Murdaugh Murder Trial: From a Life of Power to a Life in Prison 01:48:36

Ah, no hay nada más satisfactorio que dejar tu casa completamente limpia. Excepto, tal vez, los ahorros de Labor Day. Ahorra en todos tus artículos de limpieza favoritos como el O-Cedar Spin Mop y Fabuloso. Y con entrega gratis en productos seleccionados, pídelos hasta la puerta de tu casa. Con los ahorros de Labor Day en The Home Depot, haces más, logras más. Sujeto de disponibilidad, consulta homedepot.com de Honaldo Libre para más detalles.

Hello everyone and welcome back. So happy to have you with me here today as we continue to discuss the Murdoch case. So, oh my gosh, this is actually part three in my Murdoch series. My first part came out over the summer and we went over everything we knew at that point about the Murdoch cases, several cases involved in this one. That's why I'm

It's taking so long to cover this case fully. Then last week, we went through everything that we've learned since that video came out. We kind of recapped a few things and made sure that we were ready for today's video, which is going to be going over the entire trial. Now, this trial was very long, six weeks long.

tons and tons of witnesses, tons of testimony. So I'm going to try to fit as much as I can from the trial into one episode today, but obviously it's impossible to fit it all in. So I've gathered what I think is the most important bits for you to understand if you are interested in this trial. Now, if you didn't catch my part one and part two, you're going to be confused friends.

You really got to see both of those to understand everything that we're going to talk about today, or at least maybe have seen the Netflix series or something else covering the case. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've never done a piece of content that was fully dedicated to just a trial. Normally we're going over an entire crime and we talk about the trial towards the end. Today we are just talking about the trial, so it's going to be a little different than

It's going to get pretty technical. It could get confusing, but I've done my best to make this as understandable as possible for some pretty complicated topics. And I did want to say I'm currently sick. I sound a little nasally. It's not that bad. I bet most of you won't notice, but please bear with me. I'm doing my best to get through this as fast

clearly as I can. But let's not waste any more time here. Let's go ahead and jump right in. So in part two, we went over the night of the murders, Alex alibi, as well as the three interviews that he gave following the murders of his wife and son.

I also pretty briefly recapped everything the Murdoch family has been experiencing the last few years and set us up here for the big picture of what the prosecution and defense argued during trial. Now, as you probably know, there are several crimes, everything from financial crimes to murders connected to this family. However, the trial that we are going to be talking about today was solely about the murders of Paul and Maggie Murdoch.

Now, one thing that I didn't go over in part two, but I think is very important to note going into the trial coverage here is that there were several and

That's putting it lightly. There were a hundred, more than a hundred jailhouse tapes that were recorded after a Freedom of Information Act request was submitted. And these tapes really help you understand the mindset that Alec was in leading up to the trial. And it also shows you that he was in control or at least attempting to be in control, even from behind bars. This family is all

about manipulation and they have been manipulating people in this community for years and that manipulation carried on even while he was facing these serious charges and honestly it's not shocking at this point and he definitely has this tactic of being very friendly on these phone calls right up until about the end and

He pretty much always asks the person on the other line to do something for him, and normally it's something financial. And a lot of these phone calls are with his remaining son, Buster, and most of them are about...

law school because Buster had been previously kicked out of law school after being caught plagiarizing and makes it very clear he only has one more chance to be re-accepted. He even makes a very cryptic comment about getting $60,000 to Butch Bowers, who is a well-connected attorney that

can help Buster get back in school. He knows he's totally paid. I mean, would he be willing to do something like that, you think? Absolutely. But I would do it yourself first. I'd just say, hey, just following up. If he got answers by the back end of this week and we get into the middle of next week, then something's got to be done for me to reach him. That's what I'm saying. When do classes start?

January the 5th. 5th? Yeah. Really? You need to send it tomorrow? So it's clear that even behind bars, Alec is not done being shady. We also hear in these phone calls him asking his family members to put money in other inmates' commissary accounts because the $60 that he was allotted a day apparently wasn't enough for him. I need y'all to put... I need one more time y'all to put...

Alec is also still very clearly gambling in jail, even though most of it was for food and other necessities while he was in there. It shows that he is still hustling people.

And even though these tapes don't come up in the trial, I still thought it was interesting to mention here. I think it's an unfortunate but good example that even when Alec has to face the consequences of his actions, he doesn't stop being the manipulative, shady person that he truly is. And with that, let's go ahead and dive into the trial of Richard Alexander Murdoch.

So on January 23rd, 2023, the trial of Alec Murdoch began with jury selection. And this was no easy task, as you can imagine, given the nationwide obsession with the case. I'm sure you can imagine with how much media attention this family has gotten, it was quite difficult for a small city like Walterboro, South Carolina, to find an impartial jury. But in

It was crucial. And I did find it interesting that neither the prosecution or the defense asked for a change of venue. I mean, you would think that one or even both sides would think a jury in Walter Burrow would be impartial to their arguments.

But it turns out that both sides thought that a jury of their peers would be their best chance at winning their case. And even though there was a lot of concern that it would be very difficult to find an impartial jury, the process was actually completed in just a matter of days and 900 individuals were trimmed down to just 12 jurors and six alternates.

On January 24th, the second day of jury selection, pretrial motions began. And it was during this time that both the prosecution and defense argued over what evidence and testimony should be considered admissible. And like I mentioned in part two, the prosecution's main pieces of evidence

evidence had to do with Alec's financial crimes. And that's because, according to them, he was trying to cover up these crimes when he killed Maggie and Paul. And it doesn't come as much of a surprise to hear that the defense didn't want his financial crimes to be admitted. It was their position that they weren't relevant to the criminal case at hand and would paint Alec in a bad light to the jury.

His theory, and this is sort of, is that he knew the jig was up, so he went home and butchered, blew the head off his son,

and butchered his wife, there's not one shred of evidence there was any problems between any of them. There's texts, pictures, people that were with him the previous weekend at a ball game, video from that day with Paul and he having a good time. There is no dispute anywhere that they were the perfect family in terms of their relationships.

