Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / BREAKING: Jury Misconduct In Trial?

Transcript

BREAKING: Jury Misconduct In Trial? · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

0:05
Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Greece. We have just come out
0:14
Speaker 1: of the courtroom. We've been in there all the morning
0:16
Speaker 1: watching testimony as that pours from the witness stand, and
0:19
Speaker 1: let me tell you something, it has been hot and heavy,
0:22
Speaker 1: with fireworks blasting in the courtroom on multiple witnesses. As
0:28
Speaker 1: you know, yesterday the defense rested with a very emotional witness.
0:33
Speaker 1: It was John Marvin Murdog. That's Alex Murdog's brother. And
0:38
Speaker 1: I've got to tell you this guy was very believable.
0:43
Speaker 1: He was calm. Everything he said seemed to be sincere
0:47
Speaker 1: and heartfelt. I want you to hear the testimony that
0:52
Speaker 1: he delivered from the witness stand. But today, starting this
0:55
Speaker 1: morning with the States from Bottle case, it's been a
0:57
Speaker 1: whole another thing. Lots of fireworks, especially when the defense
1:03
Speaker 1: attorneys would get ahold of the state's witnesses. I really
1:08
Speaker 1: thought there for a moment when the lady medical examiner,
1:12
Speaker 1: doctor Raema, was on the sand, I thought she might
1:15
Speaker 1: just give heart Pootlan a kung fu kick. But she
1:20
Speaker 1: was very restrained even under intense cross examination. But let's
1:25
Speaker 1: start at the beginning. I want you to hear how
1:28
Speaker 1: the defense ended its case yesterday with one of the
1:31
Speaker 1: most believable and poignant witnesses for the defense. It's John Marvin.
1:37
Speaker 1: Take a listen. So when did you first learn that
1:39
Speaker 1: your brother was down at the kennels just before the
1:42
Speaker 1: murders two days ago with the rest of us. No, No,
1:47
Speaker 1: I went into for an interview with SLED. When I
1:50
Speaker 1: told you about where, we talked about the shirt and
1:52
Speaker 1: talked about blood all that. That was the reason for
1:55
Speaker 1: me being there was to hear that audio and I
1:58
Speaker 1: saw the kennel and at that point I heard his
2:01
Speaker 1: voice and I knew. I knew that was him before
2:03
Speaker 1: August of twenty twenty two, at that interview, when you
2:06
Speaker 1: heard your brother's voice at the kennel's and he never
2:09
Speaker 1: told you that he was down there just part of
2:11
Speaker 1: the murders, would you agree that that is not full
2:15
Speaker 1: cooperation by him not telling SLED that he was at
2:18
Speaker 1: the kennel correct? I would say that yes, he lied.
2:22
Speaker 1: You are hearing John Marvin on the stand describing what
2:27
Speaker 1: he knew, and when we come back Ristain, I would
2:29
Speaker 1: like to hear the full cut. Three. Louia is traight
2:35
Speaker 1: out to Eric Brand, high profile lawyer for the Satterfield family, Eric,
2:41
Speaker 1: it never helps. Well, your own brother says you lied, No,
2:47
Speaker 1: it doesn't. This trial now is a referendum on Alex murdole.
2:52
Speaker 1: All the scientific evidence, I think it's out, all the
2:56
Speaker 1: technological evidences input out. In the jury's mind. It's going
3:00
Speaker 1: to come down to what they believe in Alex Murtle.
3:05
Speaker 1: And of course John Marvin was a compelling witness, but
3:09
Speaker 1: he's a slanted witness. And you've done this many times
3:12
Speaker 1: like I have, Nancy. You ask him three questions. Do
3:15
Speaker 1: you love your family yes? Do you love your brother yes?
3:20
Speaker 1: Would it hurt your family and its legacy and reputation
3:23
Speaker 1: if Alex is convicted of a double murder? Yes? And
3:27
Speaker 1: then you sit down because you know what you're going
3:30
Speaker 1: to get when you get a family member. Of course,
3:32
Speaker 1: they're going to rally the troops. So this trial's a
3:35
Speaker 1: referendum on Alex. He's called everybody else a liar, Dick Carputlin,
3:39
Speaker 1: called Ronnie Crosby a liar, called the pathologist a liar
3:43
Speaker 1: this morning. So is the jury going to believe Alex
3:46
Speaker 1: over the twenty other witnesses that have come forward against him?
3:50
Speaker 1: And that's really what's going to come down on this verdict.
3:53
Speaker 1: Has anybody ever told you, Bland that you like to
3:55
Speaker 1: pick the cart with a Howard horse? I have gotten that,
3:59
Speaker 1: yet did not John Mark Marvin murder Ardock was good
4:07
Speaker 1: for the defense. Yes, I agree, he was a good
4:11
Speaker 1: witness for the defense. Now what you just heard was
4:14
Speaker 1: him admitting that his brother Alice Murdock lied, and that
4:19
Speaker 1: he learned for the first time when that kennel video
4:22
Speaker 1: was played. He learned for the first time that all
4:25
Speaker 1: along his brother had been telling him a different story,
4:27
Speaker 1: that he hadn't been at the kennels. But let me
4:30
Speaker 1: go and reverse for just a moment. I want you
4:32
Speaker 1: to hear his description of what he found the Knight
4:35
Speaker 1: of the Murders and our cut three. I could see
4:37
Speaker 1: where Maggie had been, and it was grass, and you
4:40
Speaker 1: know they had covered it up with dirt, so it
4:42
Speaker 1: really was nothing to see where Maggie was. Um. I
4:48
Speaker 1: walked over to the feed room, and y'all have heard
4:53
Speaker 1: the descriptions. Y'all saw it. I've never seen pictures, and
4:56
Speaker 1: I've told him before come to his court, and I
4:58
Speaker 1: was not gonna see pictures. But y'all can imagine what
5:02
Speaker 1: I experienced. It had not been cleaned up. I saw blood,
5:05
Speaker 1: I saw brains, I saw pieces of skull. And when
5:08
Speaker 1: I say brains, it could just be kissue. Yeah, I
5:12
Speaker 1: don't know what I was saying. It was just it
5:13
Speaker 1: was terrible, and for some reason I thought it was mine,
5:21
Speaker 1: something that I needed to do for Paul to clean
5:24
Speaker 1: it up. And you're you're seeing him on the stand.
5:27
Speaker 1: He is upset, but yet he seems to me to
5:30
Speaker 1: still be telling the truth and he did not lie
5:33
Speaker 1: for his brother about his brother being at the kennels.
5:35
Speaker 1: Matt Harris is joining me, formerly w s OCTV radio
5:39
Speaker 1: host and star of the Murnai podcast. Matt, you have
5:42
Speaker 1: news about the jury. I had got him here, so
5:45
Speaker 1: I missed the very end of it. But thank goodness,
5:47
Speaker 1: my Impact of Influenced podcast partner set Tucker came out
5:50
Speaker 1: and told me right at the end there was an
5:54
Speaker 1: email that the judge had received and he handed both
5:57
Speaker 1: the defense and the prosecution this email. And then someone
6:02
Speaker 1: was with her said she heard clearly either Dick or
6:06
Speaker 1: Jim say something about a juror. And it appeared from
6:09
Speaker 1: this these two people that I just talked to, they
6:12
Speaker 1: came in that they were giving a positive response whatever
6:16
Speaker 1: as they received not the same response from Crayton. Waters
6:21
Speaker 1: and his team. Don't know what it fully means, but
6:24
Speaker 1: they said they will attack it. I don't know what
6:26
Speaker 1: to make of what you said, and you're also cutting
6:28
Speaker 1: in and out all me. Could you just try to
6:31
Speaker 1: give it Jimmy and a bullet. Are you saying there's
6:34
Speaker 1: been jurarm's conduct. Are you saying that one of the
6:37
Speaker 1: jurars communicated with the judge? What are you saying that
6:40
Speaker 1: the judge got received an email and we don't know
6:43
Speaker 1: two He called it up. He gave the emails to
6:45
Speaker 1: both of them, and two people in the court room
6:48
Speaker 1: overheard the defense kind of smiling and said to juror,
6:53
Speaker 1: I don't know what that means when they say it's
6:55
Speaker 1: a juror, but that they said they will deal with
6:57
Speaker 1: it as soon as they come back and they will
6:59
Speaker 1: get both sides. He wants them to take lunch to
7:01
Speaker 1: figure out what to do about this email. So it's
7:04
Speaker 1: more than I mean, who knows what it is, but
7:06
Speaker 1: it sounds like it could be something pretty big, okay
7:09
Speaker 1: to you, Eric Bland. Whenever the judge says will take
7:13
Speaker 1: care of it, that means there's an issue, and if
7:17
Speaker 1: the girar was mentioned in that conversation, that I mean,
7:23
Speaker 1: for all I know, it could be a girar feel
7:26
Speaker 1: sick to his stomach. It could mean ajar fell asleep
7:30
Speaker 1: during some of the testimony. It could mean a gar
7:33
Speaker 1: reported that someone tried to talk to them. This does
7:36
Speaker 1: not mean giar misconduct. And this also does not mean
7:40
Speaker 1: we're losing a girar. You know, to Matt Harris, how
7:44
Speaker 1: many alternates are left, if any two to alter nars left,
7:48
Speaker 1: You're right, it could be nothing. But you know, we
7:51
Speaker 1: only have two alternates left. We're getting down there. And
7:54
Speaker 1: just because Hart, it's like a crocodile smiling. Do you
7:59
Speaker 1: know it's smiling at you? Or is it about to
8:02
Speaker 1: bite your head off? So I wouldn't put a whole
8:05
Speaker 1: lot of stock in the fact that Heartpootley and Nancy smile.
