Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / Alex Murdaugh to Take the Stand?

Transcript

Alex Murdaugh to Take the Stand? · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

0:05
Speaker 1: Crime stories with Nancy Greece. The jury is on their
0:13
Speaker 1: lunch break and we're going to try to bring you
0:15
Speaker 1: up today with everything that has happened since we talked.
0:18
Speaker 1: Last testimony coming in from the witness stand, and we
0:22
Speaker 1: all know the defense is not required to prove a thing.
0:26
Speaker 1: The entire burden is on the state. I've seen defendants
0:30
Speaker 1: that put absolutely nothing up as a defense, and sometimes
0:35
Speaker 1: they've won. One reason some defendis hues not to put
0:40
Speaker 1: up any evidence at all is because in many jurisdictions,
0:44
Speaker 1: if the defendant puts up nothing except for the defensis
0:47
Speaker 1: own testimony, or nothing at all, they reserve the right
0:51
Speaker 1: to a final closing argument. What's the defense puts in
0:55
Speaker 1: any evidence? Then they lose a final closing argument. In
1:01
Speaker 1: many jurisdictions, you will very likely see the state give
1:05
Speaker 1: a closing argument, the defense give a closing argument, and
1:09
Speaker 1: the state have a final closing argument. We'll see how
1:13
Speaker 1: that shakes out. But while everybody is hustling out of
1:16
Speaker 1: the courthouse and to their seats, I want you to
1:19
Speaker 1: see something that you may have missed. I want you
1:22
Speaker 1: to take a listen at what heartpooling in The lead
1:26
Speaker 1: defense attorney said, in court. Take a listen. I'm not
1:30
Speaker 1: five ft two or five foot four. I think you
1:33
Speaker 1: should five four, but position me tempting, But I don't
1:44
Speaker 1: know how I can do this, so I'm not pointing
1:46
Speaker 1: at somebody. There you see the lead defense attorney pointing
1:50
Speaker 1: the gun at States Council a prosecutor and say tempting.
1:57
Speaker 1: He I didn't think it's very funny, but I did
2:01
Speaker 1: guess it did give a comedic break for a moment,
2:06
Speaker 1: you know, to Chris Painting joining us from New York
2:11
Speaker 1: forensic firearms consultant for the Stria Consulting Group and president
2:17
Speaker 1: of Stockwell Consulting, former NYPD, that's not easy, Chris, thank
2:22
Speaker 1: you for being with us. You know whatever, I would
2:24
Speaker 1: handle a gun in front of a jury, I would
2:28
Speaker 1: go to great pains to open the barrel, check it
2:30
Speaker 1: out in front of the jury, shoved the barrel back
2:33
Speaker 1: where it's supposed to be, and then hand it over
2:37
Speaker 1: to the witness. So the jury was never in any
2:42
Speaker 1: fear that there was even a bullet in that gun.
2:45
Speaker 1: So I find it really odd that you got one
2:48
Speaker 1: of the lawyers actually pointing the gun in the court. Yes, Nancy,
2:52
Speaker 1: it's a little bit odd to point the weapon at people.
2:55
Speaker 1: And I agree with you, it should be made safe.
2:57
Speaker 1: It should be shown that Liz safe, pulling the slot
3:00
Speaker 1: the rear, locking into the rear, and visually and physically
3:03
Speaker 1: inspecting the weapon before you'd make any demonstration. And that
3:06
Speaker 1: being said, you still wouldn't point the weapon at anybody,
3:10
Speaker 1: preferably at the ground, and treat all the weapons as
3:13
Speaker 1: if they're loaded. Yeah, I mean't look in the chamber
3:15
Speaker 1: when I said barrel. That's a number one rule of
3:19
Speaker 1: using firearms, loaded or unloaded. And I learned on day
3:24
Speaker 1: one trying cases, never point the gun at the jury
3:29
Speaker 1: or at anybody in the courtroom. Very often i'd hold
3:32
Speaker 1: a gun out like this, straight down with the barrel
3:35
Speaker 1: facing down if I needed to hand it to a
3:39
Speaker 1: witness or needed to hold it in front of the jury,
3:43
Speaker 1: just as a precaution. The last thing you need is
3:45
Speaker 1: one of the jars becoming afraid. But I can tell
3:47
Speaker 1: you what I've learned about Hartpooling and the lead defense attorney,
3:51
Speaker 1: Ted Williams. He reminds me in a way of my
3:54
Speaker 1: old co anchor Johnny Cochrane. God rest his soul, guys
3:59
Speaker 1: with me. Ted Williams defense attorney, former Washington DC police
4:04
Speaker 1: detective Fox, and his contributor starting power of Attorney Ted.
4:08
Speaker 1: This is what I learned from Cochrane, because of course
4:10
Speaker 1: I didn't agree with one thing that ever came out
4:13
Speaker 1: of his mouth. But I can tell you this Cochrane
4:17
Speaker 1: had kind of an it factor, and can't take that
4:20
Speaker 1: away from Johnny Cockrane. He would walk in a room
4:22
Speaker 1: and everybody would go and look right at him. And
4:27
Speaker 1: he was just a guy that people wanted to be around,
4:31
Speaker 1: you know, talk to talk about his cases, hear him
4:34
Speaker 1: tell stories, and I think Judge Eto felt the same
4:38
Speaker 1: way about Cochrane. What I have learned from speaking to
4:42
Speaker 1: many lawyers that have practiced against Tartpoolian is he's like
4:47
Speaker 1: this good old guy that he can spend a yarn,
4:51
Speaker 1: He'll throwback some drinks with you. He's very well liked.
4:56
Speaker 1: Now does that mean his client's innocent, No, but it
5:00
Speaker 1: may mean he can spin a yarn and that closing
5:04
Speaker 1: argument that may transfix at least one girard, just like
5:09
Speaker 1: he pointed a gun at the prosecutor and when he
5:12
Speaker 1: and everybody laughed, Yeah, Nancy. The one thing that every
5:18
Speaker 1: lawyer that's trying the case want to do, and that
5:22
Speaker 1: is to be able to establish a repair with the jury.
5:27
Speaker 1: And when Dick Harpollion did his act yesterday, maybe some
5:34
Speaker 1: took exception to it, but in reality he got laughed
5:40
Speaker 1: out of it, and most of the court was laughing
5:44
Speaker 1: at that. So what Dick did was he, in his
5:51
Speaker 1: unusual way, in his good old country boy way, was
5:55
Speaker 1: able to establish a repair with the jury. One of
6:00
Speaker 1: the worst things that can happen to a lawyer doing
6:03
Speaker 1: the course of a trial is far the jury to
6:07
Speaker 1: dislike the lawyer, because if the jury dislikes the lawyer,
6:12
Speaker 1: that may have some effect on the client and the averting.
6:16
Speaker 1: So Dick Harpulian, going through the theatrics that he went
6:21
Speaker 1: through yesterday, did an excellent, excellent job of establishing a
6:27
Speaker 1: paw with that jury, and that's what he wanted. And
6:30
Speaker 1: did you know, I agree with you, Ted Williams, and
6:34
Speaker 1: I think when I tried cases, I think it's more
6:37
Speaker 1: important to me that I'd be absolutely correct on the
6:41
Speaker 1: facts and the law without a single mistake, so that
6:44
Speaker 1: I would be believed. I don't know that I was
6:47
Speaker 1: ever liked, but believed, And I think it's all about
6:52
Speaker 1: credibility and know Harpulian is nobody's fool. He's tried a
6:56
Speaker 1: lot of cases. I mean a lot of cases, and
6:59
Speaker 1: he's one major money settlements as well. He knows his
7:03
Speaker 1: way around the courtroom, but so do the prosecutors. But
7:06
Speaker 1: that was one moment in the courtroom that really struck me. Guys,
7:10
Speaker 1: you got to hear more of what the defense expert said. Now,
7:15
Speaker 1: this guy on the stand is an engineer. He has
7:18
Speaker 1: no training at all in ballistics, and I believe the
7:22
Speaker 1: judge threw him a bone through the defense, a bone
7:26
Speaker 1: by letting him even testify about ballistics. No training. He's
7:30
Speaker 1: more of an accident investigator, accident reconstructionists. And I'll tell
7:34
Speaker 1: you how he got into the defense mix. He worked
7:37
Speaker 1: with the law firm pimped as I like to call
7:41
Speaker 1: it PMPD than that was Murdog's firm. He worked with
7:46
Speaker 1: them on accident civil cases and he also was called
7:51
Speaker 1: in on the Mallory Beach case to defend Civilly Alex
7:57
Speaker 1: Murdog and Paul Murdog. That's how he got roped into
8:01
Speaker 1: this thing. Take a listen to the expert on the stand.