So, this is a fabrication and they want to use what Mr. Griffin described as bad character evidence. He stole all this money so he must have killed his wife and son. Now, if they've got some evidence that Maggie was getting ready to turn him over to the feds or Paul knew about it and was getting ready to talk about it or he'd been threatened by them, certainly those cases say that's when that kind of stuff can come in. But not this theoretical, "We ain't got a motive, we're going to make one up" motive.

During pretrial motions, both Dick Harpootlian with the defense and Creighton Waters with the prosecution attempted to give their opinion on why the financial crime should or should not be admissible. But ultimately, Judge Clifton Newman, who I love this man, by the way, ruled that he would assess the admissibility of this evidence on a case by case basis once the testimony actually began.

Paul Greer, a ballistics firearms expert for the state, was also called to the stand during the pretrial motions to determine whether or not his testimony would be allowed during trial. If allowed to testify, he would be a key witness for the state.

And Paul's testimony would argue that the spent shell casings found near Maggie's body matched the spent shell casings in other parts of the Moselle property. After matching the markings on the bullet casings, Paul Greer came to the conclusion that Maggie was killed

with a family gun. During pretrial motions, the state questioned him about the process that is required to come to this conclusion in order to prove that his findings are, in fact, scientifically accurate. Before a conclusion is rendered via report, each examiner will examine the evidence, arrive at a conclusion,

write those conclusions down. At that point, another court-qualified examiner will examine the evidence and arrive separately at their conclusions to create a blind verification. If those conclusions are the same, then the reviewing examiner will sign off on those conclusions so that a report can be drafted. It's also part of that process, the entire case file and report are

reviewed for a technical review and administrative review before the report is released. But of course, it was the defense's opinion that he should not be allowed to testify during the trial because of the scientific validity of his findings or the lack thereof. During cross-examination, however, Paul stuck to his original conclusions and Judge Clifton Newman ultimately ruled in favor of the state.

And it's also important to note that several days before these motions were heard in court, the defense also filed a motion to prohibit the testimony from blood spatter expert Tom Bevel and anyone whose conclusions about the blood spatter were derived from Mr. Bevel's findings.

Now, this motion is lengthy, but important. As I showed you in part two, when officers arrived at the scene of the crime, Alec was wearing a white T-shirt. Now, this white shirt was analyzed and processed to determine if it had traces of human blood and high velocity blood spatter on it.

And because the stippling on the bodies proved that they were shot in close range, the state believed the shirt he was wearing would likely indicate this high velocity spatter. And if it did, they would be able to more easily argue that he was the shooter. However, if it

didn't, that would leave the defense with a strong argument that he wasn't the shooter. And if you were at all familiar with this case or followed at least some of the trial, you may know how much controversy there was when it comes to the testing of this t-shirt. In this motion filed by the defense, they argue that Mr. Bevel's original findings concluded there was no high velocity spatter and it wasn't until

after he was badgered by SLED agents that he changed his findings and said that there was an abundant amount of high velocity spatter on the shirt. Basically, he's saying that he was convinced to change his rulings in order to better support the state's argument, which is obviously a huge accusation. The defense also argues in this motion that the

blood test the state ran on the shirt, which is called an LCV test, destroyed the shirt from the ability to be tested by the defense. And to be clear, the shirt wasn't actually destroyed. It just means that the test that the state ran on it would prevent other tests from being done on it as well. But the physical shirt itself still exists.

The motion continues to say that if all of this wasn't bad enough on its own, another expert who examined the shirt for the state came to a slightly different conclusion than Mr. Bevel. And if it's not obvious, that's really bad for the state. I mean, they have two experts coming up with two different conclusions about the blood spatter, and that could leave a lot of room for doubt. So then the defense filed another motion trying to

prohibit the testimony from this second expert named Deputy Kenneth Lee Kinsey. However, they were unsuccessful. Okay, so that's pretty much all you need to know about the pretrial motions. And once jury selection concluded, the opening statements began. Opening statements started with the prosecution and right out the gate, lead prosecutor Creighton Waters set the scene for what happened the night of June 7th, 2021. On the evening of June 7th,

2021 at the defendant's property off Moselle Road in Colleton County. His son Paul Murdock is standing in a small feet room and some kennels they have on the property about 8:50 PM and the defendant over there out Murdock took a 12 shade shotgun and shot him in the shoulder and the chest and the shoulder with buckshot.

And the evidence is going to show it was a million to one shot. He could have survived that. But after that, another shot went up under his head and did catastrophic damage. The evidence is going to show that Paul collapsed right outside that feed room. And just moments later, just moments later, he picked up a 300 Blackout, which is a type of ammunition, but an AR style rifle. And the evidence is going to show that the family had multiple weapons throughout the property. Picked up that 300 Blackout rifle.

and opened fire on his wife Maggie just feet away near some sheds that used to be a hangar. Pow, pow! And this took 33 very powerful minutes. And during that time, Creighton painted a picture of the terror that Maggie and Paul faced and highlighted just how he and his team were going to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Alec was the man who was responsible for their deaths.

So the evidence that he prepared to present included the 911 call from the night of the murders, statements and body cam footage from responding officers, the

And there was a very big bomb dropped during this opening statement, and that is that there is video evidence of the shooting.

of Alec at the scene of the murders minutes before they took place. This was the first time that people had heard this and it was big news. And it ended up being a crucial piece of evidence in the trial. And it's really what the prosecution used to ultimately get Alec to admit that he lied about his whereabouts that night. And the evidence is going to show that the defendant, Alec Murdoch over there, told anyone who would listen that

That he was never at those kennels. But the evidence is also going to show from these things that every one of us, most of us carry around in our pockets, that he was there. And he was there just minutes before, with Maggie and Paul, just minutes before their cell phones go silent forever. Despite what he told people, I was never at those kennels. The cell phones are going to show otherwise.

And we also learned that Alex's hands and his seatbelt tested positive for gunshot residue. During his opening statement, Creighton also started discrediting Alex's alibi from that night.

And he also introduced the idea that he manufactured it to strategically try and get away with what he had done. And as you'll hear, as we continue to go through the recap of this six week trial, there is so much more that came into play that ends up leading to Alex conviction. Once we get to the end of that journey and you have a chance to deliberate, the evidence is going to be such that you're going to reach the inescapable conclusion that Alex

murdered Maggie and Paul, that he was the storm, that the storm was coming for them, and the storm arrived on June 7th, 2021, just like the storms that are heading here right now, that they died as a result beyond any reasonable doubt.