8:08
Speaker 1: Nancy over the knews, are you saying you have more
8:12
Speaker 1: news I do? Last night? You know, I receive a
8:16
Speaker 1: lot of communications from some of my podcast listeners, and
8:20
Speaker 1: obviously because I have the good fortune of being on
8:24
Speaker 1: your show, people recognize me. Now, thank you for that.
8:28
Speaker 1: There is a rumor floating around that one of the
8:31
Speaker 1: jurors has told a coworker during the trial that that
8:38
Speaker 1: juror believes that Alex is innocent, and somebody said that
8:44
Speaker 1: this was going to be emailed to the judge. I
8:47
Speaker 1: have no idea the truth of that, but I think
8:50
Speaker 1: that that could be what Matt is referring to. My
8:54
Speaker 1: understanding is that that has been sent to the judge.
8:58
Speaker 1: But again, that could just be a rumor with no veracity.
9:01
Speaker 1: But I do believe that that could be what matter
9:03
Speaker 1: is referring to. Well, you know what, it's a little
9:06
Speaker 1: too coincidental that you heard that and that now Matt
9:09
Speaker 1: Harris has heard about an email regarding one of the gars.
9:14
Speaker 1: But here's the rub. If the GIRR went into this
9:18
Speaker 1: thinking that Alex Murdogue is innocent, that's absolutely the way
9:23
Speaker 1: it should be because he has presumed innocent until the
9:27
Speaker 1: state proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So if
9:32
Speaker 1: he said that prior to trial, I don't have a
9:34
Speaker 1: problem with it. But if he was communicating with a
9:38
Speaker 1: coworker during the trial about this case, that GIRR has
9:42
Speaker 1: to go. They cannot stay on They cannot stay on
9:44
Speaker 1: the panel. It's just that simple. That's the law. Does
9:48
Speaker 1: anybody disagree with that on the panel? Yes? No, okay, yeah, problem, yep,
9:58
Speaker 1: that's the thing. Well, he's out. He's out. If there
10:01
Speaker 1: is any discussion about the case with outsiders that are
10:05
Speaker 1: not on the panel, or any discussion about deliberations before
10:08
Speaker 1: both sides have rested and closings have done, have been done,
10:13
Speaker 1: and the jury charges have been done, if they try
10:16
Speaker 1: to deliberate before that, they're out. There are very strict
10:20
Speaker 1: rules regarding jury conduct. And I can tell you right
10:24
Speaker 1: now if there was a conversation about this trial and
10:26
Speaker 1: this evidence during the trial with a coworker that Jarar
10:30
Speaker 1: is gone. Crime stories with Nancy Grace, let's talked about
10:49
Speaker 1: what we do know. The state is mounting a rebuttal.
10:54
Speaker 1: Take a listen to our cut seven. This is Ronnie
10:57
Speaker 1: Crosby on Alex Murdock's original story. Did you all multiple
11:01
Speaker 1: occasions go over in great detail Alec's original story as
11:05
Speaker 1: to what he did on the night of the murders.
11:08
Speaker 1: On more than one occasion, we discussed his story and what,
11:12
Speaker 1: if anything, did the defendant tell you about whether or
11:15
Speaker 1: not he checked Paula Maggie before calling nine one one.
11:18
Speaker 1: My understanding of what he told me was that he'd
11:23
Speaker 1: checked them before he called nine one one. That was
11:27
Speaker 1: clear to me. When was the first time you've heard
11:30
Speaker 1: the defendant's latest story admitting that he was in fact
11:34
Speaker 1: at the kennels minutes before the victims would killed. When
11:37
Speaker 1: I heard that llet was taking the stand, I believe
11:41
Speaker 1: it was last Thursday. I did set up my workstation
11:46
Speaker 1: so that I could watch his testimony, and it would
11:50
Speaker 1: have been when he told you that he was at
11:54
Speaker 1: it kennels. Was the first time that I'd ever heard done. Okay,
11:56
Speaker 1: back to you, Matt Harris story the Murder podcast. Matt
12:02
Speaker 1: Ronnie Crosby I believe is one of his law partners,
12:06
Speaker 1: is he not right? Well? Former law partner, Yeah, yeah,
12:10
Speaker 1: former law partner. And so the first time that he
12:13
Speaker 1: had heard the story that Murdoch was at the kennels
12:17
Speaker 1: at the time of the murders. And earlier today I
12:21
Speaker 1: was comparing this to the Scott Peterson case where Scott
12:23
Speaker 1: Peterson places himself at San Francisco Bay. He places himself
12:29
Speaker 1: at the location where his wife's body was dumped. Here,
12:32
Speaker 1: we've got that voice, his voice on the video placing
12:36
Speaker 1: him at the scene of the murderer within about a
12:39
Speaker 1: two to three minute space before the murders, and this
12:44
Speaker 1: is the first time his friend and law partner had
12:47
Speaker 1: ever heard that. I thought that was pretty damning, but
12:52
Speaker 1: I don't know how the jury is taking it. Joining me,
12:55
Speaker 1: Doctor Laura Pettler, forensic criminologists specializing instead murders and statement analysis,
13:02
Speaker 1: Doctor Peler, thank you for being with us. What do
13:04
Speaker 1: you make of the defendant knowing the exact moment to
13:10
Speaker 1: lie about Why couldn't he just told the cops, Hey,
13:14
Speaker 1: I just saw them. I was at the kennel. We
13:16
Speaker 1: were trying to video a friend's dog for the veterinarian
13:20
Speaker 1: and everything was fine, and then I left and I
13:23
Speaker 1: came back and they were dead. Now, how would anyone
13:26
Speaker 1: but the killer know that? That was the critical time interval?
13:30
Speaker 1: Those three minutes is when the murder occurred, right, And
13:34
Speaker 1: you know what, Nancy, With staged murders, it's very different
13:38
Speaker 1: than other types of murder in that if the murder
13:41
Speaker 1: is staged, it's basically telling us that there is a
13:44
Speaker 1: victim offender relationship. And when Alex Murdoch has decided to
13:49
Speaker 1: tell certain people certain things and then omit certain things.
13:53
Speaker 1: It's because it meets his needs, and it meets his
13:57
Speaker 1: needs at the time. But then I think at some
13:59
Speaker 1: point there's some cognitive overload where he begins to get
14:04
Speaker 1: fuzzy into everything he's lied about. So that's where you
14:06
Speaker 1: see that Crosby idea where he told Crosby one thing
14:10
Speaker 1: and then told somebody else something else. So it's all
14:14
Speaker 1: about meeting his needs and the victim offender relationship. You know,
14:18
Speaker 1: sent Tai, doctor Michelle. Do free if you don't mind,
14:21
Speaker 1: because I'm about to get into doctor Reamer, the state's
14:25
Speaker 1: medical examiner on the stand. Man, if looks could have
14:29
Speaker 1: killed Hartpootleian will be dead by now. Now. The word
14:32
Speaker 1: around the courthouse is that Hartpoolian's nickname is poot. But
14:36
Speaker 1: I'm going to stick with Hartpootlian for many many reasons.