8:05
Speaker 1: Have you had any formal training in pathology? No? Have
8:09
Speaker 1: you had any formal training in firearms or firearms? They
8:14
Speaker 1: how they were? No? Are you a member of any
8:17
Speaker 1: organizations UM that that do that line of work, that
8:21
Speaker 1: that do tests on firearms or pathology? No? Have you
8:25
Speaker 1: taken any shooting incident reconstruction classes? No? Do you have
8:31
Speaker 1: any certifications in shooting incident and reconstruction? No? Do you
8:34
Speaker 1: have any Have you taken any classes in gunshot wounds? No?
8:38
Speaker 1: Any of those studies that you did, were they subject
8:39
Speaker 1: to peer review? Are published in any publication? No? I
8:43
Speaker 1: typically don't write papers or or submit papers. I'm not
8:46
Speaker 1: a firearms expert or a pathologist or a wooded expert.
8:50
Speaker 1: That's that's not my area of physics. It's not my
8:54
Speaker 1: area of expertise. Well, at LASTI didn't try to lie
8:57
Speaker 1: to Chris Payton joining us again NYPD, and he is
9:02
Speaker 1: a forensic firearms expert. How did this guy end up
9:09
Speaker 1: testifying about the bullet trajectory or anything about bullets or
9:14
Speaker 1: ballistics or guns at all. Well, that's an interesting question.
9:18
Speaker 1: I don't want to put down any defense witness or
9:22
Speaker 1: expert witness if they claim they are Usually that type
9:25
Speaker 1: of stuff is uh done during the war, dear, and
9:28
Speaker 1: whether it was up to the prosecuting eternity to let
9:31
Speaker 1: him proceed as a defense expert. So it's entirely up
9:37
Speaker 1: to the court and the judge. If they want to
9:38
Speaker 1: do that, set to the judge. It's set to the
9:41
Speaker 1: judge whether he an expert. Now, look expertly, he is
9:48
Speaker 1: an expert in accident reconstruction. That is what he's an
9:53
Speaker 1: expert in. Uh. You know what, when I would put
9:55
Speaker 1: a ballistics expert up on the stand, I would ask them,
9:59
Speaker 1: what's your education, where do you work, what did you study?
10:02
Speaker 1: How many how many ballistics tests have you conducted in
10:07
Speaker 1: the course of your career? How many times have you
10:10
Speaker 1: testified about ballistics? Have you ever written a paper? Have
10:14
Speaker 1: you taught a class? Have you been to a class?
10:15
Speaker 1: On and on and on. And I would have ballistics experts,
10:19
Speaker 1: you know, especially people from the crime lab that have
10:21
Speaker 1: done seven or eight thousand ballistics exams over the course
10:27
Speaker 1: of their career. This guy has not not saying he's
10:31
Speaker 1: not an expert, but he's not an expert in ballistics.
10:34
Speaker 1: But I want you to hear how he testified about ballistics.
10:38
Speaker 1: You didn't do any other renders along these lines of
10:40
Speaker 1: an adult sized human being kneeling on the ground while shooting.
10:43
Speaker 1: Did you know what I did do is consider that,
10:47
Speaker 1: because I mean, obviously from your question you kind of
10:50
Speaker 1: can see that in your mind. The first thing you
10:52
Speaker 1: look at is that Alex is seventy six inches tall.
10:59
Speaker 1: I measured to knee is twenty five inches. So that
11:02
Speaker 1: means that if he went down on one knee, his
11:06
Speaker 1: shoulder is still fifty one inches above the ground. And
11:10
Speaker 1: if he shouldered the rifle and a kneeling position, he
11:13
Speaker 1: still can't make the quail shot because the muzzle would
11:16
Speaker 1: be above where the hole is. So that's number one.
11:19
Speaker 1: So the more you back him up, then it just
11:22
Speaker 1: gets more and more improbable. That's basically two feet above
11:26
Speaker 1: the ground. So that's why it only fits, you said,
11:31
Speaker 1: eleven year old kid. But it only fits with a
11:34
Speaker 1: short person or with some bizarre shooting posture that doesn't
11:41
Speaker 1: match an aiming position or a normal shooting position, or
11:46
Speaker 1: just an abnormal shooting position. Time stories with Nancy Grace.
12:05
Speaker 1: If he shouldered the rifle and a kneeling position, he
12:07
Speaker 1: still can't make the quel shot because the muzzle would
12:11
Speaker 1: be above where the hole is, so that's number one.
12:13
Speaker 1: So the more you back him up, then it just
12:17
Speaker 1: gets more and more improbable. That's basically two feet above
12:20
Speaker 1: the ground. So that's why it only fits, you said,
12:26
Speaker 1: eleven year old kid. But it only fits with a
12:28
Speaker 1: short person or with some bizarre shooting posture that doesn't
12:35
Speaker 1: match an aiming position or a normal shooting position, or
12:40
Speaker 1: just an abnormal shooting position. This is very, very critical
12:44
Speaker 1: to the state and the defense when you're talking about
12:47
Speaker 1: trajectory path and where the shooter was standing at the
12:51
Speaker 1: time of the murders. To Dr Michel du Pree, pithologist,
12:55
Speaker 1: medical examiner, former detective and author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide,
13:00
Speaker 1: what do you make of this guy testifying about ballistics
13:04
Speaker 1: and trajectory paths and guns and bullets. He's an engineer, Well, Nancy,
13:10
Speaker 1: I don't like to criticize anyone, but from criticizing him,
13:15
Speaker 1: I said, he's an expert. I think it's an engineering, yes,
13:20
Speaker 1: but not in this and I think this is rubbish.
13:23
Speaker 1: I think that there are so many variables. And he
13:26
Speaker 1: even admitted that there were many variables, but then all
13:28
Speaker 1: of a sudden he forgot to mention what those variables
13:31
Speaker 1: were and how important they could be. For example, where
13:35
Speaker 1: on that line of trajectory was the shooter standing. That's
13:39
Speaker 1: going to make a difference in how tall that person
13:42
Speaker 1: is supposed to be. In addition, you know he could
13:45
Speaker 1: he could be kneeling on one knee that wasn't even discussed,
13:48
Speaker 1: and that would make it a very big difference in
13:51
Speaker 1: the size of the height of that shooter. I want
13:53
Speaker 1: you to take a listen to Oh I was just waiting.
13:57
Speaker 1: I knew Ted Williams could not stand by in this.
14:00
Speaker 1: Go ahead, hit me, I'm ready. Look, Look, the prosecution
14:05
Speaker 1: had to be stuck on stupid to let this guy
14:09
Speaker 1: come in as an expert under those circumstances. Nancy, you're
14:13
Speaker 1: one of your guests mentioned it. I have before an
14:17
Speaker 1: expert is qualified, I've asked the judge the boar dear
14:21
Speaker 1: that expert, and then after I boar deer that expert.
14:26
Speaker 1: We'd been able to disqualify that expert before that expert
14:30
Speaker 1: even testify. And you would have thought that the prosecution,
14:35
Speaker 1: not the defense, because they wanted this guy and they
14:38
Speaker 1: got some good testimony from him. The prosecution child have
14:41
Speaker 1: taken him on boarder and then asks the judge, and
14:45
Speaker 1: you're right, asks the judge not to qualify him as
14:48
Speaker 1: an expert, a ballistic expert. They didn't do that. They
14:52
Speaker 1: were stuck on stupid and not doing that. I knew
14:55
Speaker 1: somehow you twist this around and making the state's fault.
14:58
Speaker 1: And I admire the way you spun that out. Guys
15:01
Speaker 1: with me right now. And Emerson Senior investigative reporter WCIV ABC,
15:06
Speaker 1: and she is the host of UNSAWD South Carolina, The
15:10
Speaker 1: MURDERI Murders, Money and Mystery podcast, which is awesome, very
15:15
Speaker 1: in depth. And Emerson, how did this guy And again
15:18
Speaker 1: everybody's worried about hurting his feelings. This is not hurting
15:21
Speaker 1: his feelings. He can read his own resume. He knows
15:25
Speaker 1: he is not a ballistics expert. They asked him on
15:28
Speaker 1: the standing went now, I never did any of that.
15:30
Speaker 1: He's an engineer, he is an expert in accident reconstruction.