When Dick Harpootlian began opening statements for the defense, he wasted no time casting doubt on the state's case. Right away, he said that the facts being presented against Alec aren't facts, but merely theories. He presented Alec as a loving father incapable of committing an act that terrible, and then describes in graphic detail the scene of the murders. Alec, stand up. This is Alec Murdoch. And Alec...

was the loving father of Paul and the loving husband of Maggie. You're not going to hear a single witness say that their relationship, Maggie and Alex's relationship, were anything other than loving. Tonight, he comes home and finds his wife and son butchered. And when I say butchered, you're going to see these photographs. When I see them now, after having seen them for the last...

And throughout his opening statement, he continuously says that evidence they present will not only cast doubt that

that Alec wasn't responsible for these crimes, but conclusively prove he didn't do it. For instance, he says that if Alec had been the one to shoot these guns at such close range, he would have been covered in blood, which he didn't appear to be when officers arrived at the scene. They also argued that he wouldn't have had time to...

Clean up the crime scene, clean himself up, get rid of the murder weapons, and drive to his mom's house. Ultimately, with no murder weapons, an alibi placing him at his mother's house at or around the time of the killings, a botched investigation, and direct testimony that Alec loved his family, the defense believed he would be found innocent on all charges. Remember, as you sit there right now, in your mind, he didn't do it.

He is innocent. He would require a verdict of not guilty from you. That's the law. That's your oath.

so on the fourth day of trial witnesses were called for the first time starting with members of the colleton county sheriff's office and colleton county fire rescue this day was filled with testimony from the first responding officers to the scene describing what they saw and also what their interactions with alec were like sergeant daniel green who was the first to arrive at the scene after alec

called 911, was the first witness to take the stand for the state. And in part two, we went over some of the footage from his body cam, which was shown in its entirety to the jury. So they got a sense of Alec's appearance and behavior that night. And again, you can see that he did not have blood on himself, despite saying that he checked both bodies for a pulse. Also on the stand, Sergeant Green mentioned how Alec immediately brought up the boat crash and how that could be a possible explanation for the attack.

And he was the first, but definitely not the last person to testify for the state that Alec was going hard pushing the theory that the boat crash was the reason that his family was attacked. Sergeant Green also talked about the tire track impressions that were found at the crime scene that night.

It was ultimately determined that two of the impressions belonged to Alec's vehicle, but there was a third set of impressions that investigators were never able to identify. And there were also a set of footprint impressions brought into question. And although a lot of these prints were believed to belong to Maggie and Paul, they hadn't been properly secured to see if other prints could be identified. And this is when the defense introduced their argument that the crime scene was not properly secured and that not all evidence was

was considered thoroughly. But keep in mind, though, that on the night of the murders, a storm was 45 minutes away from rolling in. So investigators obviously had to work really quickly to preserve the evidence. But storm or no storm, the defense argued that evidence such as the tire tracks and footprints are prime examples of how investigators failed to properly secure the scene.

one officer at the scene even left a bloody footprint in the feed room where paul's body was found and clearly that is not a good look for investigators and this also really fit their argument that sled set their sights on alec as the killer right away and they basically argued that they didn't look into any evidence that might prove otherwise and to support this the defense brought up the initial statement from authorities that said there was no threat to the public

in the aftermath of Paul and Maggie's murder, because this would suggest that investigators knew already who was responsible. So basically, the defense is arguing that SLED agents decided that Alec was the murderer and conducted their investigation accordingly. We also heard from Corporal Chad McDowell on the fourth day of trial, who laid out what he saw at the crime scene.

He was the second officer to arrive after the 911 call was placed, and he was first to identify the 300 blackout shell casings found near Maggie's body. His testimony really helped lay the groundwork for the rest of the state's witnesses. Lastly, on this day, the jury heard from Colleton County Sheriff's Office Captain Jason Chapman, and he was among the first arriving officers who secured the scene before SLED arrived and took control of the investigation.

and he also gave some really important testimony about alec touching the bodies that night basically he explained that based on the amount of blood and the position the bodies were laying in anyone who tried to take their pulse would get blood on them because the severity of their wounds and the amount of blood would have made it impossible for anyone to touch the bodies without getting blood on themselves and based on his recollection of that night

Alec, who said he had touched the bodies to check for a pulse, had no blood on his hands or clothing. Upon examination, Mr. Murnault, did you have a chance to look at his hands?

In fact, one officer testified that his clothes smelled freshly laundered, as if he had recently put them on. And this would mean that Alec did not touch the bodies after they were murdered.

So why would he even say he touched them? Well, if you're trying to have a reason for why your DNA is on the bodies, this would be one way to go about it, although clearly it wasn't well thought through. So

So the unredacted 911 call that we talked about in part two was also played in court. And in this call, we hear Alec take the opportunity to talk about the boat crash as a possible explanation. And I've said this before, and I'll say it again, Alec would have had the knowledge on how to best direct investigators. That is so important to remember in this case. And that's exactly what the prosecution argued at many points throughout the trial. His background in law and his...

family's long history in law gave him the knowledge about how to get away with murder. And that's exactly what he attempted to do with that knowledge, leading investigators to the boat crash. And the fact that his son was getting threats was taking the heat off of him or an attempt to do so. But luckily sled saw right past that bullshit and,

and they uncovered the real killer. So week one of the trial ended on Friday, January 27th, and that day jurors were played the first interview Alec gave on the night of the murders. In that interview, Alec shares information about the threats that Paul had been receiving and also gives his alibi for the night of the murders. He doesn't go into super specific detail during this interview, but...

Like I explained in part two, he ended up actually having three interviews with SLED. And in each of these interviews, he said the same things.

