1: to believe that they're gonna call their own pathologists to
43:38
Speaker 1: dispute some of the testimony of doctor Rayma. So I
43:43
Speaker 1: think you're gonna get here next week into the battle
43:47
Speaker 1: of the experts, or perhaps even this week after the
43:51
Speaker 1: prosecution rests. But when you speak of cousin or Eddie,
43:59
Speaker 1: I think that guy is bad news for both sides,
44:04
Speaker 1: and I don't know if the prosecution really want to
44:10
Speaker 1: call him to the stand. One of the things that
44:14
Speaker 1: we are leaving out here, or Nan said, we must
44:17
Speaker 1: talk about these two people. Maggie and Paul were shot
44:23
Speaker 1: with two different weapons. Paul with a shotgun and Maggie
44:31
Speaker 1: is possibly an automatic long gun. And so the fact
44:35
Speaker 1: about it is the defense's argument is that there were
44:40
Speaker 1: two shooters that kill these people. And their argument is
44:46
Speaker 1: that this is about the murder or should we say,
44:50
Speaker 1: the accidental killing or the killing of miss Beach by
44:55
Speaker 1: Paul when he was driving that boat. And that's gonna
44:59
Speaker 1: be the manner in which the defense is gonna go
45:03
Speaker 1: at this case. Yeah, that is what they're going to do.
45:07
Speaker 1: I don't know that anybody believes it, but yes, we
45:10
Speaker 1: have been talking in depth about the fact that two
45:12
Speaker 1: weapons were used. Maggie and Paul were not shot with
45:16
Speaker 1: the same gun. The guns both appear to be Murdog weapons,
45:21
Speaker 1: and both the guns, at least one of the guns
45:24
Speaker 1: is the Murdog weapon. Both the guns have disappeared. Now
45:30
Speaker 1: little greed men from ours may have beamed down Ted
45:34
Speaker 1: Williams and gunned down Paul and Maggie could have happened.
45:38
Speaker 1: But did it happen? Is it reasonable to believe that? No?
45:42
Speaker 1: Not really, so that will be what the state argues back.
45:46
Speaker 1: But my question to you was would the defense call
45:52
Speaker 1: character witnesses? That was the question. If they call good
45:57
Speaker 1: character witnesses like Alex Murdoch saying in the churche no, no,
46:01
Speaker 1: because then the state can bring in all of the
46:04
Speaker 1: times he was drunk, all every time he ever stole,
46:08
Speaker 1: not just the fee we've heard about. Everything he ever
46:11
Speaker 1: did wrong will then come into evidence, and right now
46:14
Speaker 1: it's being barred. You're absolutely right if they put on testimony,
46:18
Speaker 1: meaning of his good character. They will open up a
46:22
Speaker 1: door where in even rebuttal At the prosecution will come
46:27
Speaker 1: in with his bad character. But listen, they've already harmed themselves,
46:36
Speaker 1: meaning the prosecution, as far as I'm concerned in this case,
46:40
Speaker 1: by putting on this cockamami or financial evidence to try
46:46
Speaker 1: to show that this man murdered his son and his
46:51
Speaker 1: wife because he was concerned about the exposure of all
46:58
Speaker 1: this financial of his final answer, fraud. That's utterly ridiculous.
47:02
Speaker 1: That's another area I don't know. I disagree with you,
47:06
Speaker 1: and I'll tell you why. Maggie was about to take
47:09
Speaker 1: half of everything he was worth in a potential divorce,
47:13
Speaker 1: including his inheritance from his father. But once she's dead,
47:18
Speaker 1: you don't have that problem. Paul was the source of
47:21
Speaker 1: a major multimillion dollar lawsuit against Murdog and his family.
47:25
Speaker 1: Paul was killed that argument. That lawsuit was quickly settled
47:32
Speaker 1: after Paul's death. But let me ask doctor Middleman the
47:38
Speaker 1: question regarding the DNA the DNA, how do you come
47:44
Speaker 1: up with such fantastical numbers as to the likelihood that
47:50
Speaker 1: this DNA came from anybody else but Alex Murdog. It's
47:54
Speaker 1: like one in four quincilion. Its numbers we don't even
47:59
Speaker 1: learn in Bath. Yeah, it's just the probability standards of
48:03
Speaker 1: how many times it would be that those letters of
48:06
Speaker 1: DNA would show up and those alleles across the population,
48:10
Speaker 1: and what those numbers tell you. When they tell you
48:12
Speaker 1: like one and fourteen quintillion or whatever it is that
48:16
Speaker 1: they name a few times, that just means that it
48:20
Speaker 1: is not likely that another person on this earth, because
48:23
Speaker 1: there's not that many people on this Earth could have
48:25
Speaker 1: left the DNA there. And then sometimes you get a
48:28
Speaker 1: result like you know, it's eleven times more likely that
48:33
Speaker 1: the DNA belongs to this person rather than this person.