15:36
Speaker 1: I'm not saying he's some hazy that just fell off
15:39
Speaker 1: the turnip truck. I'm saying the man's an engineer. He's
15:42
Speaker 1: an expert, but not in this field. How did he
15:46
Speaker 1: end up testifying all the witness stand And Emerson, that's
15:49
Speaker 1: a great question, and I think that's exactly what they
15:52
Speaker 1: were driving in and drilling down when the prosecution was
15:58
Speaker 1: crossing them. And you know, honestly, just to watch the
16:01
Speaker 1: jury because you know, we're in the room with them,
16:04
Speaker 1: to watch their sort of the expression on their face
16:08
Speaker 1: when you when you trying to explain to a jury
16:11
Speaker 1: that the person who or persons who did this would
16:15
Speaker 1: have been five two to five four. I think that's
16:18
Speaker 1: where it just stuck, right, And it was so easy
16:21
Speaker 1: for the prosecution to come in and just really kind
16:25
Speaker 1: of bring that point home. I mean, what had they
16:28
Speaker 1: kept on saying, is this a twelve year old like
16:30
Speaker 1: that did this? So watching the jury's expression, it's just
16:34
Speaker 1: it kind of took the top off of that his
16:37
Speaker 1: whole testimony that day, it was hard to listen to
16:42
Speaker 1: that part of it. Now. As far as what they
16:45
Speaker 1: did that was effective, And I think I brought this
16:48
Speaker 1: up before, but the optics of the three D animation,
16:52
Speaker 1: the visual I mean, you would know this so much
16:55
Speaker 1: better than me. But from a prosecutor standpoint, isn't that
16:58
Speaker 1: effective to have that visual tool? Yeah? I thought that
17:01
Speaker 1: the visuals were really beneficial to the defense. Let me
17:05
Speaker 1: ask you did the state object to this guy, Mike
17:10
Speaker 1: Sutton coming on as an expert, and did the state
17:15
Speaker 1: object to him coming on? They did not. Okay, I'm
17:18
Speaker 1: really surprised. I didn't care any major objection to Mike
17:21
Speaker 1: Sutton coming on. Guys, take a listen to more to
17:24
Speaker 1: this guy, Mike Sutton, and you're here to say, to
17:28
Speaker 1: testify to these jurors that you're most likely answer is
17:32
Speaker 1: that it was a twelve year old two twelve year
17:34
Speaker 1: olds at five to two. There's no testimony the two
17:39
Speaker 1: twelve year olds are involved in this anyway. Misstating the
17:42
Speaker 1: facts sustained the objection. You're saying, though, that two five two,
17:50
Speaker 1: which we can all guess, approximates what size individual or
17:55
Speaker 1: age of individuals. That's your best that's your best desk
17:59
Speaker 1: that one went on that night. It's not a guess.
18:02
Speaker 1: And again it's not two individuals. It could be one
18:07
Speaker 1: person moving slightly there, but that is not a guess.
18:13
Speaker 1: That is my opinion, and I've tried to explain it
18:16
Speaker 1: to the court as best as I possibly can. Mc
18:18
Speaker 1: du Chris Paynton joining us out of New York forensic
18:21
Speaker 1: firearms consultant for the STRIA Consulting Group president Stockball Consulting Corporation,
18:28
Speaker 1: and former NYPD detective. What do you make of this
18:31
Speaker 1: guy's testimony. Well, he's going by the aspect that he
18:34
Speaker 1: was already admitted into the court as an expert, so
18:37
Speaker 1: he felt he was able to give his opinion. I
18:40
Speaker 1: thought the prosecutor did a pretty good job of denouncing
18:44
Speaker 1: everything that he said by saying he wasn't an expert
18:47
Speaker 1: in firearms, and he went through no formal training, no experience,
18:51
Speaker 1: but since he was already admitted, he decided to give
18:54
Speaker 1: his opinion. It takes a long time to be an
18:57
Speaker 1: expert in the field of firearms and ballistics. Takes suppressible
19:01
Speaker 1: a year and a half of training just to do microscopy.
19:04
Speaker 1: You have to test, like you said, thousands of cases,
19:08
Speaker 1: thousands of guns. You have to testify was you started
19:12
Speaker 1: with one, but then you testify hundreds of times, and
19:15
Speaker 1: you have to take various courses. And he didn't do
19:19
Speaker 1: any of those things, So you're you're right, he didn't
19:23
Speaker 1: qualify as an expert for somehow or other, he still
19:25
Speaker 1: got in at least not not an expert in bullistics,
19:28
Speaker 1: and he admitted he wasn't an expert in ballistics, Chris Paynton,
19:32
Speaker 1: you mentioned the study of microscopy. You mean when you
19:35
Speaker 1: put bullets under a microscope and compare grooves or tool markings.
19:41
Speaker 1: That's correct. When you put cartridge casings and fired bullets
19:45
Speaker 1: under comparison microscope to see what marking is that the
19:48
Speaker 1: gun left on those fired cartridge casings and fired bullets. Yeah,
19:54
Speaker 1: it's very painstaking undertaking, but once you get the hang
19:58
Speaker 1: of it, it's just like looking at two fingerprints to
20:01
Speaker 1: determine if they're the same one. If you're an experienced expert,
20:05
Speaker 1: you can spot it immediately. And that's what Chris Paynton
20:09
Speaker 1: is talking about. So, you know, one last question on
20:12
Speaker 1: this before I moved to the million dollar question about
20:15
Speaker 1: whether Murdoch is taking the stand, Doctor Michelle Dupree. When
20:20
Speaker 1: we're talking about variables and we're talking about this incredible
20:26
Speaker 1: light display the defense put on with this expert expert witness,
20:31
Speaker 1: you know, the green lines of the trajectory path. Hey, Christine,
20:34
Speaker 1: can we show that to them? What Payton and Nancy,
20:37
Speaker 1: I don't want to say. You did say it's an
20:38
Speaker 1: immediate It's not always an immediate process. Sometimes it takes time,
20:42
Speaker 1: especially with bullets, if I remember correctly, the sled. The
20:46
Speaker 1: state law enforcement investigator gave an opinion that it was
20:51
Speaker 1: inconclusive that the cartridge cases that found whether they fired
20:54
Speaker 1: from any of the guns that were seized on the property.
20:58
Speaker 1: So it's not Sometimes it's a painstaking process. It takes
21:01
Speaker 1: a little bit. Sometimes the things are matched right away,
21:04
Speaker 1: but it's not an easy thing to do. No, it
21:07
Speaker 1: is not true word words that were never spoken. So
21:11
Speaker 1: doctor dupri I don't know. If you can see what
21:12
Speaker 1: we're showing right there with a green light showing the
21:17
Speaker 1: trajectory path of the bullets, it doesn't mean a thing.
21:23
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you why, and tell me if I'm wrong.
21:26
Speaker 1: You're the expert. I'm just a JD. Because of the
21:29
Speaker 1: burn on the bodies, the stipling, it shows they weren't
21:35
Speaker 1: standing out there. They were standing right up on the body.
21:39
Speaker 1: You can only get stipling or powder burn. It's like
21:43
Speaker 1: a tattoo of burn marks because you're so close to
21:47
Speaker 1: that hot gun barrel. It scorches your skin. There was stipling,
21:54
Speaker 1: So all of that right there doesn't mean a hill
21:56
Speaker 1: of beans. They weren't standing out there, they were right
21:59
Speaker 1: up on the that's right, Nancy. Because of that stippling
22:03
Speaker 1: or tattooing as we call it, that person had to
22:05
Speaker 1: be within about three feet or so of their target.
22:09
Speaker 1: And we know that the expert said that he could
22:12
Speaker 1: be anywhere along that line, that green line, but that
22:15
Speaker 1: just isn't so that person has to be within approximately
22:19
Speaker 1: three feet of their target in order to get that
22:21
Speaker 1: stipling or tattooing on the body. Guys, again, you're seeing
22:24
Speaker 1: doctor Michelle Dupree, but on the right you're seeing it's
22:28
Speaker 1: a pretty good demonstrative display the defense put on. I'm
22:33
Speaker 1: wondering if anybody's going to get hung up on it
22:35
Speaker 1: back there in the dreary room, because it was pretty impressive.
22:37
Speaker 1: Of course, with those stipling marks on a victim, it
22:41
Speaker 1: means the shooter was right there, up on the body,
22:44
Speaker 1: so close to the body that the skin was burned
22:48
Speaker 1: with a gunshot powder tattoo. That's what that means. Guys,
22:55
Speaker 1: go ahead, jump in here, he comes. Go ahead. I'm sorry,
22:59
Speaker 1: I've got the ask the question. Why you're not sorry?