Detective Laura Rutland, who was in the car that night with David Owen conducting that first interview, was called to the stand that day as well, and she confirmed that Alex's clothes appeared to be freshly laundered. However, in cross-examination, a point was made that the car was not in the car that night.

if he appeared clean how could he have been responsible for such a gruesome murder but let me just say that detective rutland handled this cross-examination so well even when jim griffin was trying to get her to say things like alec didn't look like someone who had just blown the brains out of his wife and son because he was clean she responded in a way that didn't give into this line of questioning and you also told the jury that alec was clean and you're referring to

His shirt was clean, correct? Correct. His shorts were clean, correct? Correct. You remember the litany of Mr. Meadors? Shorts, shirts, shoes were clean, correct? That's correct. He was clean, correct? To my visual eye, he was clean, yes. And to your visual eye, it did not look like he had just blown his son's head off in the confines of a feed room where splatter is everywhere.

Isn't that correct? I didn't say that. Well, let me ask you. In your mind's eye, that night on June 7th, did he look like someone had just blown his son's head off, spattered going everywhere? Again, I can't say that for sure. A lot of things would come into play to affect that. And during her cross-examination, Jim Griffin also tried to point towards Alex's cooperation that night.

He brought up the fact that he willingly told SLED that they could search his property. Basically, in their eyes, why would a guilty man allow the police to do that? But in reality, you have to consider that Alec had never actually gotten in trouble for the times that he had broken the law. So his cooperation was likely because he knew that things would just be swept under the rug. Now, obviously, murder is different than drunk driving or stealing, but still.

Alec knew he had power over law enforcement in Colleton County. So when the defense brought up this cooperation, I and so many others out there definitely weren't buying that his actions were well-intentioned. So her testimony overall was a step in the right direction for the state. However, they still had a lot to prove internally.

if they wanted the jury to come back with that guilty verdict the final witness called to finish out week one was sled agent melinda worley and during her testimony the state was able to introduce a bunch of crime scene evidence she introduced the 12 gauge shotgun shells found at the scene and testified further about the 300 blackout casings found near maggie's body she also testified that after collecting 10 different swabs in alex truck all came back and tested for

presumptive positive for blood later on during trial a sled agent specializing in dna analysis would testify and confirm that there was blood on the steering wheel of alex carr but what's difficult about this blood is that you can't really determine when it got there so when week one of the trial ended there was really no saying which way this trial was going to go

But week two of the trial came with a lot of new revelations. Early on in the week, Alex's second interview from June 10th was played for the jury. And of course, I talked more about this interview in part two, but in it, Alex sits down with SLED special agents David Owen and Jeff Croft. And if you remember from part two, there was a portion of his interview when Alex says something along the lines of,

It's just so bad. I did him so bad. But some people heard him say, it's just so bad. They did him so bad. Well, this was played in court during the direct examination of special agent Jeff Croft, and he testified and confirmed that in this tape, he heard Alex say, I did him so bad. It's just so bad. I did him so bad.

traumatic picture that he saw of Paul and Maggie, what did he say? It's just so bad. I did him so bad. I did him so bad. Yes, sir. And during cross-examination, he has played this audio one-third of the speed and then asked if he still hears I instead of they. And he confirms yet again that he hears Alex say, I did him so bad.

But this isn't the slam dunk that the prosecution wanted. Jim Griffin absolutely grills Special Agent Croft and questions that if he really did hear Alex say, I did him so bad, then why didn't he just arrest him on the spot? I mean, this would technically be an admission of guilt, so why not just arrest him? But he says that they were still in information gathering mode at this point and that they didn't have enough information or evidence to support an arrest.

You're in the car with him, and according to your testimony he says, "I did him so bad." That is what I understood him to say, yes sir. And yet, you just said you took a mental note of it. Yes sir, I did. I mean, if the guy in the middle of the circle, the only one in the circle, says, "I did him so bad,"

Isn't that a significant statement if he actually said that? It's definitely something we would follow up with. Also on the stand, he spoke about how 300 blackout rounds were found on other locations on the Moselle property. He stated that the property was littered

with spent casings that matched the kind used to kill Maggie. This suggests that Maggie was killed with a family weapon. And it was important that they established it was a family weapon because logistically, for the defense to be right, that would mean that the real shooter, or shooters as they later would say, came to Moselle that night without their own guns. But does that really make sense? Just think about it. Why would someone who...

came to this property with the intention of killing two people, not bring their own weapon. Now, of course, the defense would say that whoever killed Maggie and Paul must have known that the Murdochs had tons of guns on their property and that they knew they'd be able to find some guns when they got there. But in the words of

Creighton Waters, use your common sense here. What scenario makes most sense to you? So a lot of testimony during week two was focused on the cell phone data. And believe me when I say that all of this is very long and very complicated.

So I'm going to do my best to summarize what was learned, which might mean going through some of the trial out of order. So Lieutenant Britt Dove, a supervisor for SLED's Computer Crimes Division, testified about the data he collected from Alec, Maggie, and Paul's phones. His data retrieval allowed him to collect text messages, call logs, and other physical features from the phone, such as its movement and when the display was changed.

There is minute-by-minute data of the events of that day, and up until the evening, everything was relatively normal. For example, the Murdoch's housekeeper, Blanca, cooked dinner for Paul, Maggie, and Alec, and texted Maggie at 3.28 p.m. saying that it was ready and waiting for them on the stove. Cell data from Maggie's phone also shows that she spoke with her sister, Marion Proctor, that day, whose testimony was also really important for the state.

At 7.29 p.m., Paul's phone registers recording a Snapchat video of Alec, although this video wouldn't be sent until 15 minutes after it was taken. This video, which we talked about in part two, was very important. In it, Alec can be seen messing with a tree on their property, and Paul can be heard laughing in the background. Better than it was, ain't it?

But what's substantial about it is the clothing that Alec is seen wearing in that video. And it doesn't match the clothing that he is seen wearing when officers arrived at Moselle later that night. Testimony later on during the trial from the Murdoch's housekeeper, Blanca, confirmed that the clothing Alec was wearing in the Snapchat video was not the same clothing that he wore when he left for work that morning. And she knew this because she helped him fix his collar that morning. And she got a good look at what he was wearing.

He had a pair of khaki pants, greenish, I call it seafoam color, polo shirt, and he put a blue sports coat over it.

Do you remember anything specifically about that shirt? As he put his coat on, he was putting his shoes on and he was putting his coat on and he was getting ready to walk out. He turned around and I said, Alec, I said, hold on a minute. I said, your collar's sticking up.