14:39
Speaker 1: I'm coming right at you. Chris mcdonnah is with me.
14:44
Speaker 1: Chris mcdonnaugh is a veteran homicide detective, has handled well
14:48
Speaker 1: over three hundred cases and it's the star of the
14:51
Speaker 1: Interview Room. That's his channel on YouTube. Chris, Now, you
14:55
Speaker 1: know that Hartpootlian is a very very tricky character. He's
15:01
Speaker 1: a good trial lawyer. He did not let Crosbie go
15:06
Speaker 1: completely unscathed. Take a listen to our cut nine. And
15:10
Speaker 1: if you're implying that I would come in here and
15:12
Speaker 1: somehow shade truth in any way because of that, that's
15:18
Speaker 1: I would take high offense with that, mister Hartpoutlin. Earned
15:20
Speaker 1: about your high offense? Are you angry and for stealing
15:22
Speaker 1: your money? I have no feeling one way or the other.
15:25
Speaker 1: I have any feeling about Alec Burdock portraying you and
15:28
Speaker 1: stealing your money. You're I admire you. I don't know
15:33
Speaker 1: that I can book beyond that. I have had anger
15:36
Speaker 1: with him, extreme anger, mister Hartpoutlin, because of what he
15:39
Speaker 1: did to my law firm, what he did to his family,
15:44
Speaker 1: what he's did to so many people. But you can't
15:46
Speaker 1: walk around with anger. You have to find a way
15:49
Speaker 1: to deal with it and move forward. If you think
15:51
Speaker 1: I've come in here and told this jury something because
15:53
Speaker 1: of money, when we were talking about two people who
15:57
Speaker 1: were brutally murdered, then you're didn't wrong direction. Maybe you
16:01
Speaker 1: just saw some anger there were you angry? Just a
16:03
Speaker 1: moment ago I thought I knew who Elik was. I
16:06
Speaker 1: did not you know I've got a function, I've got
16:09
Speaker 1: a family. I got to move on with life. Wow.
16:11
Speaker 1: I would say at the end of Crosbie's testimony that
16:14
Speaker 1: he definitely got the best of hart Putleian. And yes,
16:19
Speaker 1: he got angry on the stand. Who wouldn't. But I
16:21
Speaker 1: found something he said, very very telling. He was on
16:25
Speaker 1: the stand and he said, I have a reputation of integrity.
16:30
Speaker 1: I wouldn't lie on the stand. It's what he's trying
16:33
Speaker 1: to say. And I guarantee you if hart Putleian had
16:36
Speaker 1: one sintilla of evidence to suggest that Crosbie was not
16:41
Speaker 1: of high integrity and did not have a good reputation,
16:45
Speaker 1: he would have paraded it right in front of the jury.
16:48
Speaker 1: Chris mcdonnah, what do you make of having your law
16:52
Speaker 1: partner come in and your brother, your brother who's supporting
16:56
Speaker 1: you by the way, and state that you lied about
17:00
Speaker 1: where you were at the time with the murders. You know,
17:03
Speaker 1: I thought it was a good move on the defense's
17:06
Speaker 1: part because obviously with that exchange, Nancy, we see that
17:12
Speaker 1: he put the not only you know Crosby under the microscope,
17:16
Speaker 1: but his integrity and the integrity of you know, the firm,
17:22
Speaker 1: and so Crosbie had to defend that and by putting
17:25
Speaker 1: John up there, Alex's brother. What struck me with John
17:32
Speaker 1: is his testimony was moving and he was acting very
17:37
Speaker 1: moving emotionally, and he was actually showing emotion. I would
17:42
Speaker 1: love to see that out of Alec in relationship to
17:46
Speaker 1: you know, real emotions. So one thought that I had
17:49
Speaker 1: there that may backfire if the jury had paid attention
17:53
Speaker 1: to that. Yeah, Heart, poor Lean is a courtroom veteran
17:57
Speaker 1: trial lawyer, and he really knows how to stop a
18:02
Speaker 1: witness in their tracks. But it did not work on Crosby. Christine.
18:08
Speaker 1: Could you please play our cut number eight. This is
18:12
Speaker 1: a tiny peak at Hartpoolian's m O, his modus operandi,
18:16
Speaker 1: his method of operation in a courtroom. Take a listen.
18:19
Speaker 1: You don't go around looking for hogs in the daytime
18:21
Speaker 1: because they're nocturnal. From the defendant, did you not or
18:24
Speaker 1: in familiar that that was what was said? Objection, your honor?
18:28
Speaker 1: If it's based on what he's heard or seeing, rule,
18:32
Speaker 1: you always want to be prepared to shoot them, so
18:35
Speaker 1: you would generally have some type of rifle and with
18:40
Speaker 1: you along gun Honor. He's giving an opinion, he's nothing
18:44
Speaker 1: qualified as an expert, and Jack rules that summer I
18:50
Speaker 1: received a call from his son in law. Barrett was
18:53
Speaker 1: in the Mayo clinic with stage four colon cancer. Jaxson
19:00
Speaker 1: was overruled. Barry had some waterfront lots efection your honor. Hearsay,
19:06
Speaker 1: all this material came from somebody else, good c Crosby,
19:14
Speaker 1: Ronnie Crosby, who was a lawyer himself, and hart Pullian
19:17
Speaker 1: would come out with some objection. You see him going,
19:20
Speaker 1: giving him the side eye because he knows that's not
19:23
Speaker 1: a valid objection. Hart Puollian doesn't care. I know exactly
19:27
Speaker 1: what he's doing. He's trying to break up this testimony
19:31
Speaker 1: of an incredible witness for the state, and he's doing it,
19:35
Speaker 1: by the way, but the judge is not showing any ire,
19:38
Speaker 1: at least in front of the jury. He just overrules
19:42
Speaker 1: all of Hartpoolian's objections and keeps going. You know that's
19:47
Speaker 1: I've got to admire him for at least trying Eric
19:51
Speaker 1: Bland to break up good testimony for the state. He's
19:55
Speaker 1: jumping up every couple of minutes, and the more he objects,
19:58
Speaker 1: that tells me the more he likes the testimony. Well,
20:01
Speaker 1: you know, you were once a great trial lawyer. I'm
20:05
Speaker 1: not a great trial lawyer. I'm just a trial lawyer.
20:07
Speaker 1: We know there's two ways of dealing with tests, that
20:11
Speaker 1: there's two ways of dealing with damaging testimony. Nancy, you
20:15
Speaker 1: can do what Harpuleian did, which is trying to interrupt
20:17
Speaker 1: the flow and break the rhythm, and then the jury
20:20
Speaker 1: can't focus on what's being said as opposed to just
20:24
Speaker 1: looking at the fighting. Or you just sit there and
20:26
Speaker 1: smile and you act like it's no big deal, and
20:29
Speaker 1: when it's your turn across examinate, you just say no
20:32
Speaker 1: further questions and the jury will say, well, that must
20:35
Speaker 1: not have been damaging testimony. What Ronnie Crosby was doing
20:38
Speaker 1: in that courtroom was extremely damaging to Alex Murtlet because
20:42
Speaker 1: he delivered the eulogy to Alex's son Paul. He has
20:47
Speaker 1: been his longest serving partner friend in that firm, and
20:51
Speaker 1: he's very close to the entire family. It was extremely damaging,
20:55
Speaker 1: and the jury did make a connection with Ronnie Crosby. Okay, guys,
21:00
Speaker 1: now we're going to get into doctor Michelle Dupree's Billywick.
21:05
Speaker 1: Doctor dupres is joining us here in South Carolina. Were
21:09
Speaker 1: camped outside the courthouse right now. She is a forensic pathologist.
21:14
Speaker 1: She is a medical examiner, a former detective, and author
21:18
Speaker 1: of Homicide Investigation Field Guide. And I imagine doctor Dupree,
21:23
Speaker 1: if you heard Demayo mentioned one more time, you're going
21:25
Speaker 1: to do a backflip. Because the defenses tried over and
21:29
Speaker 1: over and over to use that, as we call it,
21:32
Speaker 1: learned treatise regarding shotgun blasts and gunshot wound injuries and homicides.