23:04
Speaker 1: Go ahead? Why did the prosecution have to bring out
23:10
Speaker 1: this evidence and put on that three D demonstration? Why
23:15
Speaker 1: didn't the prosecution put on this information instead of the defense.
23:21
Speaker 1: I meant, I stand to be corrected. It seems to
23:24
Speaker 1: me that the prosecutor brought up with doctor dupre just
23:29
Speaker 1: represented and they would have shown how the stippling, They
23:32
Speaker 1: would have shown how close everything was it ballistic. Wise,
23:37
Speaker 1: they let the defense steal the day with that. I
23:42
Speaker 1: believe Nancy Well, I don't know if you were listening
23:44
Speaker 1: to the case in chief of the state put up
23:46
Speaker 1: their evidence, but the stipling did come in. The stipling
23:50
Speaker 1: has come in, so that's going to be argued in
23:53
Speaker 1: closing argument. And why did they Why did the defense
23:56
Speaker 1: use such an awesome demonstrative tactic because they could, and
24:00
Speaker 1: they've got the money to do it, so why not
24:02
Speaker 1: do it? Doesn't mean it hill of beans to me.
24:04
Speaker 1: They get put up all the slides they want to,
24:07
Speaker 1: But I know what stippling is, and that jury is
24:10
Speaker 1: going to know what stippling is on the bodies of
24:12
Speaker 1: the victims. That means the shooter was not out there
24:15
Speaker 1: as depicted in that picture presented by the defense, that
24:19
Speaker 1: slick three D. Let me just say, um scenario that
24:26
Speaker 1: they put up, that's not true, that's not real. The
24:29
Speaker 1: stipling is real. The medical examiner saw it and it
24:34
Speaker 1: has been accepted into court that the killer was at
24:37
Speaker 1: close range. Hey guys, another thing. Let me just ask
24:41
Speaker 1: everybody on the panel right now. Now, Hey, Williams, this
24:44
Speaker 1: is a yes no question. Okay, you're on cross. Will
24:50
Speaker 1: Murdock take the stand? Williams, you don't want me to
24:53
Speaker 1: just say yes and no? Please if I yes, I do, Okay,
24:59
Speaker 1: go yes. I think he's gonna have to take the stand.
25:03
Speaker 1: I think he's gonna have to take the stand. There's
25:06
Speaker 1: just too many things that are left out there that
25:09
Speaker 1: needs to be explained, the timeline, the fact that eight
25:13
Speaker 1: forty four, you've got that video of his voice along
25:17
Speaker 1: with Paul and Maggie's. Somebody's got to explain that that
25:22
Speaker 1: is the prosecution's case and they need to focus on
25:27
Speaker 1: that aspect of the case. Nancy, Well, have you ever
25:30
Speaker 1: thought what about it with me? Is irv Brandt? He
25:32
Speaker 1: has seen prosecutions all over the world. Why the world,
25:37
Speaker 1: Senior Inspector US Marshal Service. You know, I love the
25:40
Speaker 1: US Marshals. They will track you down no matter where
25:43
Speaker 1: you are in drag your are in in a court.
25:46
Speaker 1: He was with dj Office of international affairs. He's been
25:51
Speaker 1: placed in embassies around the world. He is an author
25:54
Speaker 1: of solos shot Curse of the Blue Stone on Amazon,
25:58
Speaker 1: also Flying Solo Top of the World on Amazon. I
26:02
Speaker 1: don't know when you've got time to write books, but
26:04
Speaker 1: power to you, man. Let me ask you this. IRV Brent,
26:08
Speaker 1: let me set it up for you. Hold on and Emerson.
26:12
Speaker 1: Isn't it true that today the defense put up a partner,
26:17
Speaker 1: one of Murdoch's law partners, on the stand. And on
26:21
Speaker 1: the stand, this law partner advised how Murdoch cannot keep
26:29
Speaker 1: his story straight? First, he said, he checked, I believe
26:34
Speaker 1: this unless I've got it beast ekwards, he checked Paul's
26:37
Speaker 1: body first, then Maggie's, then later he got it reversed.
26:42
Speaker 1: That kind of thing. You don't confuse whose body you
26:46
Speaker 1: went to first. He can't keep his story straight, even
26:50
Speaker 1: talking one on one with his law partner. What's gonna
26:53
Speaker 1: happen when he's on the stand. Didn't that happen right
26:56
Speaker 1: before he went to break? Well? Absolutely, Mark Ball was
26:59
Speaker 1: the defense witness, but he really felt like he was
27:03
Speaker 1: working for the prosecution as well. I have to be honest.
27:06
Speaker 1: I mean Mark Ball, as far as a witness goes
27:10
Speaker 1: just in general, the ability for him to recount some
27:15
Speaker 1: of the details, not just of that night, but of
27:18
Speaker 1: their entire relationship. I mean, this is someone that Alec
27:22
Speaker 1: is known for thirty four years. He came across when
27:26
Speaker 1: he was talking about the defenses, very sympathetic to his family,
27:30
Speaker 1: but boy was he mad about the lying and angry
27:35
Speaker 1: about what had happened, not just in these murders but
27:39
Speaker 1: the financial crimes. I mean, he was talking about how
27:42
Speaker 1: ten to eleven million dollars had to come out of
27:45
Speaker 1: his pocket, and all of his partners at this firm
27:48
Speaker 1: where they saw his family. So first off, I don't
27:51
Speaker 1: know who he was more effective for, if it was
27:54
Speaker 1: for the defense or the prosecution. But one of the
27:57
Speaker 1: things that was on top of the who did you
28:00
Speaker 1: check first, Maggie or Paul. The other thing that came
28:03
Speaker 1: out in that was about the kennel video, And that
28:05
Speaker 1: was tough to hear because he said three times, three
28:10
Speaker 1: times Alec had lied to him or had had neglected
28:15
Speaker 1: to say that he had been at the kennel at
28:17
Speaker 1: eight forty four. And this is this is a guy
28:20
Speaker 1: who remembers details. Came across very and got I agree
28:24
Speaker 1: with you, and tell me if I got it wrong,
28:26
Speaker 1: because there've been over sixty witnesses at this point. I
28:28
Speaker 1: believe IRV Brandt, formerly with the US Marshall, this guy
28:35
Speaker 1: is one of those guys that's a real believer. In
28:39
Speaker 1: other words, he's devoted his life, his life's work anyway,
28:43
Speaker 1: to this law firm. I believe. He said he clerked
28:46
Speaker 1: a year with a judge and then he joined this
28:50
Speaker 1: law firm, and he's been with this law firm his
28:53
Speaker 1: whole career. You know, like us, IRV. We've been in
28:58
Speaker 1: prosecution and representing the state, our whole lits. That's the
29:04
Speaker 1: way we see the world. This guy was very believable.
29:09
Speaker 1: He talked about how much money he had lost because
29:12
Speaker 1: of Alex and Murdog, and how he had devoted himself
29:15
Speaker 1: to this firm. He talked about the night that Maggie
29:19
Speaker 1: and Paul were murdered. He talked about going and trying
29:22
Speaker 1: to console Alex and Murdog and how Murdog changed his
29:28
Speaker 1: story about what he did that night. Whose body did
29:33
Speaker 1: he check first, who did he go to immediately to
29:38
Speaker 1: see if they were alive? And, as Anne pointed out
29:42
Speaker 1: about the kennels, he denied or failed to state he
29:46
Speaker 1: had ever been at the kennels, which is a lie.
29:51
Speaker 1: And this witness who is Murdog's friend, agreed that was
29:55
Speaker 1: a lie. But he make that well exactly what he said.
30:01
Speaker 1: It's one thing for him to say it, and he
30:03
Speaker 1: actually said it during the testimony. It doesn't matter to
30:07
Speaker 1: me that he changed his story. He was upset, he
30:10
Speaker 1: was traumatized. He tried to explain that away. I don't
30:16
Speaker 1: like to disagree with Ted Williams. I actually loved to
30:21
Speaker 1: disagree with Ted Williams. It would be a massive mistake
30:25
Speaker 1: for Alec to take the stand. He's not going to
30:29
Speaker 1: be able to get away with saying something like that,
30:32
Speaker 1: you know. To the reason why I changed my story
30:35
Speaker 1: is because I'm what's traumatized. He would get cut apart
30:41
Speaker 1: if he takes the stand. It'll be over the objections
30:45
Speaker 1: of his defense. He would be sliced up like a
30:48
Speaker 1: Thanksgiving turkey on a silver platter, put on top of
30:54
Speaker 1: the Christmas tree. That is what would happen, and all
30:57
Speaker 1: of his lines would be exposed. And Nancy, you know,
31:01
Speaker 1: and this is what we saw at the very top
31:02
Speaker 1: of this morning before the jury came in Jim Griffin
31:05
Speaker 1: has already talked to the judge about whether or not
31:11
Speaker 1: the financial crimes would be let in. Are their stipulations?