So I, he turned around and I fixed his collar inside his jacket because one collar was sticking out. So this would suggest that he changed two times after coming home from work. And like the prosecution alleges, Alec could have changed a second time so that he could get rid of the clothes he was wearing when killing his wife and son.

Now going back to the phone data and timeline, at 8.06 p.m., records show that Paul was moving from the area of the kennels to the main house. And starting at 8.09 p.m., Alex's phone stops registering movement entirely. His phone doesn't record any movement from 8.09 to 9.02 p.m.

And at 8.14 p.m., Paul's phone places him up at the house. Maggie's phone places her back at the property at 8.17 p.m., which is likely when they had dinner. And based on cell data, dinner would have wrapped up by 8.32 because this is when Paul's phone records him taking 283 steps.

And six minutes later, his phone places him down by the kennels. And Maggie's phone also recorded a significant amount of steps, which is consistent with going down to the dog kennels. And at 8.40 p.m., Paul's phone indicates that he made a phone call that lasted just over four minutes to his good friend, Rogan Gibson. At 8.44, the two of them get off the phone, and seconds later, Paul makes a FaceTime to Rogan, which only lasted 11 seconds.

Those lines show that the phone had an outgoing call that was placed June 7th, 2021 at 840 20 PM and it was answered. Okay, and who's the contact name on that outgoing call? Rogan Gibson. And this is data that was stored on Paul's phone that you recovered in your investigation, correct?

Yes, sir. Correct. At 8.48 p.m., Paul receives two text messages from a girl named Megan Kimball, and both of them are marked as read. But then less than a minute later, Paul receives a text message from Rogan, and this was never read. At the same time, at 8.49 p.m., Maggie read a text message from her sister-in-law, but this is the last recorded text that she ever read.

And so based on this cell data, this is when the prosecution argues that they both were killed. More specifically, they say that the time of death was sometime between 8.49 p.m. and 9.06 p.m. But the defense argued that the time of death could have been well after this time because the coroner didn't perform very accurate testing.

Time of death is estimated using a body's temperature. And instead of actually using a thermometer, the coroner did a very old school way of taking their temperature. He just put his hand underneath their armpits and took

kind of gauged for warmth. The defense also argued that just because Paul and Maggie stopped using their phone around this time does not mean that this is when they died. In Britt Dove's testimony, he said that Paul's phone was at 2% battery at the time he read his last text. The defense took this piece of information and argued that it's more likely he didn't respond to the text messages because his battery was low and he was trying to preserve it. Not that he stopped responding because he was killed right

right at that time. But as you'll hear me say shortly, Paul was in the middle of a conversation with Rogan when he suddenly just stops replying, indicating that something happened. Now, the whole reason that the defense is trying to push back the time of death was because video footage recorded on Paul's phone placed Alec at the scene of the crime minutes before the prosecution alleges he killed Maggie and Paul.

And by casting doubt over their time of death, the defense could argue that if Alec was at the kennels that night, he still could have left before the real shooters showed up. But even with this argument, which I think is shaky at best, it still means that Alec lied about his whereabouts that night. And again, why lie if you're innocent?

But we'll get more into that later. So the rest of the cell data was presented, which walked jurors through the events that took place after the murders. From 9.02 to 9.06 p.m., Alec's phone records 283 steps, during which he also attempted to call Maggie's phone. At 9.05, he calls his father's phone, and they speak for 18 seconds.

and then just a minute later he tries calling maggie two more times now if you remember alex stated that he tried calling maggie because he thought maybe she would want to join him to go visit his mother and he says when he didn't get an answer he decided to go alone but during week four of the trial testimony from maggie's sister marion would bring alex decision to go to alameda by himself

into question, which as a reminder, Alameda is where his mom lives. I mentioned earlier that Maggie and Marion spoke on the phone that day, and in their conversation, Maggie told her sister that Alec insisted she be at Moselle that night, despite not wanting to go in the first place. Maggie told Marion that Alec's father had really not been doing well at the time, and that...

Alec really wanted her to go with him to visit his mom. So basically for Alec to say, oh, she didn't answer the phone, so I just went alone, doesn't really add up. I mean, why wouldn't he drive down to the kennels and ask her to go if he really wanted her to go that badly? Or did he just want her there that night because he was planning on killing her? Maggie called me that day and said she was at Edisto. She had some men working on the house.

and Mr. Randolph was not doing well at all and Ellick really wanted her to come home that night. She hadn't planned on it, but he needed her to come home and Paul was going to be there too. And I said, well, Maggie, I said, you know, Ellick and his dad are super close and that's probably what you should do. Go be with him if he needs you. She said that Ellick wanted her to come home that night?

Yes. What was your understanding of Maggie's intent for what they were going to do that night? I was under the impression they were going over to Almeida to visit his parents. And that's why Alec wanted Maggie to come home? Correct.

At 9.07 p.m., data from Alex Carr shows that he left Moselle on his way to Alameda where his mom lives, and while driving, he texted Maggie about checking in on his mom. At 9.10, he calls his son Buster and speaks with him for 60 seconds, and at 9.12, he calls his close friend and fellow attorney Chris Wilson. At 9.18, he calls his brother John Marvin, and at 9.20, he speaks on the phone with Chris Wilson a second time.

And then once he's at his mother's house, he speaks with her caretaker, Shelley Smith, and finds out that she's asleep. So he ends up not spending much time there before he turns around and heads back to Moselle. And he says that on his way back, he continues to try and call his wife and son, and he is unable to get them to answer.

Now going to his mom's and making these texts and calls was what the prosecution said Alec did in order to manufacture his alibi. However, the defense brought witnesses to the stand who Alec spoke to that night, and they all claimed that he didn't sound like a man who just murdered his wife and son.

But the real nail in the coffin here really came from Rogan Gibson's testimony. When Rogan took the stand, he testified that the four-minute call between he and Paul that night had to do with his dog Cash, who was staying at the Moselle property and had some issues with his tail. Rogan says that he asked Paul to FaceTime so he could see the dog, but because of the

But because service at the kennels could be spotty, the FaceTime was lagging too much for him to get a good look. He then texted Paul, asking him to send a photo, saying that his girlfriend knew someone who was a vet and could take a look at it. However, he never got a response from Paul again. Again, you told this jury that when y'all got off the call, he was going to try to FaceTime you, and if not, send a video. That's correct. And that FaceTime didn't work, though.

