Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / Defense Changes Course: Killer Now Tall?

Transcript

Defense Changes Course: Killer Now Tall? · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

0:05
Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Hi, guys, we were joining
0:12
Speaker 1: you live outside the Colinton County Courthouse where people are
0:15
Speaker 1: streaming out for the lunch break. We're inching forward toward
0:20
Speaker 1: the end of the state of the Defense case, but
0:23
Speaker 1: there was a bombshell at the very beginning of the morning.
0:27
Speaker 1: Take a listen to our cut four. We believe it
0:31
Speaker 1: would be useful for the jury to see visit Moselle
0:35
Speaker 1: both the area in the area of the kennels and
0:40
Speaker 1: the house, just to get some understanding the spatial relationships.
0:46
Speaker 1: And so what we would ask is that you asked
0:49
Speaker 1: the jury if that if they want to do that,
0:51
Speaker 1: I mean, I know I wouldn't if they don't want
0:54
Speaker 1: to do it, I don't want them to do it.
0:56
Speaker 1: If they want to do it, that'd be fine with me.
0:58
Speaker 1: And it needs to be done in an x edicious way,
1:00
Speaker 1: you know, I am. The state is not asking for
1:02
Speaker 1: there to be a jury of view of the scene,
1:04
Speaker 1: and if anything, I think that there that would require
1:06
Speaker 1: additional testimony because the scene is different than it existed
1:10
Speaker 1: on the night of June seventh, twenty twenty one. Generally,
1:13
Speaker 1: jury views are at the request of a party and
1:16
Speaker 1: I'm reflecting again. I don't know that it's necessary in
1:21
Speaker 1: this particular instance. If either side wants a jury view,
1:24
Speaker 1: the court will arrange a jury view. Okay, there you
1:28
Speaker 1: have it, straight out to high profile criminal defenses. Are
1:31
Speaker 1: joining us from the Pepper Law firm, Mark Pepper, Mark,
1:34
Speaker 1: thank you for being with us. This conjures up images
1:37
Speaker 1: of the O. J. Simpson jury view of his home
1:41
Speaker 1: where my former co anchor, god Rest is old. Johnny
1:44
Speaker 1: Cochrane and his team had gone through and carefully rearranged
1:49
Speaker 1: everything in the home to make it more palatable to
1:53
Speaker 1: the jurars. What do you think about viewing Moselle now,
1:57
Speaker 1: so much time was passed the incident. Yeah, to include
2:01
Speaker 1: a lot of picture frames of the family as I recall,
2:04
Speaker 1: and the stairwell. Good analogy there, Nancy. This is pretty
2:07
Speaker 1: typical in our state here in South Carolina. Relevance simply
2:11
Speaker 1: means will help the fact finder determine what the facts are.
2:15
Speaker 1: And so typically when any side or either side or
2:18
Speaker 1: both asked the court to allow the jury to visit
2:22
Speaker 1: the scene, the judge is going to allow it, as
2:25
Speaker 1: he did this morning. I guess, on one hand, if
2:28
Speaker 1: you're the state it helps show how far away the
2:32
Speaker 1: main house is. In the theory that clearly those two
2:35
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty eight steps was you hiking all the
2:38
Speaker 1: way back up that hill. On the defense, maybe they're
2:41
Speaker 1: looking at it a different way in that the close
2:44
Speaker 1: proximity of the kennel to the feed room, grabbing two
2:49
Speaker 1: separate guns, it's just not possible to have conjured all this.
2:54
Speaker 1: And then you've got the growing of the trees. Right
2:56
Speaker 1: now we're going to get a jury charge on well,
2:58
Speaker 1: shrubs and trees have grown since then. This is all
3:02
Speaker 1: about the defense trying its best to do two things.
3:06
Speaker 1: In my opinion, Nancy one has just confused the jury.
3:09
Speaker 1: Just confuse them. Let's take them on a field trip.
3:11
Speaker 1: Let's let's let them out. Let's get some credibility with them,
3:14
Speaker 1: and make sure that we continue to hammer the credibility
3:17
Speaker 1: of the state's witness. We kind of thought Dick Harputley
3:21
Speaker 1: might have something up as sleeve this week. I'm not
3:23
Speaker 1: so sure that this is the last trick, but certainly
3:26
Speaker 1: a good move by the defense. Mart Pepper, I agree
3:31
Speaker 1: with everything that you just said. Got a question, how
3:34
Speaker 1: many times have you taken a jury out to see
3:36
Speaker 1: a scene zero. Agree, it's just agreed. You know why
3:45
Speaker 1: it's fraught. It is fraught with possibilities for a mistrial.
3:52
Speaker 1: You go by one nut on the highway with a
3:54
Speaker 1: sign that says, Marnog did it, honey, it's over where
3:59
Speaker 1: you go buy a protest or however it may be
4:01
Speaker 1: staged saying the other way. Now, the state doesn't really
4:05
Speaker 1: have a lot of room to ask for a mistrial,
4:08
Speaker 1: but the defense does, so this will all be to
4:13
Speaker 1: their advantage. And what you were touching on I found
4:17
Speaker 1: very interesting, Mark Pepper, in that the scene it is
4:20
Speaker 1: not as it was the night of the shootings. Time
4:25
Speaker 1: has passed, shrubs may have been added, removed. I believe
4:29
Speaker 1: somebody else owns it now. It's completely different than the
4:34
Speaker 1: way it was the night of the shootings. And in
4:38
Speaker 1: my mind, that distorts their view of the evidence because
4:43
Speaker 1: they're seeing something that is not necessarily based in the evidence.
4:47
Speaker 1: Isn't that the whole point here, Nancy, right? I mean,
4:50
Speaker 1: what if there's a footprint picks up one that says,
4:54
Speaker 1: wait a minute, we haven't seen a picture of this footprint.
4:57
Speaker 1: We don't know whose footprint that is, right? The blood stains, oh,
5:00
Speaker 1: they said it was awful. It doesn't look bad to me.
5:03
Speaker 1: This is all an attempt to create confusion among the
5:07
Speaker 1: juror's great point as far as getting to and from Mozelle,
5:11
Speaker 1: we're talking a rural community in southwest South Carolina. I mean,
5:17
Speaker 1: you're gonna be passing more cornfields and cows than you
5:20
Speaker 1: are people. However, if the people know the field trip
5:25
Speaker 1: is coming by, don't think for one second that there
5:28
Speaker 1: won't be some type of sign or thumbs up. I mean,
5:31
Speaker 1: this is going to turn into the spectacle, the circus
5:34
Speaker 1: show that the defenses has wanted all along. And another point,
5:38
Speaker 1: great point you brought up. We've got some serious appellet
5:42
Speaker 1: issues here already. We've got the four or four be
5:44
Speaker 1: stuff that came in, right, didn't come in, but then
5:47
Speaker 1: it did come in. Now why why white white, white
5:50
Speaker 1: talk plain English. He's talking about the Well, you've got
5:55
Speaker 1: the cousin ediot evidence, which is going to be a
6:00
Speaker 1: problem because it was let in, or a problem because
6:02
Speaker 1: the defense can now flame if there's a conviction. Of course,
6:05
Speaker 1: in effective assistance of counsel. For I believe it was
6:08
Speaker 1: a griffin that opened the door. One of the defense
6:11
Speaker 1: attorneys opened the door to that. So if there's a conviction,
6:15
Speaker 1: while murdog right now is very thankful to all of
6:17
Speaker 1: his lawyers, after he sits in jail for a year
6:20
Speaker 1: or two, I can see him filing an appeal or
6:22
Speaker 1: even behavior's corpus when the time is right on ineffective
6:26
Speaker 1: assistance of counsel. If everything else fails because of that
6:29
Speaker 1: one question, what else does he have to do if
6:32
Speaker 1: he sits to life or that thing, He's going to
6:34
Speaker 1: file something and you're you only have an effective assistant counsel,
6:38
Speaker 1: which you know you told that while you go through
6:40
Speaker 1: the appellate process. That'll be the last straw I think
6:42
Speaker 1: he brings. But certainly he's going to challenge any conviction
6:46
Speaker 1: based on the legal rulings that were made that he
6:49
Speaker 1: feels prejudiced to him. I mean, look, this is a
6:51
Speaker 1: circumstantial case. We've we've seen the evidence. We haven't heard
6:55
Speaker 1: an eyewitness, we haven't heard any fingerprints or footprints, as
6:59
Speaker 1: we just heard that this testified today. This is a
7:01
Speaker 1: circumstantial case. And so can't you see the jury sitting
7:05
Speaker 1: back there going I'm not sure he did this, but man,
7:09
Speaker 1: he is a bad person based on what we've heard
7:11
Speaker 1: so let's just go ahead and convict. That is an
7:15
Speaker 1: appellet issue is ripe for appeal? Mark Pepper, when you
7:19
Speaker 1: said that the law in South Carolina is that jarars
7:23
Speaker 1: go see the scene. That is very common. But you've
7:26
Speaker 1: never done it, and you've tried a lot of cases. Now,
7:30
Speaker 1: I never tried a case without going to the scene myself. Ever, never, never, never.