31:14
Speaker 1: Can we go ahead and have some ground rules if
31:16
Speaker 1: Alec goes on the stand, And of course the judge
31:19
Speaker 1: was like, absolutely not, I'm going to happen. That's interesting
31:23
Speaker 1: that you brought that up. That is exactly what I
31:25
Speaker 1: was just about to play for the listeners. Take a
31:28
Speaker 1: listen to our cut five. We are discussing with mister
31:34
Speaker 1: Murdock on his right to testify or not testify. And
31:38
Speaker 1: one of the issues that has come up as the
31:40
Speaker 1: scope of cross examination that the state would be permitted
31:44
Speaker 1: to go into. The basic rule is where the defendant
31:46
Speaker 1: takes the stanny waves as Fifth Amendment privilege as to
31:51
Speaker 1: matters to which she testifies on direct and relevant matters.
31:55
Speaker 1: What we're asking it for an order excluding the state
31:59
Speaker 1: from being able to question mister Murdoch on cross examination
32:04
Speaker 1: matters related to the financial crimes. You're on. A rule
32:07
Speaker 1: six to eleven B on the scope of cross examination
32:10
Speaker 1: expressly says that a witness may be cross examined on
32:12
Speaker 1: any matter relevant to any issue in the case. So
32:15
Speaker 1: these matters which go right to the heart of the
32:17
Speaker 1: credibility and frankly, the extensive dishonesty of this definition. I
32:22
Speaker 1: am not going to issue and order and events limiting
32:26
Speaker 1: the scope of cross examination. Any objection will matter, must
32:30
Speaker 1: be addressed as the evidence is presented. Okay, what they're
32:35
Speaker 1: asking there, the defense is asking when Murdoch and if
32:41
Speaker 1: Murdoch takes the stand, can his cross examination be limited? Well,
32:48
Speaker 1: I don't see that under the constitution, but the fact
32:51
Speaker 1: that they're even talking about it suggests that Murdoch may
32:55
Speaker 1: take the stand. I think for the defense it would
32:57
Speaker 1: be a horrible, horrible because, as I was asking IRV
33:02
Speaker 1: Brandt earlier, if he can't keep his story straight when
33:05
Speaker 1: he's talking to his friend the night of the murders
33:09
Speaker 1: and he gets his story confused, what is going to
33:12
Speaker 1: happen when he is under cross examination by the state
33:18
Speaker 1: that states. And I also noticed an Emerson that the
33:23
Speaker 1: more this witness was talking, the more Alex Murdog got
33:28
Speaker 1: to chewing on those life savers. I mean, he was
33:32
Speaker 1: chewing up so that he was chewing up a storm.
33:36
Speaker 1: But it was I think partly because he saw who
33:39
Speaker 1: was looking at him. There were the twelve jurors, plus
33:43
Speaker 1: you know, the two alternates that are left staring at him.
33:47
Speaker 1: They at least, you know, half of them looked very
33:50
Speaker 1: uncomfortable as well as they were hearing everything you're talking
33:54
Speaker 1: about with the Mark Ball testimony, that it was very
33:58
Speaker 1: uncomfortable and they looked angry. I mean they did. There
34:02
Speaker 1: was several of them that did not look happy at
34:04
Speaker 1: all as they were listening to this. So you know,
34:07
Speaker 1: I was definitely when Mark Ball was on the stand
34:12
Speaker 1: and it was on cross exam, I remember, this is
34:15
Speaker 1: the defense witness. The defense did this. They put this
34:18
Speaker 1: guy on his fan a friend of Murdog's, and he
34:21
Speaker 1: was very, very believable when he was on cross exam
34:25
Speaker 1: and the prosecutor got ahold of a list of all
34:28
Speaker 1: these clients that Murdog had built. It's not just money
34:33
Speaker 1: and Emerson. I believe it was Mark Ball that was
34:36
Speaker 1: testifying to one of the clients had colon cancer and
34:42
Speaker 1: was dying and he was a friend of Murdog's and
34:46
Speaker 1: Murdog stole his money. There was another sheriff or cop
34:52
Speaker 1: that had been injured, and I think it was coming
34:57
Speaker 1: up on Christmas. I can't remember the way that one
34:59
Speaker 1: went yes, yeah, I talked to Tommy about this. I
35:08
Speaker 1: talked to Tommy about this. I actually interviewed him not
35:11
Speaker 1: far after the time came out that with the indictments
35:15
Speaker 1: against Alec Murdoch for this particular charge, very believable, boy,
35:20
Speaker 1: if they get Highway patrol Trooper Tommy Moore up there.
35:23
Speaker 1: I mean, talk about a difficult situation. I mean, it
35:27
Speaker 1: was just another financial victim. He got hurt on the job.
35:30
Speaker 1: He was helping a car during a freak snowstorm that
35:35
Speaker 1: we had down here, and he basically broke his neck
35:39
Speaker 1: and never got the money. And because Alec Murdoch could
35:43
Speaker 1: allegedly pocketed it. And that's what Mark Ball was talking about,
35:46
Speaker 1: because the Tommy case was really hard for Mark because
35:49
Speaker 1: Mark was working on the i think the workman's comp
35:52
Speaker 1: part of that case, so they were working together on
35:55
Speaker 1: Tommy's money. So when that went through that you could
35:59
Speaker 1: just see how that just hit Mark Ball on the
36:02
Speaker 1: wrong angle. He's obviously a very truthful man. He's this
36:08
Speaker 1: is his legacy, he said, this is this is his family,
36:12
Speaker 1: the whole firm. He took this incredibly personally. So did
36:16
Speaker 1: the jury. So did the jury. Let me circle back
36:19
Speaker 1: to Ted Williams. Ted Williams, you think Alex murdogu should
36:24
Speaker 1: get up on that stand? Oh boy, how I would
36:27
Speaker 1: like to cross examine him because I'd like to ask him,
36:30
Speaker 1: why did you steal this trooper's money with a broken neck?
36:34
Speaker 1: That was your friend? Why did you steal the money
36:37
Speaker 1: from the guy who was dying of cancer? You stole
36:40
Speaker 1: his money? If you would lie to them, wouldn't you
36:43
Speaker 1: lie to this jury to save your own skin, murdog
36:47
Speaker 1: wouldn't you? Oh? Yeah, side would tear him a knee
36:50
Speaker 1: wear end? Oh and I'm putting it mildly. No way
36:54
Speaker 1: this guy's taking a stand. Well, let me say I
36:57
Speaker 1: agree with you, and I want to say something to
36:59
Speaker 1: get my friend, and that is I do not think
37:02
Speaker 1: Murdoch should be anywhere near the stand, But I do
37:07
Speaker 1: believe that there is a possibility that he is going
37:11
Speaker 1: to take the stand. And the reason being is because
37:14
Speaker 1: sometime lawyers are stuck on stupid and dumber than they are.
37:19
Speaker 1: Sometime lawyers believe that they can get up there on
37:23
Speaker 1: that stand and that they can tell a story that
37:27
Speaker 1: is believable to the jury. In this case, you are
37:31
Speaker 1: absolutely right, Nancy, they will cut him up every which
37:37
Speaker 1: way but loose, and I question the sanity of this
37:43
Speaker 1: man to get up and get on that stand when
37:46
Speaker 1: he cannot explain even the timeline, When he can't explain
37:50
Speaker 1: that he left from Moselle there going to visit his mother,
37:57
Speaker 1: but along the way, guess what they find is Maggie's
38:00
Speaker 1: cell phone on the same route that he was visiting.
38:04
Speaker 1: How do he explain that? So so, No, I don't
38:10
Speaker 1: want him to take the stand, but he may take
38:13
Speaker 1: the stand unfortunately ignorantly. Well, I never said times you
38:17
Speaker 1: would advise him to take the stand. I'm saying. What
38:21
Speaker 1: I'm saying is it would be a big mistake for
38:24
Speaker 1: him to take the standing. The question firearms consultant and
38:29
Speaker 1: join him that I mean to cut you off, RV.