Yeah, it came through, but it was lagging. Couldn't communicate through it. So you all stopped? That's correct. And you were expecting what after that? A video.

Rogan attempted to call Paul five more times that night without luck, and he even texted Maggie at 9.34 p.m. asking that she tell Paul to call him. But once again, he got no response. In Rogan's testimony, he testifies that not only did he hear Paul's voice on the phone, but he also heard Maggie and Alec.

in the background. Even though he couldn't be 100% certain at first that he heard Alec in the background, he later confirms that he did hear him after the infamous kennel video is played. So let's talk more about the kennel video. If you're hanging with me up until this point, thank you. So it's important to clarify that this video wasn't logged by investigators until almost a year after the murders happened. In

In April of 2022, Paul's phone was finally unlocked. And it wasn't until they were inside the phone that investigators first uncovered this crucial piece of evidence. So this video, which was recorded at 8.44 p.m., was taken just seconds after he and Rogan ended their FaceTime and just minutes before the prosecution says Paul and Maggie were shot.

Quit, Cash. Come on. Quit. That's okay. Come here. Come here, Cash. Shit. Come here. Post it. Cash. Hey, he's got a bird in his mouth. Baba. Hey, Baba. That's a guinea. That's a chicken.

Now, several people close to Alec testified that they are 100% certain that it's Alec's voice in the background of that video.

which undeniably places him at the crime scene despite repeated efforts to say he wasn't there. And one of the people who testified was his former law partner, Chris Wilson. And during his testimony, Hallett could be seen getting teary-eyed and rocking back and forth.

If it isn't super clear, this video establishes that Alec had opportunity. He was down by the kennels around the time that the murders took place. I do want to quickly wrap up Rogan's testimony because the importance of what he said didn't stop after the kennel video was introduced.

During his cross-examination, Jim Griffin tried to dig into the Murdoch family's relationship. And by doing so, he's trying to paint Alec as a loving family man who could never have committed such a brutal crime. However, during this cross-examination, Jim Griffin accidentally opened the doors that would allow testimony pertaining to the 2019 boat crash.

Up until this point, Judge Clifton Newman hadn't ruled whether or not this would be allowed. But once it came up in conversation with Rogan, he said it was fair game. And that brings us to the end of week two, which concluded with testimony from SLED agent firearms expert Paul Greer, who I mentioned earlier when talking about pretrial motions.

After identifying the weapons, ammunition, and cartridges collected from the Murdoch's property, he began talking about the casings found near the victims as well as other casings found on the property. And it was his expert opinion that the 300 blackout ammunition casings found next to Maggie's body matched the other 300 blackout ammunition casings found on the property.

Based on my examination, it was determined that items 2 through 7, 35 through 37, and 39 had matching mechanism marks. And it was concluded that those items had been loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the same firearm at some previous time. If I understand correctly, the items collected right by Maggie had been extracted to-- loaded into, extracted to, and ejected by the same firearm

that were identified that items were picked up by the side of the house yes sir that is correct in addition to this testimony we hear from many others throughout the trial including paul's best friend will loving that paul owned an ar style rifle and used 300 blackout in addition we'll

We also learned that Buster owned this type of rifle and that Paul's went missing around Christmas of 2020. However, it was confirmed that a replacement gun was purchased. But unfortunately, that weapon has never been recovered. And the fact that this replacement gun is now missing makes them believe that it was the gun used in Maggie's murder. And linking a family gun to the gun used in the murder was really important for the state.

Again, who is going to believe that some vigilante came to the property with the intent of murdering these people and didn't bring their own weapon? It just makes no sense. So that brings us to week three. So week three started with a lot of promise because in addition to allowing testimony regarding the boat crash, Judge Clifton Newman also ruled that testimony regarding Alex's financial crimes could be admitted as well. And this was a huge promise.

win for the prosecution and a huge loss for the defense as you can imagine so next on the stand was libby murdoch's caretaker shelly smith so in her testimony shelly testified about her interactions with alec on the night of june 7th and most importantly her interactions with him after on june 11 2021 the day that paul and maggie's funeral was held shelly testified that she was approached by alec and that he began talking to her about the night of the murders

Even though she testified that he was only at the house for 15 to 20 minutes, she says that on June 11th, Alec told her that he was at the Alameda house that night for 30 to 40 minutes. And the way Shelly describes it, this was less of a conversation and more of a statement.

She goes on to testify that Alec also brought up the fact that she was getting married and that he'd be happy to help take care of some things for her. He even mentions her other job, which was working at a local school, and tells her that he knows some people who work there and can help her out. And to me, this sounds a lot like bribery. And what did he say about your marriage, your upcoming potential marriage? I heard you was getting married. I said, yes. He said, if I could, um, just let me know because I know it's going to be expensive. I said, well, thank you.

Did he offer to help? Yes, he offered. He offered. That's the type of person, a good person. And did he ever mention the wedding to you before? No. Did you mention that to him before? No. Were you working at the school? Yes, at the school, yes. Did Mr. Murnau mention to you about your school and your position there? Yes. Tell him what he said, please. He said that, you know, if you need a position at school, you know, my good friend is there. I said, yeah, I know. Worked at the school, the principal.

She also testifies that on June 16th, 2021, nine days after the murders, Alec appeared at his mother's home in Alameda at 6.30 a.m., carrying what looked like a blue tarp or something that he immediately took upstairs. He had a blue something in his hand. Say that one more time. A blue tarp, a blue something in his hand. Something blue. A blue something in his hand. And you showed me...

How he was holding it? Like this. Sorry if I touch it? Yeah, that's fine. How was he doing it? Like this. Holding something like this? Yes. Shelly did her best on the stand, but her testimony was definitely confusing at times, especially because she couldn't conclusively say whether the thing Alec was holding that morning was a tarp

or the raincoat. And here's why that matters. A search warrant executed by SLED at the Alameda property four months after the murders uncovered a raincoat, a blue raincoat, and a blue tarp. And when tested, that raincoat tested positive for high levels of gunshot residue. And because she couldn't say whether he was holding the raincoat or the tarp, it was hard to connect this item to him.