7:35
Speaker 1: That's a rule one and trial advocacies you go to
7:39
Speaker 1: the scene yourself, and if you can't get to the scene,
7:41
Speaker 1: you need to quit trying cases. End of story. But
7:44
Speaker 1: it would be a cold eight and h double l
7:47
Speaker 1: that I would want my jury to go there now
7:50
Speaker 1: that I'm hiding evidence. It's just that things will have
7:53
Speaker 1: changed at the time of the incident, and you never
7:56
Speaker 1: know what may hang up a jarar. I mean, for
7:59
Speaker 1: all I know, a building has been built. I try
8:01
Speaker 1: cases in inner City Atlanta. If a building had been
8:04
Speaker 1: built or some obstruction had been created since the time
8:08
Speaker 1: of the incident, the gerards will think, well, wow, witness
8:12
Speaker 1: couldn't see that because of this shrub. So long story short,
8:16
Speaker 1: it is fraught with peril, guys, I'm hearing in my ear.
8:19
Speaker 1: I am now being joined by Kelly skin Flux Nation's
8:22
Speaker 1: senior producer has been in the courtroom with me the
8:25
Speaker 1: entire morning. Kelly, this is the end of the defense case.
8:30
Speaker 1: They may have one or two more witnesses left. Do
8:33
Speaker 1: you know if these are the final two witnesses or
8:35
Speaker 1: will there be two additional witnesses? Hi, Nancy, We are
8:38
Speaker 1: expecting at least two more witnesses from the defense, as
8:41
Speaker 1: well as that visit to Mozelle the murder scene, as
8:44
Speaker 1: we have been hearing about. But what we also heard
8:46
Speaker 1: this morning is that the defense still expects to rest
8:50
Speaker 1: its case today, So we are expecting two more witnesses.
8:53
Speaker 1: It's to be seen whether that is more of Alec
8:56
Speaker 1: Murdock's family members. We have been expecting his brothers to
8:58
Speaker 1: take the stand at least one. Kelly, Kelly, you know
9:02
Speaker 1: who I like. I don't know her personally, but I
9:05
Speaker 1: like Savannah Guide in the courtroom. She finally during the
9:10
Speaker 1: direct examination some of these witnesses stood up and said
9:13
Speaker 1: leading and she actually kept oh I love this part.
9:16
Speaker 1: I had to write it down from batim. When m
9:21
Speaker 1: hart put Lean was trying to get in, as we
9:23
Speaker 1: call it in the law, Kelly a learned treatise. That's
9:26
Speaker 1: a book. I don't know why, Martin Pepper, why do
9:29
Speaker 1: we keep calling it a learned treatise? It's a book.
9:33
Speaker 1: It seems like lawyers come up with every I know.
9:37
Speaker 1: It seems like Kelly lawyers come up with every word
9:40
Speaker 1: possible to make things more confusing. But it was a
9:43
Speaker 1: learned treatise. It was a book, and it's a really
9:46
Speaker 1: good book. It's written by an incredible expert in the
9:51
Speaker 1: criminal field. But he wanted to submit the book or
9:57
Speaker 1: portions of the book into ev Well, no, I've never
10:03
Speaker 1: seen that done. I've handled literally thousands of cases plus
10:07
Speaker 1: reported on it. I don't know how many, because it's
10:10
Speaker 1: all here safe. It's what some author that is not
10:13
Speaker 1: there in the courtroom for cross examination. It's what they say,
10:16
Speaker 1: and it may be accurate, but it is here safe,
10:20
Speaker 1: and I loved it. Kelly skin when I guess one
10:23
Speaker 1: of his helpers handed him the law on a learned
10:27
Speaker 1: treatise and he said, no, it should come in your honor,
10:30
Speaker 1: and he started reading it and the end of the
10:32
Speaker 1: sentence was shall not come into evidence and will be
10:36
Speaker 1: excluded anyway. Oh well, I'm not entering that. I bet
10:39
Speaker 1: somebody gets a chewing out at the lunch break for
10:43
Speaker 1: handing him that law. Kelly Skin, Yes, Nancy, I saw that,
10:48
Speaker 1: and we did see Savannah Good stand up and say
10:50
Speaker 1: this is hearsay. You cannot admit this into evidence. The
10:53
Speaker 1: guy who wrote the book is not here on the stand.
10:56
Speaker 1: He is not here to testify. You know, the state
11:00
Speaker 1: is questioning them fairly. Well, I think i'm cross examination.
11:05
Speaker 1: But Kelly, explain these two witnesses. It's doctor Eissat and
11:11
Speaker 1: Tim Palmback. Who are they and what is their point?
11:14
Speaker 1: Let's take the doctor first, the pathologists. Yeah, Nancy, we've
11:18
Speaker 1: seen a big back and forth in the courtroom today
11:20
Speaker 1: between witnesses. This was to be expected. The defense is
11:23
Speaker 1: trying to poke holes in the prosecution's case. Today. We
11:26
Speaker 1: heard from Tim paul Back, he is a forensic scientist,
11:30
Speaker 1: and then we also heard from I'm looking at my notes.
11:33
Speaker 1: There are many witnesses to keep track of doctor Jonathan Eisenstatt,
11:37
Speaker 1: And basically they're trying to poke holes in the prosecution's
11:41
Speaker 1: case about from which direction Maggie and Paul were shot
11:46
Speaker 1: and which shots were the fatal wounds. They're you know,
11:49
Speaker 1: last week or the week before that, we heard that
11:52
Speaker 1: the defense said this was a five two shooter. Today
11:55
Speaker 1: we're also hearing that Paul was shot in the top
11:58
Speaker 1: of the head. So I think you see a lot
11:59
Speaker 1: of confusion on the jury's face, trying to reconcile what
12:02
Speaker 1: they're hearing from the prosecution, what they're hearing from the
12:05
Speaker 1: defense time stories with Nancy Grace. Well, Kelly, that's a
12:22
Speaker 1: really good point you just brought out. I heard that,
12:25
Speaker 1: and I was wondering if the jury could connect all
12:28
Speaker 1: the dots with so much evidence pouring out. But if
12:31
Speaker 1: you caught it, and I caught it between the two
12:33
Speaker 1: of us, Kelly, certainly somebody on the jury caught it
12:36
Speaker 1: because that witness was suggesting that the shooter was taller
12:41
Speaker 1: or in an elevated position when they took aim. And
12:45
Speaker 1: that's exactly diametrically opposed to the whole defense theory. Remember
12:51
Speaker 1: the little green man and the green trajectory pass that
12:54
Speaker 1: they used to convince the jury the double shooter motif.
12:58
Speaker 1: And we're seeing the double sheet motif in theory rearing
13:02
Speaker 1: its ugly head yet again for the state, and this
13:05
Speaker 1: time they've got experts to back it up. You know.
13:08
Speaker 1: Joining me is Dean Corsentino, doctor Heide Deceivers, and doctor
13:12
Speaker 1: Michel Dupree. But first to you, doctor Michel Dupree. You
13:16
Speaker 1: have been listening to Isostat's testimony throughout bottom line. Where
13:22
Speaker 1: is he going? What is it the point of his testimony? Well, Nancy,
13:25
Speaker 1: I think that it's actually too again discredit part of
13:28
Speaker 1: doctor Rymer's testimony and bring up the two shooter theory.
13:33
Speaker 1: I don't think he's doing a very good job. I
13:35
Speaker 1: think there are holes in what he has said as well,
13:39
Speaker 1: one of those being he admitted that there were palette
13:42
Speaker 1: defects on the top of the door or something. I
13:47
Speaker 1: have never, in all my years of practice, ever seen
13:50
Speaker 1: palettes bounce backwards. It just doesn't make sense. Well, I
13:55
Speaker 1: gotta tell you something about doctor Jonathan Isisenstatt. He has
13:58
Speaker 1: certainly done a lot of autopsies. I was ready to
14:02
Speaker 1: write down everything wrong about his curriculum vita. But I'm
14:06
Speaker 1: telling you anybody that is a medical examiner examiner in
14:10
Speaker 1: inner City Atlanta, they have seen plenty of autopsies. He
14:15
Speaker 1: was doing between two d one hundred and two hundred,
14:19
Speaker 1: one hundred and two hundred and fifty autopsies a year. Now,
14:22
Speaker 1: I did notice that he has left and he is
14:25
Speaker 1: now doing a consulting practice and also as usual and
14:30
Speaker 1: of course we would expect nothing less Pepper. He was
14:33
Speaker 1: cross examined on how much money he's making, and he's
14:36
Speaker 1: making a lot of money, I mean thousands of dollars.