38:31
Speaker 1: Sorry about that, Chris. Have you ever had a client
38:36
Speaker 1: that you have told a B C and then they
38:42
Speaker 1: get up on the stand and they say X, Y Z,
38:48
Speaker 1: and you're sitting there going how did that happen? I
38:52
Speaker 1: can tell you a story. I don't. I don't have clients,
38:54
Speaker 1: but I have had where prosecutors have asked questions or
38:59
Speaker 1: defense attorneys have asked questions. I've gone completely off script
39:04
Speaker 1: to what was supposed to be talking about what was
39:06
Speaker 1: supposed to be discussed. I don't have defense clients, but
39:12
Speaker 1: sometimes the things just go completely off the rails and
39:15
Speaker 1: the court and it has to be corrected during No,
39:18
Speaker 1: you're not a defense attorney or a lawyer, but I
39:21
Speaker 1: know you've got a lot of clients to be the
39:24
Speaker 1: CEO the president of Stockwall Consulting Corps. The point is,
39:29
Speaker 1: sometimes you get a client that just absolutely will not
39:33
Speaker 1: do what you tell them to do. I mean, I
39:36
Speaker 1: don't know why he's paying hard Putley and all this
39:38
Speaker 1: money if he's not going to do what hard putleyan
39:41
Speaker 1: tells him to do. But I've seen it over and over, Williams.
39:44
Speaker 1: Haven't you seen that in court? I've looked over there,
39:47
Speaker 1: and of course I love it when it happens, but
39:49
Speaker 1: I've looked over there and seen the defendant and the
39:50
Speaker 1: lawyer is just fighting furiously, whispering, and you know, then
39:55
Speaker 1: the defendant decides to take the stand and I'm just
39:57
Speaker 1: so happy. You must have been in court somewhere when
40:01
Speaker 1: I was there with my handkerche about crying, because there
40:05
Speaker 1: are times that we learned one thing. It's hard to
40:09
Speaker 1: control a client. And once that client is on the stand,
40:13
Speaker 1: he is fair he or she is fair game. And
40:17
Speaker 1: when you look at what happened this morning where they
40:20
Speaker 1: wanted to come in meeting the defense and try to
40:23
Speaker 1: limit the testimony that he's gonna give, that will never
40:27
Speaker 1: happen in that court, in any in this country where
40:30
Speaker 1: you're gonna limit the testimony under those circumstances. Now, I
40:34
Speaker 1: wanted to also here, guys, hold on this was to
40:39
Speaker 1: just have it on the record. He may have where
40:42
Speaker 1: he may be trying to psych out the state thinking
40:44
Speaker 1: they need to run home tonight and burn the midnight oil,
40:47
Speaker 1: getting ready for a Murdock's cross exam. I guarantee they've
40:50
Speaker 1: already been thinking about that because we know Murdoch is uncontrollable. Guys,
40:55
Speaker 1: I want you to listen to our cut seven. I
40:59
Speaker 1: want you to hear Mark Ball talking about what he
41:03
Speaker 1: saw the night of the murders. Did you look in
41:05
Speaker 1: the feed, ron I did. You could see where one
41:08
Speaker 1: of the shot had gone through and hit embedded in
41:11
Speaker 1: the window frame right there the molding, and then there
41:15
Speaker 1: was a piece of buckshot laying on them the legendum
41:18
Speaker 1: the windowsill. What did you do when you observed the shots.
41:22
Speaker 1: I walked back out and asked what I thought was
41:25
Speaker 1: the agent. We said, we've got all we need, and
41:27
Speaker 1: so I walked back over there, looking around down them,
41:30
Speaker 1: around the floor and all that. There was a piece
41:33
Speaker 1: of Paul's skull about size of the baseball laying there.
41:38
Speaker 1: Did that upset you, It did very much. I mean,
41:41
Speaker 1: it just really infuriated me. This young man had been
41:44
Speaker 1: murdered and there was still his remains there, and there
41:48
Speaker 1: was a large blood spot and tissue out right off
41:53
Speaker 1: of the apron of that area right outside the feed
41:58
Speaker 1: room that was there. And it's kind of like walking
42:01
Speaker 1: across the grave Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Did you
42:37
Speaker 1: look in the feed ron? I did. You could see
42:39
Speaker 1: where one of the shot had gone through and hit
42:42
Speaker 1: embedded in the window frame right there, the molding, and
42:47
Speaker 1: then there was a piece of buckshot landing on them,
42:50
Speaker 1: the legendum the windowsill. What did you do when you
42:53
Speaker 1: observed the shots? I walked back out and asked what
42:56
Speaker 1: I thought was the agent. We said, we've got all
42:59
Speaker 1: we need, and so I walked back over there, looking around,
43:02
Speaker 1: down around the floor and all that. There was a
43:05
Speaker 1: piece of Paul's skull about size of the baseball laying there.
43:10
Speaker 1: Did that upset you? It did very much. I mean,
43:13
Speaker 1: it just really infuriated me. This young man had been
43:16
Speaker 1: murdered and there was still his remains there, and there
43:21
Speaker 1: was a large blood spot tissue out right off of
43:25
Speaker 1: the apron of that area, right outside the feed room
43:31
Speaker 1: that was there, and it's kind of like walking across
43:34
Speaker 1: the grave. And you know, doctor Michelle Dupree joining me,
43:37
Speaker 1: medical examiner, pathologists, former detective, also author of Homicide Investigation
43:46
Speaker 1: Field Guide, Doctor Dupree, there is nothing light being on
43:53
Speaker 1: a homicide scene. It's very upsetting, much less when you
43:57
Speaker 1: know the victim and in this case, the victims and
44:01
Speaker 1: you hear this is the dichotomy I'm presenting to you,
44:06
Speaker 1: doctor Dupris. You hear this witness Mark Ball and his
44:11
Speaker 1: seemed like anger that this young man's body was still
44:17
Speaker 1: laying there, splayed out a riddle, torn apart with bullets.
44:23
Speaker 1: But yet Murdog was thumbing through his phone looking up
44:28
Speaker 1: a restaurant Nancy. That to me, that's unfathomable. I can't
44:32
Speaker 1: imagine there. And there have actually been unfortunately published photographs
44:37
Speaker 1: of exactly what he's talking about. The entrance to the
44:40
Speaker 1: feed room, and two sections of Paul's skull are shown
44:44
Speaker 1: in that photograph. I can't imagine that being someone that
44:48
Speaker 1: you are close to, a loved one, a family member,
44:51
Speaker 1: and you are looking at a restaurant. You can't dial
44:56
Speaker 1: that by mistake. I don't know what was going through
44:59
Speaker 1: his mind at that point in time, but I don't
45:02
Speaker 1: think it was about you can't because you really can't.
45:06
Speaker 1: Because he had to put in the name and spell
45:09
Speaker 1: the restaurant into Google to get it to pop up.
45:13
Speaker 1: What was he looking at the closing time? Did he
45:15
Speaker 1: think he was going to run by and have a
45:16
Speaker 1: stake in a potato? I don't know, but he was
45:18
Speaker 1: looking at restaurants and opening a group chat a group
45:22
Speaker 1: email about a woman in a bikini. And here you've
45:25
Speaker 1: got the friend Mark Ball angry and upset about Paul's remains.
45:32
Speaker 1: Not murdog. But I want you to hear what Ann
45:35
Speaker 1: Emerson w CIV was telling us about in our cut
45:39
Speaker 1: ten And did you talk to him about what he
45:42
Speaker 1: did that night? Yea? And did he deny ef he
45:45
Speaker 1: going down to those kennels to his buddy and malk
45:47
Speaker 1: partner thirty four years he said that he ate dinner,
45:51
Speaker 1: laid down on the couch, took a nap, and then
45:54
Speaker 1: left to check on him. And now you know that's
45:56
Speaker 1: not true for you seeing the kennel video, right, dude.
45:59
Speaker 1: And that wasn't the only time he told you that.