48:37
Speaker 1: That's just telling you that we don't have enough LOSI
48:41
Speaker 1: on that DNA to characterize, so the probability of it
48:44
Speaker 1: being someone else is still very possible. Right, there are
48:47
Speaker 1: enough people here to have that happen. So it's giving
48:50
Speaker 1: you that statistic number so that you can wait. How
48:54
Speaker 1: important that piece of information that the DNA analysts gave
48:57
Speaker 1: you is when they're making that testimony. So when you
49:00
Speaker 1: hear those huge numbers, that means there's a lot of
49:02
Speaker 1: weight and what they're saying. So when they say the
49:05
Speaker 1: mixture is between Maggie and Alex and the number is
49:08
Speaker 1: you know in the quantillions that it would be someone else,
49:11
Speaker 1: then you know that that's certain, that's almost certain. When
49:14
Speaker 1: they tell you that it's eleven times more likely that
49:17
Speaker 1: the DNA underneath the fingernails came from the person that
49:22
Speaker 1: could be from the person that maintains the grounds, then
49:26
Speaker 1: you know that's a very cold and it could also
49:28
Speaker 1: be a whole bunch of other people, So you wouldn't
49:30
Speaker 1: wait that as much. That's how you think of that
49:33
Speaker 1: information that they're giving you. I don't know if that
49:35
Speaker 1: answered your question, yes it did. You know, Cookie at
49:39
Speaker 1: the beach ask what happens if more gurrs come down
49:42
Speaker 1: with COVID. Out to Katie Cammon joining us at the courthouse, Katie,
49:47
Speaker 1: how weny alternate jurars do we have left? Ify we're
49:50
Speaker 1: down to three. We started off with six, now we're
49:53
Speaker 1: down to three. Those jurors are going to be tested
49:56
Speaker 1: for COVID again tomorrow. We'll see if a few of
49:59
Speaker 1: the drop out. As we know with COVID it spread
50:02
Speaker 1: so very well, could happen that we're down to even
50:06
Speaker 1: even less than that number. We did talk to our
50:08
Speaker 1: legal analysts last night who said there is no rule
50:12
Speaker 1: to have twelve jurors. If these alternates get wiped out
50:15
Speaker 1: and we get down to ten or eleven, we could
50:17
Speaker 1: continue with this unlikely, you know, the defense probably would
50:21
Speaker 1: call for a mistrial. Never gonna happen. But the possibility
50:24
Speaker 1: we are in Dyer straits Katie, that's never gonna happen.
50:27
Speaker 1: If the defense can get a misstrial because you get
50:30
Speaker 1: down to eleven girars, that's what's going to happen. So
50:33
Speaker 1: we've got to try and finish the case before three
50:36
Speaker 1: more alternates or excuse me, three more girars come down sick.
50:41
Speaker 1: Here's another question. This is for doctor Michelle Dupree from
50:45
Speaker 1: carol Lecbe who was killed first? Can you tell doctor
50:50
Speaker 1: Dupree it appears from the evidence and the things that
50:52
Speaker 1: I've read, it appears that m Paul was probably killed first.
50:56
Speaker 1: And we look at that because of the evidence that's there,
50:59
Speaker 1: and also because it's theorized that Maggie was shot in
51:03
Speaker 1: the front but also in the back, and that she
51:05
Speaker 1: was probably heard Paul being shot and was trying to
51:08
Speaker 1: run our getaway, and that, as doctor dupre said, is
51:12
Speaker 1: determined by the evidence. It. Did it look like she
51:16
Speaker 1: was running? What was the angle of her body? She
51:21
Speaker 1: had just been in the kennel with Paul shortly before
51:25
Speaker 1: the murders. Where was her body found? Matters like that
51:29
Speaker 1: will tell the investigators very often the sequence of the events.
51:35
Speaker 1: Here's another question, and I want to throw this to
51:38
Speaker 1: IRV Brandt. We've heard Ted Williams speak often about not
51:45
Speaker 1: connecting the dots in this case. You or have sat
51:48
Speaker 1: through many many jury trials in felony cases. Do we
51:54
Speaker 1: think the jury is so inept they can't add two
51:58
Speaker 1: plus two is four? Because I reject that. I think
52:02
Speaker 1: they know exactly what's going on in the court rent
52:05
Speaker 1: they do Nancy and defense Attorney Williams lays it out
52:11
Speaker 1: about connecting the dots, and he wants prosecutions dots and
52:15
Speaker 1: connect the dots, connect the dots, connect the dots. When
52:18
Speaker 1: he knows good and will you don't connect the dots
52:21
Speaker 1: and tell a closing argument. You lay the foundation, you
52:24
Speaker 1: put out all your evidence, you draw up the plan.