14:40
Speaker 1: Would that of course the state is going to argue
14:42
Speaker 1: that that would taint his testimony. Well, you know, I
14:45
Speaker 1: thought Samana did as good job as she could. There's
14:48
Speaker 1: really not a whole lot to challenge him on. But
14:51
Speaker 1: make sure the jury understands he's a paid expert, not
14:55
Speaker 1: by the state but by Murdoch. Over here he's a jukebox.
15:04
Speaker 1: I take it you have handled murder cases, have you not? Yes?
15:07
Speaker 1: I have. How many times have you seen a rectal
15:10
Speaker 1: thermometer stuck up a dead victim's rear end? There's really
15:15
Speaker 1: no nice way to put it. There's not and that's
15:18
Speaker 1: the answer. Zero zero. You don't. You don't put a
15:20
Speaker 1: rectal thermometer. Yeah, I mean, okay, guys, look you're here
15:29
Speaker 1: because we're trying a murder case and it's happening right
15:31
Speaker 1: behind me. And that was the testimony today. One of
15:34
Speaker 1: the first things they did, doctor Michelle Dufrey, Thank goodness
15:38
Speaker 1: I wrote down all these notes. Was jump on the
15:40
Speaker 1: state because they didn't use a rectal thermometer on the
15:44
Speaker 1: two dead bodies. Really, that's right, Because that's right, Nancy.
15:49
Speaker 1: They made they made a play at the fact that
15:53
Speaker 1: the investigators felt the armpit, and as I recall and
16:00
Speaker 1: Kelly correct me if I'm wrong, it was still warm.
16:04
Speaker 1: So if the body is still warm, I don't have
16:09
Speaker 1: to have a medical degree to tell me that the
16:13
Speaker 1: murder was recent, doctor Dupre. Now listen, you're the MD.
16:17
Speaker 1: I'm just a JD. But I can tell you I
16:20
Speaker 1: have never had a single case where a medical exander
16:24
Speaker 1: used a directal thermometer of the dead body. No, never, Nancy,
16:28
Speaker 1: You're exactly right. I have never used directal thermometer. I
16:32
Speaker 1: have used a thermometer in the liver, which is much
16:35
Speaker 1: more accurate. I have never, and has no one that
16:39
Speaker 1: I've ever known that has been trained as a forensic
16:41
Speaker 1: pathologist or medical examiner put our hand in the armpit.
16:44
Speaker 1: That is absolutely not scientific. There's no forensic basis for that. Yes,
16:49
Speaker 1: it tells you that the body is warm, but it
16:52
Speaker 1: doesn't tell you how warm. And again, there are many variables,
16:55
Speaker 1: and as you well know, the time of death is
16:57
Speaker 1: very much a variable. There are men any other factors
17:01
Speaker 1: like lever mortis, rigor mortis and all of those things. Well,
17:04
Speaker 1: can I ask you a question, doctor Dupree, and be
17:07
Speaker 1: blunt sure. I don't have you on the stand, You're
17:09
Speaker 1: not on the oath. You can say whatever you feel
17:11
Speaker 1: like saying, but don't we have them alive? And well?
17:17
Speaker 1: At about help me out, Kelly eight forty seven PM
17:23
Speaker 1: on that video and we're having them. Man, you've got
17:28
Speaker 1: it together, Kelly Ski And I'm glad you're here, Okay,
17:31
Speaker 1: eight forty nine. And you know what those two minutes
17:33
Speaker 1: I said, eight forty seven, she said, eight forty nine.
17:35
Speaker 1: They matter, They absolutely matter in this case. And then
17:39
Speaker 1: by ten o'clock when he gets back ten oh six,
17:42
Speaker 1: he costs nine one one. We can pretty much establish
17:46
Speaker 1: the time of death between eight forty nine and ten
17:48
Speaker 1: oh six. Don't you agree with that, doctor Dupree? Absolutely absolutely, Nancy.
17:53
Speaker 1: And a thermometer at that point is not going to
17:56
Speaker 1: make a difference. No, it is not. Here are having
18:01
Speaker 1: a murder go down? On June seven, it's hot as
18:04
Speaker 1: haydes in South Carolina and the bodies are still warm,
18:09
Speaker 1: and you have a timeline between eight forty nine, basically
18:15
Speaker 1: nine o'clock and ten o'clock. So we've got it narrowed
18:19
Speaker 1: down to an hour. So all this rigmarole about the
18:25
Speaker 1: rectal thermometer and oh, you know, speaking of rectal thermometers,
18:29
Speaker 1: and I've certainly never said that sentence before, but thinking
18:33
Speaker 1: of speaking of rectal thermometers. Back to you, doctor Michelle Dupree, again,
18:37
Speaker 1: thank you so much for being with us. And she's
18:39
Speaker 1: not just a pathologist, she is not just a forensic expert.
18:45
Speaker 1: She's also a former detective. When you are trying to
18:49
Speaker 1: analyze a crime scene and there is blood spatter everywhere,
18:55
Speaker 1: do you really think it's appropriate to manhandle the body,
19:00
Speaker 1: yank the pants down, and do a rectal thermometer? Take no, nacy.
19:05
Speaker 1: I do not, And again I honestly don't know anyone
19:08
Speaker 1: that has actually done that. That is not the way
19:10
Speaker 1: that we're trained. If we're going to take the temperature,
19:12
Speaker 1: if there is some need to know the specific amount
19:16
Speaker 1: of temperature, then we use a thermometer in the liver,
19:19
Speaker 1: not in the rectum. How do you get a thermometer
19:21
Speaker 1: in the liver, You push it through the skin to
19:24
Speaker 1: the liver. Okay, I had not thought of that. Guys
19:27
Speaker 1: with me an all star panel to makes sense what
19:29
Speaker 1: we know right now. All you've heard so far is
19:31
Speaker 1: we're going to Mozelle and threatening a mistrial in doing so,
19:36
Speaker 1: and you've heard a lot about rectal thermometers. Joining me
19:39
Speaker 1: is doctor Heidi Sivers, founder of Sivers Forensics. She's an
19:43
Speaker 1: expert of blood stained pattern blood patterns. What did you
19:49
Speaker 1: make of what was being said about the blood spatter evidence.
19:53
Speaker 1: I still don't see how they're making the conclusion that
19:58
Speaker 1: there were two shooters. What do you make of the
20:00
Speaker 1: doctor savers so one. I think that it was a ploy.
20:03
Speaker 1: Just like we've been discussing about poking holes in the
20:06
Speaker 1: state's case and trying to confuse the jury. This is
20:10
Speaker 1: starting to become the personification of the classic CSI effect
20:15
Speaker 1: of one going back out to the scene. The jurors
20:17
Speaker 1: are going to expect for that scene to someone being memorialized,
20:21
Speaker 1: even though obviously it's not going to be. They are
20:25
Speaker 1: going to expect to see the things that they've been discussing. Further, really,
20:30
Speaker 1: what I've been hearing all this morning is what I
20:32
Speaker 1: call trigger words when it comes to blood stained pattern analysis,
20:36
Speaker 1: and those are words that the jury has probably heard
20:39
Speaker 1: in the media or on television shows. But honestly, some
20:43
Speaker 1: of them are being used incorrectly and somewhat flippidly, and
20:47
Speaker 1: although they can have other connotations, they're being used in
20:50
Speaker 1: the wrong manner, and in this case, that terminology makes
20:54
Speaker 1: a difference when we're looking at these And further, when
20:58
Speaker 1: he was discussing the amount out of spatter on that
21:01
Speaker 1: door as what he called blowback or what's termed backspatter,
21:05
Speaker 1: the height of that he actually, I'm not sure he
21:08
Speaker 1: realized he was doing it, but just like with that
21:11
Speaker 1: higher shot on a taller person, he actually implicated that
21:15
Speaker 1: that would have been a taller person with the amount
21:17
Speaker 1: of spatter only being at the top left hand corner
21:20
Speaker 1: of that door. Okay, you know what, I was trying
21:23
Speaker 1: to drink in everything that you just said. Can you
21:25
Speaker 1: say it one more time because I want everybody else
21:28
Speaker 1: on the panel to white in on what you just
21:30
Speaker 1: said about the blood spatter. Go ahead, sure, absolutely so.