21:40
Speaker 1: But you know what it's like going into a kitchen
21:43
Speaker 1: and not knowing the difference between the microwave and the
21:46
Speaker 1: oven and the dishwasher. You know you're in the right place,
21:49
Speaker 1: but then you don't know what to do because very
21:51
Speaker 1: often when he tried to throw that book in Rumour's face,
21:54
Speaker 1: she swatted him down like a fly swatter. Well, Nancy.
21:57
Speaker 1: Interestingly enough, I actually worked with and trained with doctor
22:01
Speaker 1: Demaya in San Antonio, and he is the father of
22:04
Speaker 1: modern pathology, a gunshot wound expert. He's renowned all over
22:08
Speaker 1: the world. That is the bible for us on gunshot wounds.
22:12
Speaker 1: I felt really badly for doctor Rhymer today Harputley and
22:16
Speaker 1: did everything he could to discredit her, but she is
22:19
Speaker 1: absolutely correct. There is no way that this could possibly
22:23
Speaker 1: be a contact shotgun wound to the head. One of
22:26
Speaker 1: the things that I think she's having a little trouble
22:29
Speaker 1: with is explaining what she means. And it's not just
22:32
Speaker 1: the grease that we're talking about. It is, I mean,
22:35
Speaker 1: something we call a doctor dupree. Can I just cut
22:38
Speaker 1: through it and asks if Paul had sustained And I'm
22:44
Speaker 1: certainly no expert like you are, but I do know this.
22:50
Speaker 1: If Paul Murdog had sustained a contact wound, which is
22:55
Speaker 1: touching your skin to the head with a shot gun,
23:00
Speaker 1: not a twenty two, but a shot gun, he wouldn't
23:05
Speaker 1: even have a head. That's just about right, Nancy. We
23:08
Speaker 1: have to remember that she said that the orbital bones,
23:11
Speaker 1: which are where the eyes are, they are so paper
23:13
Speaker 1: thin it's they're like parchment paper. They were not damaged.
23:17
Speaker 1: You know, There's just no way that this could possibly
23:20
Speaker 1: be a contact one. From the angle that she describes,
23:24
Speaker 1: it makes perfect sense. It was tangential. It basically severed
23:28
Speaker 1: the brain stem at the base of the neck. And
23:30
Speaker 1: I'll use a different word, but the brain popped out
23:34
Speaker 1: nearly intact. The brain is approximately two two and a
23:37
Speaker 1: half pounds. It's the consistency of sort of a firm pudding.
23:42
Speaker 1: It popped out nearly intact. A gunshot wound to the
23:46
Speaker 1: top of the head is not going to do that.
23:48
Speaker 1: That brain would be basically mush and like you said,
23:51
Speaker 1: the rest of the head would pretty much not be there.
23:54
Speaker 1: There's just no way this is a contact one. And
23:56
Speaker 1: really to drink everything. Okay, I think I hear blad
24:00
Speaker 1: hold on, Well, I wanted to clear something up. Actually,
24:02
Speaker 1: I just want you to say it again so that
24:05
Speaker 1: everybody like me that's not a medical examiner can understand
24:10
Speaker 1: what you're saying. You said something I think very probative
24:14
Speaker 1: or in other words, that proved something about the orbital
24:17
Speaker 1: bone around the eye, the orbit around the eye. You
24:21
Speaker 1: said that that bone is paper thin and that if
24:27
Speaker 1: he Palmer like have been shot contact wound to the
24:30
Speaker 1: head with a shotgun. Because we see plenty of suicides
24:33
Speaker 1: where people shoot themselves to say at twenty two or
24:36
Speaker 1: a lesser powered weapon than a shotgun, and their head
24:40
Speaker 1: is still there or at least part of it is.
24:42
Speaker 1: What were you saying about the orbital bone and the
24:45
Speaker 1: delicate nature of the orbital bone. How the orbital bones
24:49
Speaker 1: around the eye would react to a shotgun wound, a
24:52
Speaker 1: shotgun blast contact to the head, what would happen to
24:55
Speaker 1: those orbital bones. Now, see, they would be fractured in
24:58
Speaker 1: so many pieces that they may be even indistinguishable. They
25:01
Speaker 1: are so paper thin, they're like parchment paper. And again,
25:04
Speaker 1: it's not just the palates that are going to cause damage,
25:07
Speaker 1: but it's that temporary cavity. If you throw a pebble
25:10
Speaker 1: into a lake, the pebble is the bullet, but the
25:13
Speaker 1: waves that come out from that is a temporary cavity
25:16
Speaker 1: which are filled with energy which disrupts tissue. It can
25:19
Speaker 1: even it can disrupt and do a lot of damage.
25:21
Speaker 1: And there's just no way this could be a contact wound. Well, okay, guys,
25:25
Speaker 1: I want you to jump in. Yeah, I just say,
25:29
Speaker 1: doctor Dupris is explaining this way better than I believe.
25:33
Speaker 1: We got the explanation in there through no fault of anybody,
25:35
Speaker 1: But I think that both of the experts loud out
25:40
Speaker 1: here gave kind of a confusing, not very clear testimony
25:45
Speaker 1: on how they thought it happened. I wouldn't sure yesterday
25:48
Speaker 1: about the guy talking about was he in the feed
25:51
Speaker 1: room or was he not in the feed room? And
25:53
Speaker 1: today I was a little confused about exactly how she
25:56
Speaker 1: was to say how doctor dupri she broke it down perfectly,
25:59
Speaker 1: but I'm not sure they got the jury. Yeah, and
26:01
Speaker 1: Nancy from him, go ahead, This is Chris hey, you
26:07
Speaker 1: know thinking with doctor Dupree just kind of ducktail in
26:10
Speaker 1: her thought process. She's a thousand percent right because you
26:15
Speaker 1: now have to move the shooter into a contact position.
26:20
Speaker 1: Right if if if the shooters using a shotgun at
26:23
Speaker 1: the top of the head number one, that that means
26:27
Speaker 1: the victim has to be lower than that shotgun barrel
26:30
Speaker 1: ultimate barrel, and that that puts the shooter into that
26:35
Speaker 1: feed room even further the end, when that trigger is pulled,
26:41
Speaker 1: all of that matter is going to be going in
26:44
Speaker 1: a forward position where Paul's body ultimately ended up, so
26:49
Speaker 1: you would see it all out there, whereas where his
26:52
Speaker 1: positioning was in unfortunately his brain next to him. That
26:57
Speaker 1: is much more consistent to a doctor Rumor has been
27:01
Speaker 1: testifying and show doctor Dupri is one thousand percent correct
27:06
Speaker 1: in my opinion too. Doctor Laura Petler joining as criminologists
27:10
Speaker 1: and hosted the Murder Ram podcast. Laura what is the significance.
27:16
Speaker 1: Why are the lawyers fighting so rapidly in the courtroom
27:22
Speaker 1: to show that Paul was either shot in the head
27:27
Speaker 1: or through the arm and it went up. Why is
27:29
Speaker 1: that so important to them? Nancy, I think it's important
27:33
Speaker 1: to them because the state is positing that there was
27:37
Speaker 1: one shooter. The shooter was Alex Murda, and he used
27:40
Speaker 1: two firearms to kill first Paul and then Maggie. While
27:45
Speaker 1: in opposition, the defense is arguing that there could be
27:48
Speaker 1: two shooters and that if there were two shooters, it
27:52
Speaker 1: was impossible for one person to have done this without
27:57
Speaker 1: being covered in material, brain matter, blood skull and then
28:01
Speaker 1: turn around, grab another gun and shoot Maggie from a distance.
28:06
Speaker 1: And so it's really important for both sides to get
28:09
Speaker 1: their points across because they're arguing the two shooter theory
28:13
Speaker 1: versus the one shooter theory. But if the defense is saying, yes,
28:16
Speaker 1: they're okay, fine, there is one shooter, maybe there is one.
28:20
Speaker 1: But if that one was a person that shot Paul,
28:24
Speaker 1: shot Paul at a contact range, that person would not
28:27
Speaker 1: have had time to get cleaned up and would not
28:29
Speaker 1: have had time to do everything else, including Maggie. That
28:33
Speaker 1: the state has argued that Alex Murdoch had to do
28:37
Speaker 1: because they are really going to the mat on this.