52:28
Speaker 1: Then you connect the dots at the very end. And
52:31
Speaker 1: he knows that. So I'd like to hear from Detective Williams,
52:35
Speaker 1: not defense Attorney Williams and I think he would agree
52:39
Speaker 1: with that. Okay, Detective Williams, give it a stab. I've
52:41
Speaker 1: got to give it a stab. Look, a case of
52:45
Speaker 1: this nature has to be driven by the evidence. Just
52:50
Speaker 1: a few minutes ago, Nancy, as doctor dupris an excellent question,
52:56
Speaker 1: an excellent question which who was killed first? Molly or
53:02
Speaker 1: Maggie on standing to be corrected or Paul. That is
53:06
Speaker 1: not for doctor Dupre to be able to say that
53:10
Speaker 1: prosecutor that prosecution. They should be able to tell that
53:15
Speaker 1: jury which one of these people will kill first. They
53:19
Speaker 1: need to be able to put evidence onto that effect.
53:23
Speaker 1: They haven't done that. We this penel has done a
53:27
Speaker 1: better job or putting on a case I believe than
53:32
Speaker 1: the prosecution. Doctor Millman just mentioned. They are evidence year
53:37
Speaker 1: that can be reasonable doubt. We have DNA that was
53:42
Speaker 1: found under Maggie's fingernails, and guess what it was not, Pauls.
53:49
Speaker 1: And guess what it was not, Alex. So that is
53:54
Speaker 1: something that the defense will be able to hang its
53:59
Speaker 1: head on. It. It's head on in closing arguments. So
54:03
Speaker 1: when you use the fact that we're talking about closing arguments,
54:07
Speaker 1: closing arguments are there to sum up the evidence and
54:11
Speaker 1: to connect those dots to the evidence. But if the
54:15
Speaker 1: evidence has not been presented as in this case, they've
54:19
Speaker 1: been all over the page. As the evidence has not
54:23
Speaker 1: been presented properly, it could lead to reasonable doubt and
54:28
Speaker 1: this man being found not guilty because of that. Now,
54:31
Speaker 1: I think the state's been very clear about its theory
54:34
Speaker 1: as to why they believe Paul was killed. First, and
54:37
Speaker 1: to doctor Kristen Middleman joining us from off Ram Inc.
54:40
Speaker 1: Offram Labs, we know that Maggie had just had a manicure.
54:46
Speaker 1: Now wouldn't it be significant to you, doctor Middleman, to
54:50
Speaker 1: know whether the DNA on her nails was epiphilial skin
54:56
Speaker 1: or who gave her the manicure? Is it blood? Wouldn't
55:02
Speaker 1: those questions to be important to you in making a
55:05
Speaker 1: determination regarding the DNA under Maggie's nails? Absolutely, and that's
55:10
Speaker 1: that's exactly what needs to be presented. Um. My guess
55:15
Speaker 1: is because they did name what was blood under the
55:17
Speaker 1: DNA evidence that this was not blood evidence, this was
55:20
Speaker 1: epithelial DNA that was found underneath the fingernails. It's also
55:24
Speaker 1: obvious to me that there was no physical struggle. These
55:28
Speaker 1: victims were executed, as we know at a close range,
55:31
Speaker 1: but there was no physical struggle that we know of
55:33
Speaker 1: because there are no defensive wounds, So expecting the DNA
55:36
Speaker 1: under the fingernails to actually point to the perpetrator doesn't
55:41
Speaker 1: make sense to me. And like you said, she had
55:43
Speaker 1: just gone to the nail salon and it could very
55:46
Speaker 1: well be that the technician that was doing her nails
55:49
Speaker 1: is who has the other profile that matches the DNA
55:52
Speaker 1: under her fingernails. And prosecution, doctor mill they need to
56:01
Speaker 1: call hus an expert because what she says make a
56:04
Speaker 1: lot of sense. You would have expected that as a
56:07
Speaker 1: part of the prosecution's case that they would be able
56:10
Speaker 1: to put on somebody to be able to say, hey,
56:15
Speaker 1: look what is DNA may have come from, But they haven't. Nancy,
56:20
Speaker 1: doctor Millerman should be the expert in this key. You
56:23
Speaker 1: know what, Ted Williams, let's just be honest here. The
56:26
Speaker 1: only reason that we know about the DNA on Maggie's
56:30
Speaker 1: nails is because of a state's witness. The defense didn't
56:35
Speaker 1: produce that. The state produced that. That is how we
56:39
Speaker 1: know about it. So all your bluster about the state
56:43
Speaker 1: needs to bring that forward, the state did bring it forward.