21:35
Speaker 1: First and foremost, some of the words that are being
21:38
Speaker 1: used or what I term trigger words when it comes
21:40
Speaker 1: to bloodstained patterns and their words that are commonly seen
21:44
Speaker 1: in television shows and in the media, But in this case,
21:48
Speaker 1: and from what I've been hearing in testimony, some of
21:50
Speaker 1: them are being used flipidly, and when it comes down
21:55
Speaker 1: to it, they matter. Using them in the correct context matters.
21:59
Speaker 1: And further, the first witness that was on the stand
22:04
Speaker 1: suggested that the shooter was taller and when they were
22:08
Speaker 1: talking about they termed a blowback. But the backspatter that
22:12
Speaker 1: deposited on the door in the upper left hand corner
22:15
Speaker 1: and creating that void of the shooter, they actually, unbeknownst
22:19
Speaker 1: to them, I'm not sure they realized they did it,
22:21
Speaker 1: but they actually implicated it being a much taller shooter
22:25
Speaker 1: to block that door only with the exception of the
22:28
Speaker 1: top left hand corner of the door. Hold On, I'm
22:31
Speaker 1: writing that down, Kelly Skan. Did you hear what doctor
22:34
Speaker 1: Heidi Savers just said they did? She's right, and she
22:37
Speaker 1: articulated it so perfectly, Kelly. They implicated a much taller shooter.
22:43
Speaker 1: Could you finish the rest of that, doctor Savers? Yeah,
22:45
Speaker 1: they implicated them The blood spattered because they discussed the
22:49
Speaker 1: voided area, which avoid is simply just the absence of
22:53
Speaker 1: a continuous bloodstained pattern, so an absence of blood where
22:57
Speaker 1: we would expect there to be blood in the essence
23:01
Speaker 1: of the back spatter, which was evidence. At the top
23:03
Speaker 1: left hand corner of that door, we see that voided area,
23:07
Speaker 1: which is most likely where the shooter was standing. But
23:09
Speaker 1: because it's in such a small and very high up area,
23:13
Speaker 1: very tall area at the top left hand corner, they
23:17
Speaker 1: really seemingly implicated a much taller individual. A way I
23:20
Speaker 1: would explain it to the jury is if if Sidney
23:25
Speaker 1: was standing there and she had a giant bowl of
23:28
Speaker 1: tomato soup and threw it at me, it would hit
23:31
Speaker 1: all around me, on the wall behind me, but there
23:34
Speaker 1: would be a void that you hear doctor Severs talking
23:37
Speaker 1: about where I'm standing. That's an easy way to explain
23:42
Speaker 1: the accurate discussion that doctor high Deceivers just gave you
23:48
Speaker 1: something really important that hasn't been mentioned today. So the
23:51
Speaker 1: defense is essentially saying that Paul was shot and at
23:55
Speaker 1: the top of the head and that went out of
23:56
Speaker 1: his shoulder. The prosecution said, no way, it went through
23:59
Speaker 1: his shoulder, through the top of the head. And what
24:01
Speaker 1: we haven't heard from about today is that there is
24:04
Speaker 1: damage to the door that was above Paul's head, indicating
24:07
Speaker 1: that he was shot as the prosecution stated, going from
24:11
Speaker 1: the shoulder to his head, and not as the defense stated,
24:14
Speaker 1: where you know the gun was pushed directly onto his head,
24:17
Speaker 1: because if the gun was he was shot on the head,
24:20
Speaker 1: you wouldn't have damage on the door frame above his head.
24:23
Speaker 1: You know what. You're so right, and that is something
24:26
Speaker 1: that everyone can understand and it makes perfect sense. So
24:30
Speaker 1: what they're doing today is there somewhat telling the jury
24:37
Speaker 1: and sinuating to the jury that the shooter is tall.
24:41
Speaker 1: Murdog is about six three or so. We think. Dan
24:46
Speaker 1: Corsettino joining me, former ployee's chief, former sheriff, served on
24:50
Speaker 1: US and Security Senior Advisory Board. He's a PI at
24:54
Speaker 1: Dan Corsettino dot com. Dan, I want you to hear
24:57
Speaker 1: our sought seven. Take listen. This is Hartpootlian direct examining
25:05
Speaker 1: the pathologist. Okay, so when you look at the wound
25:10
Speaker 1: in his shoulder and his neck and of course his head,
25:15
Speaker 1: tell us where doctor Rhema got it wrong. I think
25:18
Speaker 1: she hasn't reversed. If the entrance wound is here on
25:21
Speaker 1: the left shoulder and we're saying that we're at least
25:24
Speaker 1: three to four feet away from there because we have
25:27
Speaker 1: no soot, we have no stippling on the skin. Then
25:32
Speaker 1: by the time it gets to the left side of
25:36
Speaker 1: the chin or over here at the angle of the
25:38
Speaker 1: mandible the jaw, we've lost a lot of energy. And
25:43
Speaker 1: so yes, you can get some pellets still going up
25:46
Speaker 1: into the head, but you're not going to have the
25:49
Speaker 1: top of the head completely blown off. And if you
25:52
Speaker 1: look at the photograph here, you can see he's missing
25:56
Speaker 1: the top of his skull. That would not have happened
25:58
Speaker 1: three feet or further shotgun wound coming in on the
26:02
Speaker 1: left side. Okay, hold on, Dick Corsentino, I want doctor
26:06
Speaker 1: Michelle Dupre to take a stab at that, and then
26:09
Speaker 1: I want to hear from you what you think their
26:12
Speaker 1: strategy is right now, why they're asking the questions they
26:16
Speaker 1: are asking, and what they're trying to tell the jury.
26:19
Speaker 1: What do you make of that? Though, as a medical
26:22
Speaker 1: examiner and pathologist, doctor Dupre, well, Nancy, I've actually had
26:25
Speaker 1: cases where the top of the head was blown off
26:28
Speaker 1: when the shotgun was three feet or so away, And again,
26:32
Speaker 1: it depends on so many things. Is what we call
26:35
Speaker 1: the choke on that shotgun, what is the length of
26:37
Speaker 1: the barrel, all of those kinds of things. But I
26:40
Speaker 1: do not believe that this was a contact well into
26:42
Speaker 1: the back of the head. The rest of the trajectory
26:45
Speaker 1: just doesn't make sense. Dian Corsentino, what is their theory.
26:50
Speaker 1: They're making a huge big deal about the double guns,
26:57
Speaker 1: that one shooter had double guns, and Dan Korcentina, you're
27:01
Speaker 1: perfect for this question. They're at the end of the
27:05
Speaker 1: testimony of the second witness. The witness was actually telling
27:09
Speaker 1: the jury that after killing one person that would have
27:14
Speaker 1: been Paul, that the shooter would have been so stunned
27:19
Speaker 1: that they couldn't shoot another person. Mackie, I couldn't believe
27:24
Speaker 1: what I was hearing because I have had multiple cases
27:29
Speaker 1: of homicide with multiple victims at the hands of one shooter.
27:35
Speaker 1: Frankly and sadly, it happens all the time. But the
27:40
Speaker 1: defense witness actually told the jury that the shooter would
27:44
Speaker 1: have been so shell shocked and so covered with matter
27:49
Speaker 1: that he could not get another gun and pull the trigger.
27:54
Speaker 1: And I have illegal tournament by that, bs. I'm sure
27:58
Speaker 1: you're familiar with that cot out. Yeah, absolutely, Nancy, And
28:02
Speaker 1: first of all, thank you. I completely disagree with the
28:06
Speaker 1: defense expert in a situation because of the fact that
28:10
Speaker 1: we've had many cases where one shooter had multiple victims,
28:15
Speaker 1: and I agree with you, and the fact that the
28:18
Speaker 1: victim or the shooter in this case would have been
28:21
Speaker 1: stunned or had a temporary thought process that was completely clouded.