46:00
Speaker 1: At least three times and his conversations with you, did
46:03
Speaker 1: he ever change his story about who he checked first
46:07
Speaker 1: at the scene supposedly. I don't know whether it's just
46:10
Speaker 1: because of the trauma of the situation, but first time
46:13
Speaker 1: I remembered he checked Maggie first and then went to Paul,
46:16
Speaker 1: And then I heard him say at one point that
46:19
Speaker 1: it was Paul and then it was Maggie. It didn't
46:21
Speaker 1: really matter to me. It wasn't something I really was
46:25
Speaker 1: picking up on because it was horrendous either way. I mean,
46:31
Speaker 1: I can't imagine seeing my wife dead and my son
46:34
Speaker 1: dead in such a brutal manner. And Emerson, let me
46:38
Speaker 1: ask you a question. Has anybody performed a test where
46:44
Speaker 1: one person sits inside of Moselle in the hunting lodge
46:49
Speaker 1: and the other person goes out to the dog kennel
46:52
Speaker 1: and fires guns multiple times? Has anybody done that to
46:56
Speaker 1: find out if the person in Moselle can hear the gun? Well,
46:59
Speaker 1: that's actually interesting because that's what they were messing around
47:02
Speaker 1: with yesterday with Mike Sutton, the forensic engineer that was
47:05
Speaker 1: on the stand for the defense. He was talking about
47:07
Speaker 1: the decibel levels and he said that the house is
47:10
Speaker 1: so well insulated that when you're inside, and I am
47:13
Speaker 1: literally just kind of replaying what Mike Sutton was talking
47:17
Speaker 1: about was that the decibel levels he tested at a
47:21
Speaker 1: shotgun level and it was extremely hard to hear, especially
47:24
Speaker 1: if there was like a TV on. So that is
47:26
Speaker 1: what we heard in testimony yesterday from the defense and
47:30
Speaker 1: actually I was prosecution actually didn't They didn't go after him.
47:34
Speaker 1: The prosecution did not really go after him on this
47:37
Speaker 1: decibel part. And I don't know why. I don't know if,
47:40
Speaker 1: I don't know why. I thought that they would have
47:43
Speaker 1: something that it doesn't seem like they had any decibels
47:47
Speaker 1: said it was extremely hard to hear, but that he
47:51
Speaker 1: did hear it correct. I think that's basically it would
47:54
Speaker 1: be if you were watching TV, might be distracted, you
47:56
Speaker 1: may not know what it was. Um, it was kind
47:59
Speaker 1: of that idea, yea, that like you wouldn't really know
48:01
Speaker 1: what you were listening to if you heard gunshots going off?
48:04
Speaker 1: Is where he was going with it, I think, but yeah,
48:07
Speaker 1: that the house is really well insulated, it would be
48:09
Speaker 1: hard to hear. Prosecution, but he didn't even he said
48:12
Speaker 1: it's extremely to hear. He said, it's extremely hard to hear.
48:17
Speaker 1: That didn't was not I didn't hear it. It was
48:20
Speaker 1: hard to hear it, but he heard it. Nancy, Yes,
48:23
Speaker 1: did he replicate did he actually at Straya and Stockwell,
48:28
Speaker 1: we trained people in microscopic analysis, and you know, dealing
48:32
Speaker 1: with the ballistics in this case. That's the court thing
48:35
Speaker 1: that we do. As far as training people in microscopic analysis,
48:39
Speaker 1: we don't really necessarily do with firearms. But in my experience,
48:44
Speaker 1: did they replicate did he have a shotgun? And if
48:48
Speaker 1: he did have a shotgun does how did they know
48:51
Speaker 1: exactly the length of the shotgun, what load was used,
48:57
Speaker 1: the barrel length, where there was choke restrictions on it.
49:00
Speaker 1: It's a difficult thing to determine after the fact that
49:04
Speaker 1: hearing would rather be subjective. You know, shotgun blasts are
49:08
Speaker 1: allowed to have in cases where there's been gunfire inside
49:11
Speaker 1: of a building and people didn't hear it. But I
49:14
Speaker 1: think it's a strange approach to say that it could
49:18
Speaker 1: be heard or not be heard after the fact, whether
49:21
Speaker 1: they actually could replicate the firing of a gun when
49:24
Speaker 1: they don't actually have the shotgun. Yeah, here they do
49:27
Speaker 1: not have the weapon. They don't have the actual murder weapon.
49:32
Speaker 1: It has vanished. But you know what I think, Ted Williams,
49:35
Speaker 1: it's kind of thing where you don't want to do
49:39
Speaker 1: the experiment, the science experiment, because it may go wrong.
49:43
Speaker 1: If the state does that experiment and the person cannot
49:46
Speaker 1: hear it in the house, they got to turn that
49:48
Speaker 1: over under Brady vw. Maryland. That's the sculpritory. And if
49:52
Speaker 1: the state, if the defense does it and you can
49:55
Speaker 1: hear it, well that hurts them. So I think that
49:59
Speaker 1: is really why everybody's dancing around this. Nobody really wants
50:03
Speaker 1: to talk about it in court because it could backfire
50:06
Speaker 1: well because I actually I do need some information about
50:11
Speaker 1: that as well. What's going on or I think that's
50:14
Speaker 1: going on, is that there's going to be there could
50:16
Speaker 1: be a rebuttal case. Right. They had Kinckinseye up for
50:20
Speaker 1: the prosecution a while back as their forensics expert. I
50:24
Speaker 1: think that's what they're waiting to be able to do
50:27
Speaker 1: if they're going to have any kind of rebuttal case
50:29
Speaker 1: once the defense is done. I think that's where you're
50:32
Speaker 1: going to hear some of the prosecution coming back, Ted,
50:34
Speaker 1: what were you saying? No, I wholeheartedly agree with you, Nancy,
50:41
Speaker 1: you know, but I gotta tell you, I don't know
50:43
Speaker 1: what the prosecution is doing. I think that they should
50:48
Speaker 1: have went at this guy when he represented about the
50:52
Speaker 1: quietness of the bullet and the ballistics, and that they
50:55
Speaker 1: should have gone at him. They didn't go at him,
50:58
Speaker 1: meaning the prosecution. Also, I need to go back just
51:02
Speaker 1: for a second where we talked about Mark ball and
51:05
Speaker 1: the skull and all of this. Remember what he said.
51:08
Speaker 1: He said that the sled the law enforcement had allowed
51:13
Speaker 1: him to go back into that area. So what he
51:17
Speaker 1: was trying to get out and the help dicking them
51:20
Speaker 1: was with and the help Alex is that the scene
51:23
Speaker 1: itself was contaminated because he was allowed to go back
51:27
Speaker 1: and forth in that area where the crime scene was,
51:31
Speaker 1: and that he discovered this piece of the skull. So
51:35
Speaker 1: that is where they're going with this contamination of evidence.
51:39
Speaker 1: But again, the prosecution it's missing, is missing some great
51:47
Speaker 1: things that they could come at in this case, and
51:49
Speaker 1: they're not doing it. And I don't know why in
51:51
Speaker 1: the hell they're not doing it a cross exam. You're right,
51:54
Speaker 1: You're right about that, guys. There is more. Wan't you
51:57
Speaker 1: take a listen to our cut eleven. We were describing
52:01
Speaker 1: it earlier where his longtime friend and law partner was
52:05
Speaker 1: on the stand. He's very very believable that he describe
52:09
Speaker 1: the money that he stole from Barrett. Barrett had had
52:14
Speaker 1: a fire on a piece of property that he had
52:19
Speaker 1: and it burned down a house, and there were proceeds
52:24
Speaker 1: for cleaning up, and then there were proceeds for various
52:30
Speaker 1: and sundry things that were associated as well as the structure.
52:36
Speaker 1: And we started looking at it and figured out that
52:40
Speaker 1: the seventy five thousand dollars had been stolen, and then
52:44
Speaker 1: later on that there was an additional amount that never
52:48
Speaker 1: went through there. How much was our additional amount two
52:51
Speaker 1: hundred and seventy nine thousand according to this exhibit number.
52:54
Speaker 1: I would say that was one of his closest friends.
52:56
Speaker 1: One of his closest friends, that's who he ended up
52:58
Speaker 1: getting Mozelle from Barrett was DNA colon cancer. This and
53:02
Speaker 1: needed that money. Alex stole it anyway, right, I assume
53:05
Speaker 1: he needed the money or Brandt. You've been in a
53:08
Speaker 1: lot of courtrooms. I guarantee you the jury was shooting
53:11
Speaker 1: daggers at Alex Murdog right about then. No, absolutely, Nancy.
53:16
Speaker 1: And if he don't, I can't predict this guy's behavior.