28:39
Speaker 1: I want you to hear on cut ten and this
28:42
Speaker 1: is doctor Reamer on the stand trying to explain her point. Listen,
28:50
Speaker 1: can you please look at the images that you have
28:55
Speaker 1: and explain to the jury your conclusions and why that
28:59
Speaker 1: defense pathology is incorrect? Who didn't conduct the autopsy? To
29:02
Speaker 1: begin with, why he's incorrect. We have the abrasion on
29:07
Speaker 1: the left shoulder classical area, and then we have an
29:11
Speaker 1: entrance defect in this left side of the face. We
29:16
Speaker 1: can see a whole bit. It's a whole, and it
29:19
Speaker 1: was a defect in the left temporal lobe of the brain,
29:22
Speaker 1: which was included in my autopsy report. That could only
29:26
Speaker 1: have happened from that being an entrance went. I physically
29:30
Speaker 1: performed the autopsy, and the way I determine direction is
29:34
Speaker 1: I have a whole below the left ear which went
29:38
Speaker 1: into the brain, and so that's not going to happen
29:40
Speaker 1: in the autosite direction. And I understand that people can
29:43
Speaker 1: look at pictures does not that's like a two dimensional view.
29:48
Speaker 1: But doing the autopsy makes certain information available to the
29:53
Speaker 1: pathologist that is not available to an individual not performing
29:58
Speaker 1: the autopsy. And I have information in my report which
30:02
Speaker 1: was not from which was I guess overlooked. And also
30:10
Speaker 1: just a moment, Christine, I want to go to our
30:12
Speaker 1: cut eleven where doctor Reemer emphatically states that Paul Murdock's
30:17
Speaker 1: wound was not a contact wound to the head. You know,
30:21
Speaker 1: I want to ask you this to doctor Michelle Dupree,
30:25
Speaker 1: she confirmed over and over, she re emphasized over and
30:30
Speaker 1: over that she performed the autopsy, not the defense expert,
30:34
Speaker 1: that she saw the body, that she took the measurements,
30:38
Speaker 1: not the defense expert, the defense medical examiner, who I
30:44
Speaker 1: agree is an expert. You get a lot of murders
30:47
Speaker 1: in the inner city Atlanta, but he was judging everything
30:51
Speaker 1: off of photos that she had taken, not seeing the body.
30:54
Speaker 1: That makes a big difference in my mind. That's right, Nancy,
30:57
Speaker 1: because one of the ways that we determined traject is
31:00
Speaker 1: we follow that bullet path. And if there's an injury
31:03
Speaker 1: in the left temporal low, which is about the middle
31:06
Speaker 1: of your brain, then the only way that that injury
31:09
Speaker 1: can get there is if the trajectory is from the left.
31:13
Speaker 1: As long as there's not another wound on the right,
31:15
Speaker 1: and she did not describe that, so obviously it entered
31:19
Speaker 1: on the left again. No way that there could be
31:22
Speaker 1: something any different. Also, you have to remember there were
31:26
Speaker 1: pallet defects up on the door again going left to right.
31:31
Speaker 1: No way that those palets are going to bounce backwards.
31:34
Speaker 1: That's really important because Eric Bland, we cannot approach the
31:39
Speaker 1: knowledge that the medical examiners have regarding the autopsy of
31:43
Speaker 1: the bodies. But something we can understand we can wrap
31:46
Speaker 1: our minds around, is exactly what doctor Dupree just said,
31:50
Speaker 1: the pellet defects on the door. That makes sense to
31:54
Speaker 1: me where those defects were in relation to that gunshot.
31:59
Speaker 1: You just used your common sense, and that is what
32:02
Speaker 1: the jury is going to have to do because they
32:04
Speaker 1: have twenty four years and twenty four eyes. Look, what
32:07
Speaker 1: these pathologists do is not so much a science as
32:11
Speaker 1: an art. It's developed over time. Doctor Riemer has done
32:16
Speaker 1: five thousand autopsies, so she has her own methodology that
32:21
Speaker 1: may be different from another pathologist. Like she said, it
32:25
Speaker 1: doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it wrong. As
32:28
Speaker 1: long as my methodology gets to a conclusion. That's scientifically
32:32
Speaker 1: and medically based. But you just used your common sense.
32:36
Speaker 1: There's not doctors on that jury. They're going to use
32:38
Speaker 1: their common sense. And I think what doctor Reemer testified
32:41
Speaker 1: to was a common sense trajectory of what happens after
32:46
Speaker 1: a bullet and gas or discharge, along with packing material
32:50
Speaker 1: to a shell. Now material is important, explain. I agree.
32:55
Speaker 1: So the packing material is important because again, it comes
32:59
Speaker 1: only when the projectile is entering the body. The packing
33:03
Speaker 1: material is not on the exit side of anyone. You're
33:07
Speaker 1: talking about the wadding that's used and shotgun, yes, and
33:10
Speaker 1: the packing material that's around it, so you would only
33:13
Speaker 1: see that on the entry wound, correct, exactly. You know what?
33:20
Speaker 1: We could just break it down like that for the jury. Guys,
33:24
Speaker 1: I want you to hear the state's medical examiner sparring
33:28
Speaker 1: with Hart Putley. You decide who won in our cut twelve.
33:33
Speaker 1: I don't see how you know your Yes, it's a
33:36
Speaker 1: respected treatise, but this is specific to a contact shotgun
33:43
Speaker 1: to happy this is what this is describing. Really well,
33:47
Speaker 1: it's fun, you know, it doesn't matter. I can look
33:50
Speaker 1: at my photos. I can look at if you're going
33:52
Speaker 1: to talk about theory, the photos you're asking the court,
33:57
Speaker 1: the instructor to answer the questions specifically. She can, she's
34:02
Speaker 1: she goes off on tangents and I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
34:08
Speaker 1: You may continue answering the question. You remember what the
34:12
Speaker 1: question was. No, that's your question. Is this series of
34:17
Speaker 1: shots from the book depicting a contact wound? I think
34:23
Speaker 1: that's what I under Yes, I don't give theoretical talks
34:27
Speaker 1: or you know, I don't start looking up in this
34:30
Speaker 1: book while I'm doing an autopsy, used my practical reasoning
34:33
Speaker 1: and my experience and knowledge a feat if there had
34:36
Speaker 1: been gas in the wound, or when it hit his
34:39
Speaker 1: shoulder or his neck, would you expect to find some
34:42
Speaker 1: physical manifestation of that, well, they would have been you know,
34:45
Speaker 1: a lot more expansion, shoulder expansion. This was fairly contained
35:06
Speaker 1: crime stories with Nancy Grace. I don't see how you
35:12
Speaker 1: know your Yes, it's a respected treatise, but this is
35:16
Speaker 1: is um specific to a contact shotgunound to happen. This
35:21
Speaker 1: is what this is describing. Really well, it's fun, you know,
35:26
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. I can look at my photos. I
35:29
Speaker 1: can look if you're going to talk about theory the
35:31
Speaker 1: photos you're I'm asking the court to instruct her to
35:36
Speaker 1: answer the question as specifically she can. She she goes
35:40
Speaker 1: off on tangents and I'm sorry, I'm sorry, you may
35:45
Speaker 1: continue answering the question. You remember what the question was. No,
35:51
Speaker 1: that's your question. Is this series of shots from the
35:55
Speaker 1: book depicting a contact one. I think that's what I'm Yes.
36:02
Speaker 1: I don't get theoretical talks or you know, I don't
36:06
Speaker 1: start looking up in this book while I'm doing in
36:08
Speaker 1: our touchday. I used my practical reasoning and experience and
36:12
Speaker 1: knowledge affect. If there had been gas in the wound,
36:15
Speaker 1: or when it hit his shoulder or his neck, would
36:18
Speaker 1: you expect to find some physical manifestation of that, well,
36:21
Speaker 1: they would have become, you know, a lot more expansion,
36:25
Speaker 1: shoulder expansion. This was fairly contained. Okay, well, I've got
36:31
Speaker 1: to tell you this. Bland Eric Bland joined me, high
36:34
Speaker 1: profile lawyer connected to the glorious Saderfield case. The last
36:38
Speaker 1: thing I want is a doctor performing surgery on me.
36:42
Speaker 1: That's go look up, look it up in a book.