28:28
Speaker 1: I don't buy that whatsoever. I think the mindset of
28:31
Speaker 1: the shooter at this point in time was clearly to
28:35
Speaker 1: shoot both individuals, and that individual clearly knew what the
28:41
Speaker 1: job was for the long term gain. And as far
28:45
Speaker 1: as trying to cloud the jury, I think that's all
28:48
Speaker 1: that the defense is trying to do in this is
28:51
Speaker 1: just to throw mud on this case, because in totality,
28:55
Speaker 1: they're going to take a look at the very basics
28:57
Speaker 1: of this case. Was their motive, was their opportunity, was
29:01
Speaker 1: their ability? And does the science match those components? And
29:07
Speaker 1: I think that it's becoming clear. What's really interesting is
29:11
Speaker 1: the maturation of the jurors. They come into this case
29:15
Speaker 1: with a blank chalkboard or an empty journal, and they
29:19
Speaker 1: start now to compartmentalize everything the prosecution and defense is saying,
29:25
Speaker 1: and they're going to reach a conclusion which I think
29:28
Speaker 1: is going to be not surprising to many. You know
29:32
Speaker 1: Mark Pepper listening to Karsentino, he lays it out so plainly.
29:37
Speaker 1: I mean, it's I don't know what I would even
29:40
Speaker 1: cross on this, because it is absurd to tell a
29:44
Speaker 1: jury or make a statement that one person would be
29:48
Speaker 1: so discombobulated and so shell shot. They can't they can't
29:52
Speaker 1: kill two people at once. It happens every day. I
29:56
Speaker 1: don't even know how many cases I've handled where they're
29:59
Speaker 1: multiple crime victims at the hands of one shooter. I
30:03
Speaker 1: get it, I get it right. But let me play
30:05
Speaker 1: Devil's advocate just a bit using some of what I've
30:08
Speaker 1: heard and analyze the last two three minutes. One is
30:11
Speaker 1: I totally agree with the expert panelists that the doctor
30:15
Speaker 1: with the blowback and the void, if you will, what
30:19
Speaker 1: they're trying to accomplish the defense is they've moved on
30:23
Speaker 1: from this low lying shooter that was a twelve year old,
30:26
Speaker 1: or what they're just saying. Look, we're going to stick
30:30
Speaker 1: to our theme that there's no possible way Alec Murdoch
30:34
Speaker 1: murdered his wife and son, as evidenced by the fact
30:39
Speaker 1: that you heard from two witnesses today. And this is
30:41
Speaker 1: them talking, not me, just making the argument, okay, that
30:45
Speaker 1: this shooter or shooters would have been covered in matter,
30:51
Speaker 1: in blood. You got the bullet that goes the pellet
30:54
Speaker 1: that goes way up. Maybe it makes sense to a juror.
30:57
Speaker 1: May not make sense to our panelists here or me
31:00
Speaker 1: are you, but it might with one juror, And it
31:03
Speaker 1: takes two to tango, but it only takes one to
31:06
Speaker 1: hang it up. And that's really what the defense is doing.
31:08
Speaker 1: They're gonna run all this back through and spit it
31:12
Speaker 1: out an enclosing say, if you believe what any of
31:16
Speaker 1: what we said, then you believe it's impossible that this
31:20
Speaker 1: man would have done this to his own flesh and blood.
31:23
Speaker 1: That's going to be their theory here. And I agree
31:25
Speaker 1: with Mark, right, go ahead. No, I was just gonna say,
31:28
Speaker 1: I agree with Mark saying they're trying to raise reasonable doubt.
31:32
Speaker 1: There's no doubt about that. So if we look at
31:36
Speaker 1: the totality of the circumstances in this, that's the question.
31:40
Speaker 1: Do they raise reasonable doubt based on everything you know?
31:44
Speaker 1: I'm curious to Dr Michelle Dupree regarding the entry and
31:49
Speaker 1: exit wounds on Paul's body. That is elementary. You can,
31:56
Speaker 1: even I, who am just a lawyer, and look at
32:00
Speaker 1: a wound and tell an entry from an exit. Could
32:04
Speaker 1: you please explain that's very plain to the naked eye. Absolutely, Nancy.
32:10
Speaker 1: And again there are many things that we look at.
32:13
Speaker 1: Typically the entrance wound is smaller than the exit wound.
32:17
Speaker 1: Not always, but in this case I think that it
32:19
Speaker 1: would be. But we also look for something called an
32:22
Speaker 1: abrasion rim. When a bullet goes into a body, it
32:25
Speaker 1: does stretch the skin, and the abrasion ring is on
32:28
Speaker 1: the side that tells us the trajectory from where the
32:32
Speaker 1: bullet came. One of the witnesses was talking about skin
32:36
Speaker 1: tags and that's basically sort of the same thing. It's
32:40
Speaker 1: going to tell us where that projectile came from and
32:42
Speaker 1: it will help us determine that trajectory. And also, when
32:46
Speaker 1: we talk about Maggie and being two shooters, do you
32:50
Speaker 1: really think that a second shooter who was just waiting
32:52
Speaker 1: there to shoot Maggie is going to shoot her in
32:55
Speaker 1: the leg and two other places before the final last
32:58
Speaker 1: two shots, the fatal shots those were number four and five.
33:03
Speaker 1: That doesn't make sense either. You want your first shot
33:05
Speaker 1: to be the kill shot. You know what, You're right,
33:07
Speaker 1: and that is exactly what's being advanced in the courtroom. Guys,
33:10
Speaker 1: we were telling you about Paul's injuries and how that
33:13
Speaker 1: is being used by the experts on the stand. Take
33:15
Speaker 1: a listen to our cut five. Now, this depicts Maggie's
33:18
Speaker 1: body on the autopsy table, and when we're doing our
33:23
Speaker 1: measurements on a body, that's how we're looking at the
33:26
Speaker 1: body lying on her back or on the person's back
33:29
Speaker 1: on the autopsy table. Here is that wound with the
33:33
Speaker 1: left ear and the left chin, and here's her left breast,
33:38
Speaker 1: and then right above this wound, here we have that
33:41
Speaker 1: semicircle which is consistent with the earring. So this is
33:46
Speaker 1: the shot you would disagree with doctor Reemer about, Yes,
33:51
Speaker 1: this is the only shot I disagree. She stated that
33:53
Speaker 1: it was going upwards. Who would have entered the breast
33:55
Speaker 1: and then gone up right? When we look closer at
33:58
Speaker 1: the breast and we look close, are at the right
34:00
Speaker 1: the left side of the chin, skin tags are pointing upwards,
34:05
Speaker 1: showing that that's where the bullet came from. It just
34:08
Speaker 1: seems very odd that when you have one going this way,
34:12
Speaker 1: you have to be in a very bizarre position to
34:14
Speaker 1: be able to get it to go up. But from
34:16
Speaker 1: the scientific standpoint, it's it's how the wound looks, okay.
34:19
Speaker 1: And as far as what they're doing in the courtroom,
34:22
Speaker 1: Mark Pepper, it's always a good thing to get your
34:26
Speaker 1: witness off. The witness stand and down in the well
34:29
Speaker 1: in front of the jury. That's right, that's right. You
34:32
Speaker 1: want to make them personal, somebody they can relate to.
34:36
Speaker 1: You get lost in the sauce when you just hear yes,
34:39
Speaker 1: no questions from somebody sitting ten twelve feet away. Anytime
34:41
Speaker 1: you can pull a witness off, anytime you can hand
34:44
Speaker 1: them a pointer or an easel or an exhibit that
34:48
Speaker 1: they can stand in front of the jury, that's their show.
34:52
Speaker 1: I mean, the jury then makes eye contact with this
34:54
Speaker 1: witness and judges their credibility versus forgetting what the heck
35:00
Speaker 1: they said because it was the day before or the
35:02
Speaker 1: day before that. They're gonna remember that testimony tonight. They're
35:05
Speaker 1: gonna remember the testimony of anybody that stands two feet
35:08
Speaker 1: in front of them. This is a very tiny courthouse
35:11
Speaker 1: in Walterboro, South Carolina. Everybody's on top of each other
35:14
Speaker 1: and so when you get a chance to bring a
35:16
Speaker 1: witness down and look these jurors in the eyes, likely
35:19
Speaker 1: to leave an impact. It is exactly why both the
35:21
Speaker 1: state in the defense continuously bring your witnesses down. Great point, Nancy, Yah, yeah,
35:27
Speaker 1: go ahead please Okay. So, Also, when we're talking about
35:31
Speaker 1: Maggie's wound to the head, you heard it described as
35:35
Speaker 1: a keyhole injury, and that is something that is a
35:38
Speaker 1: very definitive forensic pathology description. And it's an entrance in
35:43
Speaker 1: exit in a skull that typically has babbling, which again
35:47
Speaker 1: we heard talked about, and that clearly tells us which
35:51
Speaker 1: is the entrance in, which is the exit side of
35:54
Speaker 1: that wound. It's basically a tangential in and out almost
35:58
Speaker 1: and that is what was described by doctor remark. Guys. Also,
36:01
Speaker 1: the witnesses are testifying through a certain lens, the lens
36:07
Speaker 1: of high dollar payments to the witnesses. Now does that
36:12
Speaker 1: make them less believable in the eyes of the gerars?