56:45
Speaker 1: So there's your answer that came from a state's witness report. Nancy, Nancy, Nancy,
56:54
Speaker 1: would you agree with me? We have to look at prosecutionails.
56:59
Speaker 1: Prosecuton has the burden in this case, not the prosecution
57:03
Speaker 1: has the burden the defendant a word. Yeah, Well, the
57:10
Speaker 1: fact is you said the state didn't bring it in,
57:12
Speaker 1: but it came in through a state's witness, so you're wrong,
57:17
Speaker 1: doctor dupre the police. Okay, So there's a couple of
57:20
Speaker 1: things about this DNA. One is that my understanding is
57:24
Speaker 1: there was not enough DNA for a profile, so as
57:27
Speaker 1: it was, I think it was eleven or something like that.
57:30
Speaker 1: The other thing is that DNA can last for up
57:32
Speaker 1: to seventeen days. Now, you know, that would be unusual
57:35
Speaker 1: that she didn't wash her hands, but if she had
57:38
Speaker 1: jail nails or something, there could be jail stuck with
57:40
Speaker 1: the DNA there. So there could be many reasons for
57:43
Speaker 1: her to have a little bit of DNA under her fingernails,
57:46
Speaker 1: and it could be the technician or someone else that
57:48
Speaker 1: she had come in contact with that day. So I
57:51
Speaker 1: don't think this DNA under her fingernails is actually a
57:53
Speaker 1: very big deal. But do you hear Williams It will
57:56
Speaker 1: be a big deal by the time Heart Polly and
57:58
Speaker 1: gets done with it. Okay, Ted Williams, this is gonna hurt.
58:03
Speaker 1: But last word to you, well, look, I think, oh,
58:07
Speaker 1: this has been a tremendous panel because I think we've
58:10
Speaker 1: done a better job, I believe than the prosecution of
58:13
Speaker 1: clarifying matters of evidence before the jury. The jury needs
58:19
Speaker 1: as much clear vocation as we can give them all
58:22
Speaker 1: in a case, as you already know, Nancy. And I
58:25
Speaker 1: gotta tell you, well, when I looked at the way
58:28
Speaker 1: they put the DNA on yesterday, it was very confusing.
58:32
Speaker 1: And then when they put on more financial evidence today
58:37
Speaker 1: after they were already had had put on enough, it
58:42
Speaker 1: seemed as though they are overtrying the case and that
58:45
Speaker 1: that could hurt them. Nancy, you have been around, you
58:49
Speaker 1: know that there are cases that have been overtried and
58:52
Speaker 1: juris can pick up on it instinctively and they can
58:56
Speaker 1: move in a different direction than you want them to
58:58
Speaker 1: move in. And remember where only only in the prosecution
59:03
Speaker 1: case at this time. Thank you. Okay, but wait a minute,
59:06
Speaker 1: you can't have it both ways. You can't have Oh
59:10
Speaker 1: the state's failing. They're not connecting the dots, they're not
59:12
Speaker 1: doing their job, and now you're saying they're over trying
59:16
Speaker 1: the case. You got to pick one. Not really, when
59:19
Speaker 1: you're looking at this financial evidence, which I think is
59:22
Speaker 1: substantially more prejudicial and probitive, and you bring this in
59:26
Speaker 1: and you keep hammering away at the financial evidence, and
59:31
Speaker 1: when you can't connect the dots with the actual evidence
59:34
Speaker 1: that is needed for a successful prosecution, and I don't
59:38
Speaker 1: think the financial evidence does it. I think you've got
59:41
Speaker 1: a problem. The witness that was testifying, I believe regarding
59:46
Speaker 1: the DNA under Maggie Snails to Katie Cammon, I believe
59:50
Speaker 1: was state's witness Zapata is the sled DNA analyst. Isn't
59:56
Speaker 1: that correct? You know what? Never mind, I've got it
59:59
Speaker 1: right in front of it. Is okay, But I will
1:00:02
Speaker 1: throw a bone to Ted Williams. The state's witness did
1:00:07
Speaker 1: tell it, but it was under cross examination by the defense.
1:00:11
Speaker 1: And I'm leaving all that note before Ted Williams can
1:00:13
Speaker 1: say anything else. Goodbye, friend, We're going back in the courtroom.