53:21
Speaker 1: But if he decides to get on the stand and
53:25
Speaker 1: the prosecution is allowed to under cross examination going to
53:33
Speaker 1: things like that, it's going to be disastrous for the
53:36
Speaker 1: defense and it would be something thats never recover from
53:39
Speaker 1: because there's no telling what Murdog will say, and then
53:43
Speaker 1: it can be cross examed on what he says out
53:45
Speaker 1: of the blue. Guys, One last thing I want you
53:50
Speaker 1: to hear. This is Mark Ball's reaction when he finds
53:56
Speaker 1: out Alex Murdog has been shot in the head. I
54:00
Speaker 1: had to take a listen to our cut twelve. The
54:02
Speaker 1: storm was arriving again for Alec on September three, when
54:05
Speaker 1: y'all confronted him, is that correct? I said yes, yes,
54:09
Speaker 1: or then it was over? And then on September fourth,
54:11
Speaker 1: what happened? What did you hear about eleven thirty twelve
54:14
Speaker 1: o'clock whatever time it was. I was on a tractor
54:17
Speaker 1: and he called me and said, you're not gonna believe
54:19
Speaker 1: what happened. And I thought. My first response was, don't
54:22
Speaker 1: tell me that Jackass killed himself, and he said, no,
54:26
Speaker 1: somebody shot him. And I just said, I don't believe that.
54:29
Speaker 1: You don't believe that. A lot of people followed right away,
54:32
Speaker 1: and oh my gosh, the real killers are back. Correct,
54:35
Speaker 1: the chickens were home to rouse again for Alec and
54:37
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, he's a victim again. Correct. I
54:40
Speaker 1: went to the scene. I went straight to the scene,
54:43
Speaker 1: but I didn't I didn't believe it. I said, I
54:45
Speaker 1: don't I don't buy it. And we walked up towards
54:48
Speaker 1: the car and I think I said, it's got run
54:51
Speaker 1: flat tires, and then tires not flat. Before we got
54:55
Speaker 1: to it, Ronnie said it doesn't even have a spare.
54:58
Speaker 1: And then when we got up to it, you could
55:00
Speaker 1: see it at nine o'clock where somebody stab at the time,
55:03
Speaker 1: you know, when he said that on the stand and Emerson,
55:07
Speaker 1: I asked myself, did that jackass kill himself? I mean,
55:12
Speaker 1: everything changed when Murdog got shot in the head. It
55:17
Speaker 1: was a little skin mark on the side of his head.
55:20
Speaker 1: And I still say if he had wanted to get
55:23
Speaker 1: shot and killed for those insurance proceeds to go to
55:27
Speaker 1: buster his remaining son, he would have been shot and killed.
55:31
Speaker 1: This was a ploy I say, not to make people
55:35
Speaker 1: feel sorry for him, I mean to take attention off
55:37
Speaker 1: of all of his theft, but to suggest the real
55:40
Speaker 1: killer was out there and now finally coming for Alex Murdog. Well,
55:45
Speaker 1: two things on that. One is, you know I've spoken
55:47
Speaker 1: with Eddie Smith, cousin Eddie before he went to jail
55:51
Speaker 1: where he is still, you know, and when I talked
55:55
Speaker 1: to him, I mean he said, and he said this
55:57
Speaker 1: a couple of times. You know, if I was gonna,
55:59
Speaker 1: if I wanted to shoot somebody, I would have shot
56:01
Speaker 1: him like in other words, I wouldn't have missed if
56:04
Speaker 1: that was the case, which was an interesting thing to say.
56:07
Speaker 1: But also, you know, if you were gonna, if you
56:10
Speaker 1: were gonna have somebody write a book about all of
56:12
Speaker 1: this that has happened with Alec Murdoch, would Mark Ball
56:15
Speaker 1: not be your person to write the book. I mean,
56:17
Speaker 1: he literally has the details that are like I'm on
56:21
Speaker 1: a tractor. I mean the jury immediately goes oh, he's
56:24
Speaker 1: sitting on a tractor, he's on his farm, he's a
56:26
Speaker 1: couple of miles away from Mozelle, and he gets the word.
56:29
Speaker 1: It's so descriptive. You have to believe everything that Mark
56:33
Speaker 1: Ball's sang. And when he says it, he's kind of
56:36
Speaker 1: you're kind of living through this experience with him again.
56:39
Speaker 1: He's obviously not only grieving over the fact that he's
56:42
Speaker 1: lost half of this family that he adored, he also
56:45
Speaker 1: lost the man, which he says very clearly, I didn't
56:48
Speaker 1: know him. It was hard to believe that the defense
56:51
Speaker 1: had him up on the sand when he said that,
56:54
Speaker 1: he goes after September fourth everything changed, or September second,
56:59
Speaker 1: not even the fourth, that everything changed, that everything was
57:03
Speaker 1: torn down. His legacy, his his his life, his firm,
57:07
Speaker 1: his everything that he believed about Alec Murdoch was was gone.
57:11
Speaker 1: And I mean, well, if he could lie about doctor
57:14
Speaker 1: Michel du Pree, what else is he lying about doctor
57:17
Speaker 1: Michelle Dupree. I remember very clearly the moment I heard
57:22
Speaker 1: Alex Murdock had been shot, and I didn't know how
57:26
Speaker 1: it happened. I didn't know the story, but I knew
57:30
Speaker 1: he was somehow involved in his own shooting, and I
57:34
Speaker 1: at the time thought it had been Jerry rigged to
57:38
Speaker 1: somehow make it look like the killer of Paul and
57:43
Speaker 1: Maggie had come after him and lo and behold, while
57:47
Speaker 1: they were riddled with bullets, he managed to walk off
57:51
Speaker 1: with a scrape on the head. And that changed everything
57:54
Speaker 1: because we knew he was lying, and like Ann Emerson
57:57
Speaker 1: just said, if he would lie about that, what will
58:00
Speaker 1: he lie about? Exactly. Nancy and very many people believed
58:06
Speaker 1: when they first heard it, without knowing the circumstances, that
58:08
Speaker 1: this was some type of a ruse. It just didn't
58:11
Speaker 1: make sense. And as facts began to come out about
58:14
Speaker 1: the no flat tire and all of that, it was
58:17
Speaker 1: clearly evident that this was something that he had probably
58:19
Speaker 1: orchestrated to take as a diversion off of him, to
58:23
Speaker 1: buy him time or to make people feel sorry for him,
58:26
Speaker 1: that now somebody else is after him, just as they
58:28
Speaker 1: were after Maggie and Paul too, Ted Williams joining us. Ted.
58:33
Speaker 1: You know, in every trial there is that one moment
58:37
Speaker 1: that changes everything. In Simpson, it was the glove that
58:42
Speaker 1: I still can tend fit. At every trial there's a
58:46
Speaker 1: moment where everything changes and The thing here is you
58:51
Speaker 1: can't even blame the state for the roadside shooting evidence
58:55
Speaker 1: to come in because the defense opened the door. And
58:59
Speaker 1: I really believe that that is going to efface this
59:02
Speaker 1: jury because they will see if he will lie about
59:04
Speaker 1: that and set up that shooting. Are we going to
59:09
Speaker 1: believe him about what happened in the dog kennel? You know, Nancy,
59:13
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, I'm of the same mindset that
59:18
Speaker 1: that is significant that he's a liar. It is no
59:21
Speaker 1: doubt about it that this man is a jury he's
59:24
Speaker 1: a thief. But the question is has the prosecution in
59:28
Speaker 1: its case proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Alex Murdock
59:33
Speaker 1: murdered Maggie and his son Paul, And I don't know
59:38
Speaker 1: if they have done that. The best evidence they have
59:42
Speaker 1: in this case is that video at eight forty four
59:48
Speaker 1: putting Alex, Paul, and Maggie in the same location at
59:54
Speaker 1: the same time, and believing that from their own evidence
59:59
Speaker 1: that she was killed and Paul was killed shortly thereafter.
1:00:04
Speaker 1: That is the best evidence. That's where they're gonna have
1:00:07
Speaker 1: to focus their circumstantial evidence case. Everything else in this
1:00:11
Speaker 1: case is pretty weak. I must believe I say at
1:00:15
Speaker 1: this stage, unfortunately, well I'm hearing in my ear like
1:00:19
Speaker 1: it or not, that Ted Williams is actually getting the
1:00:23
Speaker 1: last word. He is, because everybody's heading back in the courthouse,
1:00:28
Speaker 1: so we are too. Everybody, thank you for being with us.
1:00:31
Speaker 1: We're heading straight back into the courtroom to see what
1:00:34
Speaker 1: the defense is gonna pull out of their sleeve next. Goodbye, everybody,