The defense did try to stop additional testimony about the raincoat after hers was so confusing, but more was still heard. Sled forensic scientist Megan Fletcher testified that the raincoat tested positive for 38 GSR particles, which indicates that the coat was in the vicinity of someone shooting a gun or came in contact with a gun recently after it was shot. Alex Hand's shirt shows

shoes, and seatbelt buckle also tested positive for GSR. However, these were in much less significant quantities. So the prosecution was trying to allude that Alec hid one or both of the murder weapons inside this coat, and that's why they tested positive for such high levels of GSR inside. But

But at the same time, Moselle is a hunting property. And just because GSR was found on an article of clothing doesn't mean an expert can determine what weapon it came from or when with

with any certainty. So let's talk more about the financial crimes. As I mentioned previously, week three was huge because the financial crimes were officially admitted into evidence. And this was a major win for the state. And it kicked off with testimony from Jeannie Sechinger, the CFO for Alec's former law firm, PMPED. I mentioned this in part two, but her testimony outlined the confrontation she had with Alec the afternoon of June 7th, about the $790

$32,000 worth of missing legal funds. She also says that their conversation got cut short after he received a text message about his dying father's condition. So on June 7th, I was going to make another run at finding out from ILLIC if we had their information. I went upstairs to his office is on the second floor and he was on a leaning on a file cabinet outside of his office and

He turned and looked at me when I came up and said, "What do you need now?" And gave me a very dirty look, not a look that I'd ever received from Ellic from, just kind of frustrated with me look.

which made me go, "Oh, you want to know? Let's go in your office." So we went in the office and closed the door, and at that point I told him that I had reason to believe that he had received the funds himself and that I needed proof that he had not. Received those fees himself? Yes. And I needed proof that they were not? Yes. What did he tell you? He told me again, he assured me that the money was there.

and that he could get it. And at that point, I said, I know, I said, I'm just trying to do my job, and if I don't get this paperwork and verify that with these questions, I'm not doing my job. He actually acted like he respected that, and again said that that money was there, and that he, again, was trying to decide what he was gonna be doing with it. - And did y'all get to conclude that conversation, or did something interrupt him? - We did not. He took a phone call in the middle of that conversation,

That phone call was about his father who was in the hospital, that he was going to be terminal, that there was nothing else they'd be able to do for his father. So that changed the mood of the conversation. We quit talking about business, and I immediately asked about him and his family and his dad.

got talking as friends at that point. She goes on to say later that day after this confrontation Alec reached out to her asking to gather information about his 401k balances. He told her he was working on his financials for the civil suit regarding the boat crash which I explained in part two

was another key piece in the state's case against Alec. Genie's testimony goes through his other financial crimes, including a bank account he opened called Forge, which mimicked a real business called Forge Consulting. I talked about this a lot in part one. And Forge Consulting is where Alec would deposit the firm's money into his own personal account.

But all of his financial crimes aside, the most important thing that I want to highlight from Jeannie's testimony is this confrontation because it was this interaction that the prosecution says led Alec to kill Paul and Maggie. Time was running out for him. The walls were closing in. And when Alec is under pressure, he does the unspeakable. I mean, Jeannie even confirms that when Maggie and Paul were killed,

The matter regarding the missing money was put to the side. She says straight up that nobody was going to press Alec about anything in the aftermath of these murders. And this was sort of a golden ticket moment for the state because this testimony helped establish motive.

And I said it in my last video, and I'll say it again. Alec was terrified that he would be caught stealing millions of dollars. So instead of facing the consequences when he was about to be found out, he murdered his wife and son to distract people and gain sympathy. And this brings me to the other half of the alleged motive.

the civil suit following the 2019 boat crash. So halfway through week three, Mark Tinsley takes the stand. Mark, who I explained last week, represented Mallory Beach's family in a $10 million civil suit against Alec Murdoch. Alec claimed he didn't have the $10 million to pay up,

and was three days away from a hearing that would have led to his financial crimes being exposed when his wife and son were suddenly killed. Even if this hearing on June 10th didn't really expose his crimes, Mark testified that it would have opened the doors for his finances to be examined, and that he and his firm wouldn't stop pushing until the truth came out. And just like Jeannie testified, Mark explained that the murders made it so that he and his firm would no longer pursue Alec.

In fact, the murderers actually ended the lawsuit altogether. Again, a great motive for Alec to have committed such a terrible crime. Did that have any effect, that tragedy of their deaths, did that have any effect on your assessment of the boat case and how everything fit together if things were how they initially appeared? It would have affected, I mean, yes, it did, and it would have ended the case.

It would have ended the case against who? Against Alex Martin. And explain that to the jury. Why? What had changed after this terrible tragedy? Well, when you have a civil case, nice people get good verdicts. You really have to motivate a jury to want to help somebody in a civil case. And so if you compared, say, Attila the Hun with some sweet grandmother, who gets a better result? It's the sweet grandmother.

If Ellick is the victim of a vigilante, nobody's going to hold him accountable. It doesn't make any difference what he did or how clearly what he did contributed. The case would be over against Ellick. And so initially it could have been over. It appeared that it was going to be over against Ellick.

Because I had other defendants. I had Parker's convenience store that clearly violated its rules. And so you wouldn't want a very sympathetic person in your case when you have somebody who clearly violated the rules and caused this tragedy. So it would have been over against him.

Mark was actually the first and only person who was willing to hold the Murdochs responsible following the boat crash and really any other time. Before the murders, Alec actually went up to Mark and said, I thought we were friends. As if them being friends would mean that his son would get away with manslaughter. Alec isn't the type of person that can handle bad media attention on his family. So what does he do when he's in trouble? He looks for a way out.

And it just so happens that the only way out Alec could think of at this time was murder. Now, I've stressed how important the financial crimes were for the state, but it would take me literally a week to go through it all. However, Jeannie and Mark's testimonies were two of the most important, and I wanted to highlight some of their testimony.