36:45
Speaker 1: In the middle of the surgery in oh, and I
36:49
Speaker 1: love the way Ramba said. No, I didn't go look
36:52
Speaker 1: it up in a book. Look up a picture, I
36:55
Speaker 1: could look at it and tell what it was. Right,
36:57
Speaker 1: I learned trees and doctor treatise doctor and um Nancy
37:01
Speaker 1: is if a expert is going to make an opinion
37:04
Speaker 1: based on it. Dick was trying to use it as
37:07
Speaker 1: a weapon against her, that she should have utilized the
37:12
Speaker 1: methodology and that treatise. She said, yes, it's an expert,
37:15
Speaker 1: but I didn't use that methodology because my photos showed
37:19
Speaker 1: it wasn't a contact wound. It was an upward wound
37:24
Speaker 1: that had a totally different conclusion that had to be reached.
37:28
Speaker 1: She was perfectly within her right as an expert to
37:32
Speaker 1: state her opinion, and she believes in it, and it's
37:35
Speaker 1: going to be a question whether the jury thinks she's right. Well,
37:38
Speaker 1: and sure, Eric's a spot on, yeah, but Eric spot
37:45
Speaker 1: on of course. And I think the question is there's
37:48
Speaker 1: also besides just the science, there's the emotion and the
37:51
Speaker 1: feelings that people have when they're watching this. And Harpulian
37:56
Speaker 1: going after the doctor like that who comes across it's
37:58
Speaker 1: very likable, even though he's depending client could backfire on him,
38:03
Speaker 1: not based on any science or anything like that, just
38:05
Speaker 1: because hey, why are you picking on this doctor? I like, Well,
38:08
Speaker 1: another thing that I noticed in the courtroom, and this
38:12
Speaker 1: is something you never want to do. Hartpootlian, as he
38:17
Speaker 1: was questioning doctor Reemer on cross examination, he had a
38:21
Speaker 1: huge stick in his hand. It's a really tall pointer
38:26
Speaker 1: stick and almost resembles acoustic a pull stick. And at
38:33
Speaker 1: a certain point he was arguing the state was arguing
38:37
Speaker 1: about his question. She doctor Reemer was sitting there and
38:41
Speaker 1: he was pointing at her and doing the stick up
38:44
Speaker 1: and down at her, and she stood there. She never
38:50
Speaker 1: flinched or stepped back or anything. But I didn't really
38:53
Speaker 1: like that at all. I did not think it was
38:55
Speaker 1: a very good optic for Hartpootlian, Nor do I think
38:59
Speaker 1: it's a good optic to beat up on a lady witness,
39:04
Speaker 1: especially she's a very learned, scholarly doctor. At least that's
39:10
Speaker 1: the way I took her. And beating up on her
39:15
Speaker 1: that way, I don't think it did him any favors.
39:19
Speaker 1: I mean, Chris mcdonnaugh, you're a veteran homicide detective. You've
39:22
Speaker 1: been in many many courtrooms. If you're going to try
39:26
Speaker 1: to bully a witness, it could very well backfire on you.
39:30
Speaker 1: I tried to never come down on a witness unless
39:33
Speaker 1: I had caught them in a lie and then all
39:37
Speaker 1: h double l breaks. Lease, But to pick on a
39:41
Speaker 1: lady witness this way, I don't think that did any
39:44
Speaker 1: many favors. I agree with you, Nancy. And have you
39:46
Speaker 1: ever seen in all of your years in the courtroom
39:51
Speaker 1: a defense attorney, you know, as esteemed as he is,
39:56
Speaker 1: walk in between the expert witness and the state during
40:01
Speaker 1: their expert testimony so many times? I mean he was
40:06
Speaker 1: walking in the well as if he was, you know,
40:09
Speaker 1: checking his steps. I'd never seen that in my career
40:15
Speaker 1: with somebody who is trying to basically, and my feeling
40:21
Speaker 1: was he's just trying to distract the jury even further
40:24
Speaker 1: and further away from this expert witness. I had you
40:28
Speaker 1: ever seen it? Yeah, Chris mcdonna, I can't believe it.
40:33
Speaker 1: I thought it was the only that I was the
40:34
Speaker 1: only one that noticed that, because I was thinking, if
40:37
Speaker 1: Hartputley it had been on my back like he was
40:40
Speaker 1: on the district Journey's back during all of this cross exam,
40:44
Speaker 1: I would have had to have the judges struck him
40:46
Speaker 1: to sit down. He just wandered. Hartputley wandered all across
40:50
Speaker 1: the coroom. I thought he was lost, But finally he
40:53
Speaker 1: would go in between, as you said, the prosecutor and
40:56
Speaker 1: the witness during the questioning. See I could speak to that,
41:02
Speaker 1: speak to that. I know what he was doing. He
41:05
Speaker 1: was injecting himself to the questioning and trying to destroy
41:10
Speaker 1: the jury. What go ahead, Eric. He gave a two
41:12
Speaker 1: thousand and thirteen interview where he explained his trial technique
41:16
Speaker 1: and he said he likes to walk around the courtroom
41:19
Speaker 1: and walk through witness testimony to have the jury divert.
41:24
Speaker 1: He likes to lay smoke fires all over the courtroom
41:28
Speaker 1: so that the jury ends up being confused looking at
41:32
Speaker 1: him and not listening to the testimony. This pathologist was perfect.
41:36
Speaker 1: She was quirky. You could see her being alone in
41:39
Speaker 1: a lab where she likes it. She came across as believable.
41:43
Speaker 1: She was wearing white, perfect witness for the state. There
41:48
Speaker 1: were times after I tried so many cases, I actually
41:51
Speaker 1: enjoyed going to the library and being alone and researching
41:55
Speaker 1: and get my facts, am I law together? So you
41:58
Speaker 1: know that's what you want out of a medical examiner.
42:02
Speaker 1: You want someone that is learned. You want them to
42:06
Speaker 1: have a lot of experience, having had done a lot
42:09
Speaker 1: of autopsies, and to be articulate and convincing, and I
42:13
Speaker 1: found her to be all of those. Was that you
42:15
Speaker 1: Chris mcdonnah jumping in or was that Matt Harris? That
42:19
Speaker 1: was me, Nancy. I'm sorry, I apologize for stepping over you.
42:23
Speaker 1: I was going to say, you know, with Crosby's testimony
42:28
Speaker 1: about the theatrics of Alec and his father, I'm hoping
42:33
Speaker 1: that the jury looks at Harpoolian's theatrics and ties those
42:38
Speaker 1: two together because that will, in my opinion, really not
42:43
Speaker 1: play out well for Alex Alec in the long run.
42:46
Speaker 1: Well yeah, yeah, I was gonna say that. You know,
42:52
Speaker 1: theatrics are one thing, but when you perceive an old
42:56
Speaker 1: guy beating up on an educated woman and you, let's
43:02
Speaker 1: say we have a draw between the two experts. If
43:06
Speaker 1: you don't like that attorney and what's happening there, the
43:08
Speaker 1: edge goes to them, right, I mean, there's more than
43:10
Speaker 1: just science and what is going on in these jurors heads, guys,
43:13
Speaker 1: there are so many child tactics at work here. I'm
43:16
Speaker 1: just sitting back in amazement. But you know, Chris mcdonah
43:20
Speaker 1: had it right. It was getting on my last nerve
43:24
Speaker 1: seeing Hart Pootley and basically five inches behind the prosecutor
43:29
Speaker 1: as the prosecutor was trying to cross examine. I was
43:31
Speaker 1: very surprised that prosecutor did not ask for him to
43:35
Speaker 1: sit down or go where the other spectators were if
43:38
Speaker 1: he wanted to see the exhibits. But that said, it's
43:41
Speaker 1: water under the damn it can't be helped. Now, that's
43:44
Speaker 1: what happened with doctor Reemer. But we're forgetting another witness
43:48
Speaker 1: that I really liked. Take a listen to our cut thirteen.
43:52
Speaker 1: Do you know the defendant alt Murdoch? Yes? I do.
43:55
Speaker 1: Have you known him for years? Oh? Yeah, all right.
43:59
Speaker 1: Did you ever have a conversation with Alec Murdoch about
44:03
Speaker 1: him asking you permission or even telling you about installing
44:08
Speaker 1: blue lights in his private Then no, sir, I never
44:14
Speaker 1: had a conversation with Elic Murdoch. Matter of fact, I
44:19
Speaker 1: never had a conversation with anyone in my thirty nine
44:22
Speaker 1: years about an installing blue lights in that personal vehicle.