36:15
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I can tell you this, a
36:17
Speaker 1: state's witness is on a salary. They don't get a
36:21
Speaker 1: bonus or a raise if they go testify in a case.
36:25
Speaker 1: As compared to the tens of thousands of dollars. These
36:30
Speaker 1: witnesses are being paid. Take a listen to our cut nine.
36:35
Speaker 1: Doctor Reemer performed autopsy here, and she performed an independent autopsy.
36:41
Speaker 1: She didn't. Did she perform an autopsy of either of
36:47
Speaker 1: the victims in this case? I did not. And you
36:50
Speaker 1: reled on. I think you testified that dotor Remer's report,
36:55
Speaker 1: X rays, crime scene photos and autopsy photos in determining
37:01
Speaker 1: your opinion. That's correct. And you were higher right, Yes,
37:05
Speaker 1: I was, And you were here on Friday, weren't you.
37:08
Speaker 1: I was, So that would mean you've made over ten
37:11
Speaker 1: thousand dollars in evaluating or taking part in this case
37:17
Speaker 1: at the end of the day. That's correct too, doctor Heideceivers,
37:23
Speaker 1: Doctor Sivers. Of course, independent experts are going to be paid.
37:28
Speaker 1: And that's neither here nor there, except you know, if
37:31
Speaker 1: they were not going to say with the defense and
37:33
Speaker 1: wanted them to say, they would not be called as
37:36
Speaker 1: an expert. But what do you make of the testimony
37:41
Speaker 1: regarding blood stains, Regarding the stains on the door, the
37:47
Speaker 1: blood spatter. A lot was made toward the end of
37:51
Speaker 1: the testimony of the second witness about a bloody footprint
37:56
Speaker 1: and the witness, who is Tim Paul Bock tried to
38:01
Speaker 1: suggest to the Garars that it was the killer's footprint
38:05
Speaker 1: or the killer's plural footprint toil long Cross. Savannah Good said,
38:11
Speaker 1: they didn't give you the report that that's Paul's footprint,
38:16
Speaker 1: and he said, no, I didn't say that that had hurt. Yeah,
38:20
Speaker 1: that was a rough blow for him certainly. Well, first,
38:24
Speaker 1: just like I was saying a little bit earlier with
38:25
Speaker 1: those trigger words, is what I call it. So first
38:29
Speaker 1: and foremost, with the door, he had mentioned that it
38:32
Speaker 1: had downward what he called trajectory, but we use the
38:35
Speaker 1: term directionality, so that it had downward directionality, suggesting that
38:39
Speaker 1: it had that little bit of a fountain effect as
38:41
Speaker 1: it came up over the shooter's shoulder and deposited downward.
38:46
Speaker 1: But from the photos I've seen what I think he's
38:49
Speaker 1: terming as that is actually what we would call more
38:52
Speaker 1: of a gravity flow stain. When you're dealing with something
38:56
Speaker 1: of that proportion, when it comes with velocity as well
38:59
Speaker 1: as the amount out of biological material being pushed back
39:02
Speaker 1: right or the backspatter back towards the shooter, it's going
39:06
Speaker 1: to be too much for the surface tension to just
39:08
Speaker 1: stick right on that door, so it's going to start
39:11
Speaker 1: to flow downwards. And I think he's using that as
39:15
Speaker 1: what he's calling trajectory or directionality, and that has nothing
39:18
Speaker 1: to do with the way it was deposited. It has
39:21
Speaker 1: everything to do with the weight of that biological material,
39:25
Speaker 1: whether it be blood or brain matter, sliding down that
39:29
Speaker 1: door as a result of gravity. So that's first and
39:32
Speaker 1: foremost that I noticed, because there is directionality of those
39:37
Speaker 1: stains going upward with what you would expect from a
39:40
Speaker 1: shot going up from the shoulder through the head up
39:43
Speaker 1: towards the door, which if you notice, follows the path
39:47
Speaker 1: of those indentations in the door and the small pellets
39:51
Speaker 1: in the door frame. Right, it's all going to fall.
39:53
Speaker 1: I've another I've got another expert here. She's saying, T
39:58
Speaker 1: shirt expert, apparently, what's your Kathy Lee? Okay, okay, don't
40:02
Speaker 1: trust your soul to know Backwood Southern lawyer. Okay. There
40:09
Speaker 1: are now T shirts just saying and it's all over
40:14
Speaker 1: the world, now, thank you. I just have thank you
40:32
Speaker 1: crime stories with Nancy Grace, So apparently there are Murdock
40:37
Speaker 1: T shirts now. Just wanted everybody to know that they're
40:40
Speaker 1: all around the courthouse, And to you, Mark Pepper, that's
40:43
Speaker 1: exactly what I'm talking about about a mistrial when the
40:46
Speaker 1: jury leaves the bubble of the courtroom, increasing the chance
40:51
Speaker 1: without a doubt. I think we're gonna have a mistrial
40:53
Speaker 1: here anyway, because I don't think there's gonna be a
40:55
Speaker 1: unanimous verdict. But if there is, we're running the risk
41:00
Speaker 1: of mistrial appeals, you name it. And putting them on
41:03
Speaker 1: a bus for a field trip. I mean we're gonna
41:05
Speaker 1: do a bag lunch too, And I mean we curfew
41:09
Speaker 1: is they're gonna be allowed to talk to each other,
41:10
Speaker 1: because obviously that's not allowed. There's another mistrial. We're going
41:15
Speaker 1: down a slippery slope here. I agree. And when Mark
41:17
Speaker 1: Pepper says, hey, guys, he's a high profile defense attorney
41:20
Speaker 1: joining us out of this jurisdiction the Pepper Law Firm.
41:24
Speaker 1: When he says the Gerards can't talk to each other,
41:27
Speaker 1: what we mean by that is they can't talk about
41:30
Speaker 1: the case with each other. They can say, Hi, what
41:34
Speaker 1: did you do this weekend? What time? How far away
41:36
Speaker 1: do you live? What do you have a family? They
41:39
Speaker 1: can talk about that, but how long is that going
41:41
Speaker 1: to last how long until somebody says, what is murnog
41:45
Speaker 1: eating at the defense table? What is that cracking sound?
41:49
Speaker 1: You know they're gonna talk about the case and then
41:52
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a mistrial. Guys, I want to get
41:55
Speaker 1: off of the T shirt and off of the candy
41:59
Speaker 1: cracking at the defense table. I want you to take
42:02
Speaker 1: a listen to our cut ten And this is more
42:07
Speaker 1: about the blood spatter. Why is it important? Because today,
42:10
Speaker 1: with their own witness their own witnesses, the defense is
42:14
Speaker 1: seemingly suggesting that they themselves were all wrong about the
42:18
Speaker 1: short shooter. Actually, the shooter is tall and on. Wasn't
42:22
Speaker 1: the top of a pause call missing? Yes it was?
42:26
Speaker 1: And Paul's face it wasn't blown off, was it? It
42:30
Speaker 1: was not? His brains weren't splatter all over the floor.
42:33
Speaker 1: His brain left his head and ended up being on
42:37
Speaker 1: the floor. There were some smaller pieces and other areas,
42:40
Speaker 1: and then a large piece in one area. Does that
42:43
Speaker 1: brain look macerated or splattered everywhere? No, but that brain
42:48
Speaker 1: has been extruded from the head. But when you zoom
42:51
Speaker 1: in on it, you can tell that there's injury to
42:54
Speaker 1: the brain. But the brain, yes, I agree, it's not macerated.
42:58
Speaker 1: That blood spatter on top of the door that looks
43:02
Speaker 1: like blood spatter at the top of the door, yes,
43:04
Speaker 1: and no bloods patter out there on the sidewalk from
43:07
Speaker 1: his brain being blown out from his head and his
43:12
Speaker 1: face being left intact right right though the brain would
43:15
Speaker 1: come out the top of the head. And the bloods
43:17
Speaker 1: patterns on the top of the door, right, that's blowback,
43:20
Speaker 1: that's from here, the pressure pushing a powards you know,
43:23
Speaker 1: Kelly's skin. They keep mentioning that the shooter would have
43:27
Speaker 1: to be covered in bodily fluid blowback blood. Well, that
43:33
Speaker 1: just backs in, that rear ends into the state's theory
43:36
Speaker 1: that Murdoch then went in and took a shower and
43:39
Speaker 1: changed clothes. It does beg the question of did Murdoco
43:44
Speaker 1: take a shower after shooting Maggie and Paul. We still
43:48
Speaker 1: do not know that it's unconfirmed, but that seems like
43:51
Speaker 1: the picture that the prosecution is trying to paint with
43:54
Speaker 1: testimony thus far. And it also seems like the defenses
43:58
Speaker 1: shooting themselves in the foot in a sense. With these
44:00
Speaker 1: witnesses today who have conceded on the stand that yes,
44:04
Speaker 1: the shooter could have been taller than Maggie and Paul.
44:07
Speaker 1: So it's in direct contradiction to what we were hearing
44:10
Speaker 1: from them last week that the shooter is two inches tall. Well, Kelly,
44:14
Speaker 1: Court me if I'm wrong, But hasn't there been testimony
44:17
Speaker 1: that Murdock was wearing one outfit in the afternoon, one
44:21
Speaker 1: outfit when the cops got there and there was a
44:25
Speaker 1: pool of water by the shower in the Moselle property
44:28
Speaker 1: bathroom and there was a damp towel and his shirt
44:32
Speaker 1: that he was wearing that afternoon has never been recovered.
44:35
Speaker 1: That to me, if it looks like a duck and
44:38
Speaker 1: it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck,
44:40
Speaker 1: it is a duck. He took a shower. Yeah, we
44:44
Speaker 1: have heard a lot about the outfit changes. We've heard
44:46
Speaker 1: a lot about what clothes was he wearing that night.
44:49
Speaker 1: Keeps close in his car, he keeps clothes at various
44:52
Speaker 1: different people's homes. Where are the clothes that he was
44:55
Speaker 1: wearing that night is a big, big, big question. So
44:57
Speaker 1: I mean to me, day Courseutina, I don't know about you,
45:01
Speaker 1: be blunt, but that fits head in hand with the
45:04
Speaker 1: fact that we believe that he went in and took
45:07
Speaker 1: a shower at some point. Yeah, I believe that there's
45:10
Speaker 1: a you know, circumstantial evidence to believe that he went
45:14
Speaker 1: in took a shower. I also believe that this was
45:18
Speaker 1: a planned event and that it fits the pattern in
45:23
Speaker 1: its totality of all the other information that the prosecution
45:29
Speaker 1: is trying to bring out, and it starts with his
45:32
Speaker 1: own financial insolvency and it evolves from there. The only
45:37
Speaker 1: thing Mark Pepper is but the timeline so tight between
45:42
Speaker 1: that video for a friend Rogan Gibson and immediately leaving
45:49
Speaker 1: for his mother's house, that doesn't give him time for
45:52
Speaker 1: a shower right there. But we know he changed clothes,
45:56
Speaker 1: and we know those clothes that Surett has never been recovered,
46:00
Speaker 1: along with the murder weapons go ahead, Mark, murder weapons
46:04
Speaker 1: certainly has not been recovered. But there's still two witnesses left, Nancy,
46:08
Speaker 1: and I'm not so sure that ce foam green shirt
46:11
Speaker 1: that we've seen on the tree snapchat is still missing.
46:16
Speaker 1: And I'm told that there may be one more trick
46:19
Speaker 1: up Dick's sleeve to show the lack of the investigation
46:24
Speaker 1: done by SLED. That's theme one, right two. Theme two
46:28
Speaker 1: is timeline. To your point, if today's testimony did anything
46:32
Speaker 1: for the defense to there to help them, it's to
46:37
Speaker 1: tighten the timeline up to where the state has already
46:41
Speaker 1: put it. You've got an eight fifty six excuse me,
46:44
Speaker 1: eight forty six snapchat phones go dead, and I believe
46:47
Speaker 1: eight forty nine if I'm not mistaken, and then we
46:49
Speaker 1: know the cell phone starts at ten O six. Between
46:52
Speaker 1: ten O two and ten O six, we got two
46:54
Speaker 1: hundred forty eight steps. I don't know that the jury
46:57
Speaker 1: is going to think that there's enough time for him
47:00
Speaker 1: to have made it all the way back up to Moselle, showered,
47:04
Speaker 1: disposed of the clothes, disposed of the weapons, and still
47:07
Speaker 1: be on his way to his parents' house. The defense
47:10
Speaker 1: better hope that the jury doesn't think that, because if
47:13
Speaker 1: they do, coupled with the financial four be stuff we
47:17
Speaker 1: talked about earlier, then I think the defendant is in trouble. Yeah.
47:21
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any way he could have taken
47:22
Speaker 1: the shower right there, go ahead, doctor Duprie. So, Nancy,
47:26
Speaker 1: I think that it's much more likely that he may
47:28
Speaker 1: have taken a shower earlier that night, as evidence by
47:30
Speaker 1: the clothes on the floor and the pool of water.
47:33
Speaker 1: But don't forget the hose was unraveled and there was
47:36
Speaker 1: water there. What was to prevent him from showering off
47:40
Speaker 1: right there at the scene, having closed in his car,
47:43
Speaker 1: ready to dispose of when he did go to his
47:45
Speaker 1: mother's house. You know what, you're so right, Dodge Michelle
47:48
Speaker 1: d Kelly's skin. We completely discounted what she just said
47:52
Speaker 1: about the water hose, and one of the first things
47:56
Speaker 1: that was noticed is the pools of water in the kennel.
48:00
Speaker 1: So that's exactly I mean, there's no way he can
48:02
Speaker 1: fit a shower in after the shooting get in the car.
48:06
Speaker 1: We know what time he got in the car started
48:07
Speaker 1: driving because it's on his navigation system from his suburban.
48:12
Speaker 1: There's not time for a shower there. She's right, The
48:14
Speaker 1: shower was earlier in the day go ahead, and pools
48:18
Speaker 1: of water that weren't tested, so we don't know what
48:20
Speaker 1: exactly was in that pool pool of water. Was alex
48:23
Speaker 1: DNA in that pool of water and something else? As
48:26
Speaker 1: we never heard from any of the any of Alec
48:28
Speaker 1: Murdoch's mother's caretakers. I'd be curious to know what's his
48:31
Speaker 1: hair when he showed up that night, because we've heard
48:34
Speaker 1: today from the defensive witnesses that Alec would have a
48:37
Speaker 1: bunch of spatter in his thick hair. So if he
48:40
Speaker 1: did shower off using the hose at the kennels, was
48:43
Speaker 1: his hair wet when he showed off at his mom's house.
48:46
Speaker 1: I'd like to know. That's a really good question. Go ahead, Nancy.
48:50
Speaker 1: This is Dan and I just have a comment. This
48:54
Speaker 1: case is extremely complicated in many ways, and I think
49:01
Speaker 1: one of the things leading to potential mistrial is the
49:05
Speaker 1: fact that will the jury be able to simplify this
49:09
Speaker 1: case and extract the science to put it into some
49:15
Speaker 1: believable judgment that they can make toward guilt or innocence.
49:21
Speaker 1: And certainly I can't speak for jurors. I don't know
49:25
Speaker 1: the jury i Q. I don't know where they come from.
49:28
Speaker 1: But I will say that when you get the little
49:31
Speaker 1: things such as in the feeding room, if you will,
49:36
Speaker 1: in the defense expert is bringing out that the partial
49:41
Speaker 1: footprints in the blood and around the feed room there
49:44
Speaker 1: should have been spray enhancements. If I'm sitting on a jury,
49:49
Speaker 1: I'm starting to ask questions about that. Why weren't the
49:52
Speaker 1: little things done in this guys, I want you to
49:54
Speaker 1: hear a little bit more of the testimony now in
49:58
Speaker 1: this juncture you hear a witness actually agreeing with the
50:02
Speaker 1: state experts in our cut twelve. So, I frankly think
50:05
Speaker 1: he was startled by that shot. White shoulder was the door.
50:07
Speaker 1: I mean, if he knew somebody was coming and or
50:10
Speaker 1: saw somebody coming, he would be facing the door or
50:13
Speaker 1: attorney trying to run, which he wouldn't have anywhere to go.
50:16
Speaker 1: But he was essentially facing this way and the doors
50:19
Speaker 1: this way. I don't think he even perceived it until
50:22
Speaker 1: he was shot the first time. And you asked the question,
50:25
Speaker 1: did I see any defensive injuries or any indication of
50:29
Speaker 1: defensive actions on hammer in the feed room? The answers no,
50:32
Speaker 1: What type of defensive indications have you seen in the
50:37
Speaker 1: past that would indicate that there was a struggle of
50:40
Speaker 1: some sort. Well, I think obviously your hands always kind
50:43
Speaker 1: of come up, and his hands would be going up
50:45
Speaker 1: in the direction of the shooter and the weapon. His
50:49
Speaker 1: hands coming up means that he likely they could have
50:52
Speaker 1: been injured. Certainly there could be gunshot residue distribution on them.