44:26
Speaker 1: Did you know anything about the defendant claiming that you
44:29
Speaker 1: permitted him to do so until he testified to that
44:33
Speaker 1: last week? Correct, didn't know anything about it and anything
44:36
Speaker 1: about it. Okay, you are hearing a witness that I
44:39
Speaker 1: thought to be very, very believable, and it was my
44:42
Speaker 1: understanding that this had been the elected sheriff. His name
44:46
Speaker 1: is Thomas Smalls. I'm looking back in my notes. He
44:49
Speaker 1: goes by TC Sheriff Smalls was with law enforcement for
44:54
Speaker 1: thirty nine years and eight months and he just retired
45:00
Speaker 1: December thirty one, twenty two. Now this all goes back
45:05
Speaker 1: all the way to Alex Murdog and his blue light special.
45:10
Speaker 1: Remember how we have the photo of Christine. You have
45:13
Speaker 1: that photo of Alex Murdog trying to badge his way
45:15
Speaker 1: into the hospital to influence witnesses after the boat crash.
45:19
Speaker 1: We heard from his own testimony he would use his
45:23
Speaker 1: badge whenever there you go, whenever it was convenient to him,
45:27
Speaker 1: and when he wanted a quote, his words, not mine,
45:29
Speaker 1: warmer reception by sheriff's or police. Then we found out
45:35
Speaker 1: that he had a blue light installed in his car,
45:40
Speaker 1: and he said that this witness TC Small. The sheriff
45:45
Speaker 1: gave him permission and said it was all right, and
45:48
Speaker 1: so the state produces TC. Small. He said, I never
45:52
Speaker 1: had that conversation about a blue light never Well, the
45:57
Speaker 1: defense tried their best to discredit that by name, I mean,
46:00
Speaker 1: well do you know this guy and that guy and
46:02
Speaker 1: this guy that guy I guess, to suggest that maybe
46:05
Speaker 1: they had authorized it, but almost everyone was shot down
46:09
Speaker 1: by TC Smalls. And what this does, in my opinion,
46:12
Speaker 1: Matt Harris is showing Murdoch lies about things great and small.
46:17
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I mean it's just a matter of just
46:19
Speaker 1: like little pin here, a little pin there, a little
46:21
Speaker 1: pin there, till this big lie balloon pops and when
46:26
Speaker 1: you it was a very short testimony, right and straight
46:29
Speaker 1: to the point, no confusion about it, just simply he
46:32
Speaker 1: didn't tell him to put the lights on. He was
46:34
Speaker 1: a sheriff. And when the other guy he listed, Alec
46:38
Speaker 1: that said gave him the okay was a guy who
46:40
Speaker 1: got thrown off the force for drugs and just some
46:43
Speaker 1: bestic abuse, and so he was they'll never find him again.
46:46
Speaker 1: So yeah, it's just a one lie after another in lies.
46:49
Speaker 1: When you are a you know, social sociopath or whatever
46:53
Speaker 1: you want to call it, a liar, a liar, a liar,
46:54
Speaker 1: you lie about like silly things you don't need to
46:56
Speaker 1: lie about. Nancy, Nancy. It goes beyond just he's lying.
47:05
Speaker 1: Lord Abbott said power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,
47:09
Speaker 1: and this man has shown that he uses and abuses
47:14
Speaker 1: whatever power he has. And I have firsthand knowledge that
47:18
Speaker 1: he took that badge and walked into an eye hoop
47:20
Speaker 1: and flashed it to a hostess to get a table.
47:24
Speaker 1: So this is the kind of man we have, you know.
47:26
Speaker 1: Maya Angelo says, if somebody shows you who they are,
47:30
Speaker 1: believe it. Alex has shown us who he is throughout
47:33
Speaker 1: this trial and through when you hear credible witnesses like
47:36
Speaker 1: this sheriff, Doctor Petler, I find that personally offensive, having
47:40
Speaker 1: been law enforcement for most of my practicing legal career,
47:46
Speaker 1: that this guy gets a blue light in his car
47:49
Speaker 1: with what uses it when he wants to rush to
47:52
Speaker 1: the waffle house or using his badge? I mean that
47:56
Speaker 1: is it would make more sense. What stop it? Nancy,
48:00
Speaker 1: come on, what about it? Petler? I find that very offensive.
48:05
Speaker 1: I think it's offensive as well. I like you, come
48:08
Speaker 1: from the DA's office in my earlier piece of my career,
48:12
Speaker 1: and we did not have blue lights, as I was
48:15
Speaker 1: a DA's investigator, and none of the DA's in our
48:18
Speaker 1: office had blue lights. Either, so, yeah, it's extremely offensive.
48:23
Speaker 1: The one thing we always have to remember about Alex Murdo,
48:26
Speaker 1: in my opinion, is that he's a very intelligent person,
48:30
Speaker 1: but he also has a pathology that Trump's is intelligence
48:33
Speaker 1: almost every time, and this time he's fallen short and
48:37
Speaker 1: being able to cover everything up. He's a master at it,
48:41
Speaker 1: and quite frankly, I'm sure there's a lot of people
48:44
Speaker 1: who feel like there's many, many things he's done that
48:47
Speaker 1: are extremely offensive, including the blue light to all people
48:51
Speaker 1: that are in law enforcement and rightfully have a blue light,
48:54
Speaker 1: you know, for the right purpose and not a manipulative purpose.
48:59
Speaker 1: Matthew the interview room, having been a homicide detective for
49:06
Speaker 1: so many years, what do you make of someone that
49:10
Speaker 1: misuses their badge and actually has a blue light installed
49:15
Speaker 1: in their car as far as I'm concerned as impersonating
49:17
Speaker 1: an officer, absolutely, absolutely, Nancy, one thousand percent. And in fact,
49:25
Speaker 1: one of the other considerations that folks need to recognize here,
49:30
Speaker 1: it's not only you know, stolen valor, it is this
49:34
Speaker 1: fact that that is a very dangerous thing to do
49:37
Speaker 1: because it puts them above the law just by flaunting
49:42
Speaker 1: it into the public arena. Imagine the things we don't
49:47
Speaker 1: know about that he did with those blue lights and
49:50
Speaker 1: that badge. We used to we had a saying in
49:54
Speaker 1: law enforcement, do not wear your badge on your T
49:57
Speaker 1: shirt ie when you're gone, when you go home, go home.
50:01
Speaker 1: But when you wear it, you were proud and you
50:04
Speaker 1: wear within the bones of the constitution exactly, you know,
50:10
Speaker 1: Matt Harris, take go ahead. We were not allowed to
50:14
Speaker 1: take gifts or special treatment if we had a badge,
50:18
Speaker 1: and like you had just said, you don't wear it
50:21
Speaker 1: or use it when you're not particularly on duty, you know.
50:24
Speaker 1: Matt Harris, formerly w s OC and now star of
50:28
Speaker 1: the Murderich Family Murders. Impact of influence, Matt, it's bigger
50:34
Speaker 1: than the badge. It's bigger the misuse of the badge. Correctly,
50:39
Speaker 1: it's bigger than getting a blue light. It's about posing.
50:45
Speaker 1: It's about being what at projecting whatever you think you
50:51
Speaker 1: have to project in order to get what you want,
50:54
Speaker 1: whether it's true or not, To say whatever you have
50:59
Speaker 1: to say, to do whatever you have to do, whether
51:01
Speaker 1: it's right or wrong, to get what you want, whether
51:05
Speaker 1: it's fake badging a nurse at the hospital or putting
51:09
Speaker 1: on your blue light when you're in a personal hurry,
51:12
Speaker 1: or lying to police or changing clothes or lying to
51:15
Speaker 1: Maggie about the peels or the affair or whatever, lying
51:20
Speaker 1: lying your way to the point where you're trying to go.
51:24
Speaker 1: And that's what I think we see here, right. And
51:27
Speaker 1: we went with that title impact of influence when little
51:30
Speaker 1: do we know how true that was going to be
51:32
Speaker 1: and how it's going to be part of the prosecution
51:35
Speaker 1: cases that think they're going to say, listen, this guy
51:38
Speaker 1: enjoyed those perks. It's not just about being uncovered for
51:41
Speaker 1: the money. This guy lived that life, loved that light,
51:45
Speaker 1: and he saw it slipping away. Not necessarily even necessarily
51:48
Speaker 1: being backed up against money, that's one thing, but being
51:51
Speaker 1: unable to get the good seat of the eye hoop,
51:53
Speaker 1: to be able to go to your USC games and
51:56
Speaker 1: be the king of the ball, to be able to
51:58
Speaker 1: walk through town and be Alick Murdoch. That was his
52:01
Speaker 1: identity and that's what he was going to lose. And
52:05
Speaker 1: that is I think a big part of the States.