50:56
Speaker 1: Could that be the main difference so Kelly's can. I
51:00
Speaker 1: think it's agreed all around that Paul never saw what
51:03
Speaker 1: was coming. I don't think Paul or Maggie ever saw
51:07
Speaker 1: what was coming that night now, and that also suggests
51:11
Speaker 1: that if it were to be Murdoch, that he could
51:17
Speaker 1: get up close to them and their proximity in that
51:20
Speaker 1: small area of the feed room and they would not
51:24
Speaker 1: know what was about to happen, as opposed to an
51:26
Speaker 1: intruder that they had never seen before, someone coming up
51:30
Speaker 1: on them that would make them run. Kelly, what did
51:35
Speaker 1: you notice about the girars? How did they appear to you? Sure? So?
51:40
Speaker 1: On that note too, we also know from Alec Murdoch's
51:42
Speaker 1: own testimony that he says no one else was there
51:45
Speaker 1: that night that shouldn't have been, and the dogs were
51:48
Speaker 1: not acting like there was a stranger around just five
51:51
Speaker 1: minutes before Maggie and Paul's phones went silent forever. I
51:54
Speaker 1: saw some very interesting body language from the jury today.
51:58
Speaker 1: They saw a lot of graphic autopsy photos, and a
52:02
Speaker 1: lot of them had various different reactions. One juror literally
52:05
Speaker 1: pulled a blanket up over her forehead. Others were looking
52:09
Speaker 1: down somewhere wincing, and others were like very intently looking
52:13
Speaker 1: at the screen in front of them. There were very
52:15
Speaker 1: very graphic images. And I think something else that should
52:19
Speaker 1: be noted today too, is that when Dick Harpulian said
52:22
Speaker 1: he wanted the jury to go to Moselle, he wanted
52:24
Speaker 1: the jury to vote on that. The judge said, that's
52:27
Speaker 1: pretty unheard of. And also having the jury vote on
52:29
Speaker 1: whether or not to go to Moselle opens the jury
52:32
Speaker 1: up to have conversations about the case before deliberations actually start,
52:37
Speaker 1: therefore possibly leading to a mistrial. You know, to you,
52:41
Speaker 1: Mark Pepper, have you ever seen a defense attorney intentially
52:45
Speaker 1: insert reversible error into a case, such as suggesting the
52:51
Speaker 1: jarars conduct a vote as to whether they go to Moselle.
52:56
Speaker 1: That would absolutely shrigger discussion about the case, which is
53:04
Speaker 1: not allowed prior to deliberations. Right. I've never seen them
53:11
Speaker 1: insert purposely a reason for a mistrial, but I have
53:15
Speaker 1: seen them lay the traps for a mistrial, just as
53:20
Speaker 1: Dick did today and has done in some other arguments
53:23
Speaker 1: where they actually wanted some testimony in but they fought
53:26
Speaker 1: a motion to suppress that testimony to force the state
53:30
Speaker 1: to bring it up and then whether or not it
53:33
Speaker 1: opens the door. What Dick was doing this morning was
53:36
Speaker 1: trying to play the all shucks, judge, if the jury
53:39
Speaker 1: wants to do it, you know, I'd like to do
53:41
Speaker 1: it as well, But it's up to the jury. He knows.
53:44
Speaker 1: Judge Newman can't go ask the jury that. But what
53:46
Speaker 1: if you would have there's yet another appealable issue if
53:50
Speaker 1: there's a conviction, or if he would have said, yeah, sure,
53:54
Speaker 1: I'll do it. Did some mistrial, or if he says
53:58
Speaker 1: what he did, say no, that's unheard of. You know
54:00
Speaker 1: that if you want it, though you got it, you're
54:03
Speaker 1: setting the stage for a potential mistrial. That seems to
54:08
Speaker 1: be some type of strategy that the defense is employed.
54:11
Speaker 1: Remember these are the defense lawyers whose own client rejected
54:16
Speaker 1: their advice and said, I appreciate your advice, but I
54:20
Speaker 1: reject it and I will be taking the stand. These
54:24
Speaker 1: folks are doing everything they can to protect him. Now
54:27
Speaker 1: I suppose they're doing everything to make sure he doesn't
54:30
Speaker 1: get convicted in any scenario possible, and that's their job.
54:34
Speaker 1: What do you think about the two gun theory, because
54:39
Speaker 1: who better than Alex and Murdoch to come up with
54:45
Speaker 1: a mode of murder that would suggest to assailants. He's
54:51
Speaker 1: been a prosecutor, he's tried many, many cases, he's been
54:55
Speaker 1: in on investigations. Well, you know, he's not afraid to
54:58
Speaker 1: pull out his fake badge, put his blue light going
55:01
Speaker 1: in his private vehicle. If you wanted to fake out
55:06
Speaker 1: a jury, what better way than to use two weapons. Well,
55:09
Speaker 1: the only one I can come up with is that
55:13
Speaker 1: you hire somebody to do it. I personally give it
55:17
Speaker 1: all that background. You're absolutely right, he's a former prosecutor,
55:20
Speaker 1: some say current, he carries a badge. He obviously lives
55:25
Speaker 1: in the legal arena in that world, speaks the language.
55:28
Speaker 1: I still personally just don't think he's smart enough to
55:32
Speaker 1: have done this on his own. What I do think
55:35
Speaker 1: is that he used his relationships or is certainly that's
55:38
Speaker 1: a plausible explanation for as I drive off, the two
55:45
Speaker 1: shooters or one shooter comes up and the guns will
55:49
Speaker 1: be there, or maybe they already have them. You know,
55:51
Speaker 1: again we're speculating at this point, but that's exactly what
55:54
Speaker 1: the defense lawyers are going to do in their closing
55:56
Speaker 1: is offer some alternative explanations to just get the jury
56:02
Speaker 1: to hesitate to act as to whether to convict the defendant. Well,
56:06
Speaker 1: you know another thing, Dan Corcentina with me, former police chief,
56:10
Speaker 1: former sheriff, served on US Helmet Security Senior Advisory Board,
56:14
Speaker 1: now private investigator. Dan, I don't believe I have ever
56:19
Speaker 1: once seen a murder conspiracy or somebody didn't blab. I mean,
56:27
Speaker 1: I think that's virtually impossible. Exactly in Colorado, We've had
56:32
Speaker 1: at least two or three murder for hires actually during
56:36
Speaker 1: my career that I've been involved in, and one of
56:39
Speaker 1: those individuals has shared information with a third party in
56:45
Speaker 1: the case was broke wide open. I mean, you're absolutely right, Nancy,
56:50
Speaker 1: someone's going to talk if that was the case. In
56:53
Speaker 1: my professional opinion, I think the question for me becomes
56:57
Speaker 1: on June seventh, between the hours of when we speculate
57:02
Speaker 1: this murder took place, why at that moment in time,
57:06
Speaker 1: when Maggie and Paul were killed, why is that so
57:12
Speaker 1: much outside the norm of Alex Murdock's plan for everything else,
57:20
Speaker 1: everything else he's done in his life has been orchestrated.
57:23
Speaker 1: There's been a pattern, and why isn't this part of
57:27
Speaker 1: that pattern? It just seems unusual to me. When you
57:30
Speaker 1: fit it with his personality, that there being anomaly here.
57:34
Speaker 1: And of course, guys, we're about to head back in
57:37
Speaker 1: the courtroom. But while this is not a standard of proof,
57:41
Speaker 1: it can certainly be argued by the state. Who in
57:44
Speaker 1: the world would want Maggie and Paul dead. The best
57:49
Speaker 1: the defense has come up with so far is a
57:52
Speaker 1: random vigilante for what because they read something a line
57:56
Speaker 1: and got mad and then decided to show up at
57:59
Speaker 1: the law hope there were going to be guns there
58:02
Speaker 1: and kill Paul and Maggie. It's crazy, it's outlandish, it's fantastical.
58:08
Speaker 1: That did not happen. So the jury is going to
58:11
Speaker 1: have to sort through potential motives as well. Okay, I'm
58:15
Speaker 1: hearing in my ear people are starting to kneel back
58:18
Speaker 1: into the courtroom. Let's go straight back to the courthouse. Everybody,
58:21
Speaker 1: we're alive here at Carleton County and we're going back
58:24
Speaker 1: into the courtroom. Thank you to the guests, and thank
58:26
Speaker 1: you to you for being with us. Goodbye, everybody.