52:08
Speaker 1: If you want to use motive. I know they don't
52:09
Speaker 1: have to have it, but that's what they're gonna pitch,
52:12
Speaker 1: you know. Eric Bland joining me here in South Carolina,
52:16
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna throw this to you as well, Doctor Dupree.
52:19
Speaker 1: Yesterday on the lunch break, when I finished talking to
52:23
Speaker 1: all of you, I walked for an hour around town
52:29
Speaker 1: here in Coleton County and met people, and the breeze
52:35
Speaker 1: was blowing. It was a beautiful weather. I didn't meet
52:39
Speaker 1: a single soul that wasn't friendly and welcoming kind. And
52:45
Speaker 1: I just wonder Eric if he has any idea what
52:51
Speaker 1: he is giving up, through all the pills, through the murders,
52:56
Speaker 1: through the decision in one moment according to the state,
53:02
Speaker 1: to take the lives of Maggie and Paul, and for
53:05
Speaker 1: what he's just given up so much if in fact
53:08
Speaker 1: the jury finds him guilty, yeah, it is confounding. But
53:13
Speaker 1: you know, you're a rational person, and you're trying to
53:16
Speaker 1: get in the mind of an irrational person, somebody who
53:20
Speaker 1: had a problem and engaged in problem solving. And sometimes
53:24
Speaker 1: the way people who are in a manic state or
53:28
Speaker 1: a paranoid state, or a state that they think they're desperate,
53:32
Speaker 1: they choose to solve a problem in a way that
53:34
Speaker 1: would make a normal person like Nancy Grace say, why
53:37
Speaker 1: would you ever do that? So I don't think you
53:40
Speaker 1: can ascribe your notion of rational behavior or what you're
53:44
Speaker 1: giving up and trying to impart that on Alex Myrtle,
53:47
Speaker 1: it's a fool's errand Nancy, Well think you're right, and
53:50
Speaker 1: doctor Dupray. When you think about it, this guy had everything.
53:54
Speaker 1: He's got, this beautiful wife, two sons. I think blast Cow.
53:59
Speaker 1: I think they had three homes. I mean, his thriving
54:03
Speaker 1: practice with law partners that considered him a brother. I mean,
54:08
Speaker 1: what more could the man want? Nancy, I think he
54:11
Speaker 1: did actually realize what he would be giving up if
54:14
Speaker 1: he were caught, if all of this came to light,
54:17
Speaker 1: which fortunately it actually did. But at the time, I
54:20
Speaker 1: think that was part of his motive. I think he
54:23
Speaker 1: didn't want to give up this prestige, this genteel picture
54:27
Speaker 1: of the Old South and the legacy that he had,
54:30
Speaker 1: and I think that was part of the motive for
54:32
Speaker 1: trying to cover up his crimes and for doing exactly
54:35
Speaker 1: what he's done. Definitely a reason for the cover up.
54:37
Speaker 1: You know, Matt Harris, the star of the Murderid Family
54:41
Speaker 1: Murderers Impact of Influence podcast, If you could put it
54:46
Speaker 1: in a nutshell, Matt, what would you say was his
54:50
Speaker 1: motive for murder. I would say the motive was seeing
54:55
Speaker 1: the life, the image, everything that was as identity was.
55:01
Speaker 1: I'm Elec Murdoch, of one of the murdocks a hundred
55:04
Speaker 1: one hundred years in this powerful position. I've made this
55:08
Speaker 1: name for myself because I'm piggybacking on all the other
55:11
Speaker 1: murdocks ahead of me. I've got these houses, i got
55:13
Speaker 1: these boats. Nobody can stop me. No one has called
55:16
Speaker 1: me on in the lie. Ever, that would be the motive.
55:19
Speaker 1: It's about to get crumbling down and he will not
55:22
Speaker 1: be the big man on campus anymore, and that scared
55:25
Speaker 1: to be. How does killing Maggie and Taul translate into
55:30
Speaker 1: that motive? I mean they were part of the murder.
55:38
Speaker 1: Is delaying the inevitable? Yepancy, Okay, doctor Laura. Up, doctor Laura.
55:50
Speaker 1: What is your motive not for the cover up, but
55:52
Speaker 1: for the murders. It's very it's very different, as you're stating,
55:57
Speaker 1: the murder is different than the cover up, and the
56:00
Speaker 1: motive for murder for me is, first of all, the
56:03
Speaker 1: number one rule about murder is murder is typically simple.
56:07
Speaker 1: And in this case, I think that we see the
56:09
Speaker 1: rise in the escalation of Alex's life falling apart. But
56:13
Speaker 1: I think he told us what this was about at
56:15
Speaker 1: the very onset of the nine one one call. When
56:18
Speaker 1: he mentioned the boat case on the nine one one call,
56:21
Speaker 1: that was not something that was necessary to get help
56:24
Speaker 1: for Maggie and for Paul, it was just a piece
56:27
Speaker 1: of information that he was offering. And then when the
56:30
Speaker 1: police arrived, he offered that same piece of information and
56:34
Speaker 1: said that this is about the boat case. And so
56:36
Speaker 1: for me it was always about that because when statement analysis,
56:40
Speaker 1: we listened to what the word choices and how the
56:43
Speaker 1: sentences are structured, and their tone and their idiolect. And
56:46
Speaker 1: he's told us what this was about Paul. And then
56:49
Speaker 1: for Maggie, you know from the very beginning when this happened,
56:53
Speaker 1: And somebody called me back in twenty twenty one and said,
56:56
Speaker 1: you know, why do you think this happened? To me?
56:58
Speaker 1: It was like all cost him so much money, and
57:01
Speaker 1: we know that money and Prestigi is the most important
57:04
Speaker 1: things to Alex Murdoch. So for Paul to be creating
57:07
Speaker 1: all of these problems for him, it created preceding conflict
57:11
Speaker 1: between them. No matter what he says, there was preceding conflict.
57:14
Speaker 1: We know that fruit through Mark Tinsley's testimony and then
57:17
Speaker 1: with Maggie. Did she protect Paul or did she try
57:20
Speaker 1: to smooth things over between Alex and Paul. We don't know.
57:23
Speaker 1: But for me as a staged staged murder expert, he
57:27
Speaker 1: is charting on all of our metrics at LPA for
57:32
Speaker 1: numerous staged behavioral patterns in this case, on numerous points
57:38
Speaker 1: and planes. So I don't just say that I think
57:42
Speaker 1: I know that Alex Murtle has something to do with
57:45
Speaker 1: these murders or is the shooter himself. I'm saying that
57:48
Speaker 1: because based on our metrics, he is charting that he is. Nancy,
57:51
Speaker 1: I have a question. A go ahead, Nancy, Can I
57:56
Speaker 1: ask you a question, your prosecutor? Are you going to
57:59
Speaker 1: ask for a lesser included charge on voluntary manslaughter because
58:03
Speaker 1: he testified I did not intentionally shoot Maggie or Paul.
58:09
Speaker 1: What are you going to do as a prosecutor in
58:11
Speaker 1: this case? Well, in the past, in many cases I
58:15
Speaker 1: was okay with the defense request for a lesser because
58:20
Speaker 1: if a lesser included offense such as volunteer, even involuntary,
58:24
Speaker 1: can be construed from the facts, it is reversible error,
58:29
Speaker 1: not for the judge to allow those charges. But in
58:33
Speaker 1: this case, I would go for broke. I think this
58:37
Speaker 1: is an intentional murder and nothing less. It's double murder.
58:43
Speaker 1: If the defense asked for those there's really no way
58:45
Speaker 1: to stop it because it could be made out in
58:47
Speaker 1: the facts and that would be reversible error. So really
58:50
Speaker 1: should not object to that. Guys, we're about to find
58:54
Speaker 1: out what this tempest is regarding a gerar. Are we
58:58
Speaker 1: about to lose another gurar because of misconduct? We'll find out.
59:03
Speaker 1: I'm going straight back in the courthouse, and I want
59:05
Speaker 1: to thank all of my guests and especially you for
59:08
Speaker 1: being with us here at Fox Nation in series M
59:11
Speaker 1: one eleven. I'll see you in the courtroom. Goodbye, friend,