And we still have a lot more to get through. So there was a pretty crazy interruption in trial during week three. They ended up having to evacuate the courtroom due to a bomb threat. And this little hiccup was certainly annoying considering the trial was already taking so much longer than expected.

So toward the end of week three, the jury heard from Alec's best friend and fellow attorney, Chris Wilson. His testimony was first heard with the jury out of the courtroom in week two. However, the judge ruled that his testimony should be admitted and he took the stand again in week three. And Chris spoke very emotionally about his longstanding relationship with Alec.

who at one point he considered to be his closest friend. During direct examination, he's asked about the $792,000 worth of misappropriated funds because Chris was the person who Alec said had the money, but that wasn't really the case. His testimony shares that Alec asked him to write a check out to him personally and put on the firm's books. He asked you to write the checks out to who?

But obviously this isn't a trial about Alex's financial crimes. It's a trial about murder. So how does this all work?

fit together. Chris Wilson was a victim of Alec Murdoch. He was one of the many people who was lied to and stolen from, and part of the purpose of his testimony was to show that Alec was capable of lying and stealing from someone who he considered to be his best friend. Chris also opened up about Alec's drug problem, which he said he knew nothing about until after the murders when Alec confided in him about his addiction.

He admitted or said that he had had a drug problem for 20-plus years and that he was going to rehab. And then he said he had been – he admitted he had been stealing money. I asked him, how long has this been going on? Couldn't believe that I didn't know it, never saw it, never suspected it, drugs or money. And what did he say? He said it had been going on for a long time.

And this statement was huge, again, for the prosecution. One of Alec's main arguments was that his opioid addiction was one of the main reasons that he lied to the police that night about his whereabouts. I'll get into this much more when I get to his testimony, but the defense is really trying to drive home the idea that Alec was a struggling addict who

who was taking upward of 2000 milligrams a day. So for his best friend to testify that he had literally no idea Alec had an addiction was really good for the state. And during cross-examination, Chris was asked to talk about his relationship with the Murdochs and Jim Griffin really tried to make the point that Alec was a family man incapable of murder. But I think this line of questioning really worked against the defense because it

It showed what a two-faced person Alec was. He appeared to be a family man on the outside, but we know with 100% certainty that he was willing to steal from people closest to him. And if he was willing to do that, what else was he willing to do? Other important testimony during week three came from Blanca, the Murdoch's housekeeper.

I mentioned when going through the cell data that she and Maggie texted that day, and I played a clip where she explains that the outfit Alec is seen wearing in the Snapchat video is not the outfit he wore when he left for work that day. But she had even more testimony that was crucial to the case. While she was on the stand, Blanca first explains that she knew the Murdoch family very well. She knew their habits, she knew their schedule, and most importantly, she knew what clothing they owned.

And in her testimony, Blanca says that after June 7th, she never saw the shirt Alec was wearing in the Snapchat video again. And she also says the same about two pairs of his shoes that he frequently wore before the murders took place. After June 7th of 2021, did you ever see that shirt again? No, sir. There was like a pink one, a white one, a baby blue in the closet.

i do not remember that shirt being in there and on june 8th of 2021 in the morning hours when you came back over there was that shirt there no sir were these shoes that you called house slippers were those there no sir did you ever see those house shoes again no sir and where did you usually keep them in the closet

And she also shared how Alec had a conversation with her after the fact, and it sort of sounded like he was trying to plant a different memory in her head. Blanca knows what Alec was wearing that day. However, she said he was trying to convince her that he was wearing a different colored shirt. During cross-examination, Dick Harpootlian questioned Blanca more about the condition of the house the morning after the murders. And even though in direct examination, she said things in the house looked off,

She wasn't able to identify any blood anywhere in the house. So that brings us to the end of week three. And at this point, there seemed to be no end in sight. Then week four kicked off with two

jury members testing positive for COVID. The week also started with more testimony from SLED agents testifying about DNA evidence found at the scene. However, because Alec was related to Maggie and Paul, his DNA being on them didn't really mean much. We also heard from Dr. Ellen Reimer, the pathologist who conducted the autopsies for the first time, and she talked in detail about the manner of death and the damage the guns did to their bodies.

So Paul was shot two times, once in the head and once in the chest. And the first shot he sustained should have been fatal, but it wasn't. But the next shot to his head, quote, obliterated his skull. Maggie was shot a total of five times, three of which were to the thigh, chest, and wrist. The fourth went through her left breast and re-entered the side of her face. And the fifth went through the back of her head.

Her testimony established how the bodies would have been positioned during the shooting in relation to their attacker. However, during cross-examination, Dick Harpootlian tried to pose an alternative theory about the attack. Even though she has conducted over 5,000 autopsies and testified in more than 250 trials, Dick Harpootlian tried to suggest that someone else could have come to a different conclusion than she did.

That conclusion being that Paul shot his mother and then killed himself. To be honest, I don't fully understand the science behind bullet wounds and trajectory and all of that. But Dr. Reimer stands her ground and basically shuts this idea down. She says there's just no scientific way that Paul could have been the shooter.

Now, this is also the week that Maggie's sister testified. Earlier, I played her testimony about how Alec convinced Maggie to go to Moselle that night, but she had a lot more information to share. She spoke about Alec's behavior following the murders and how he seemed to only care about clearing Paul's name in the boat crash case rather than finding the person responsible for murdering them. We would talk about the boat case, and he was very intent on clearing Paul's name

What did he say? He said that his number one goal was clearing Paul's name. And I thought that was so strange because my number one goal was to find out who killed my sister and Paul.

She also explained how Paul's nickname was Little Detective because he was always trying to keep his dad out of trouble as it related to his drug addiction. Alec actually uses the term Little Detective in one of his interviews with SLED, and like we saw from those Kennel videos, Paul in a way ends up being kind of a detective in his own murder. Marion's cross-examination also brought out a lot that the defense was trying to keep

out of the trial. She was asked about the relationship between the Murdoch family and then started to mention how her opinion of everything changed after an event that took place in September of 2021. This event being that roadside shooting where Alec paid his drug dealer, Curtis Edward Smith, to shoot him so his son, Buster, could get

his $10 million life insurance policy. Well, obviously the defense desperately does not want testimony about this incident to be admitted. So the conversation was redirected. But when asked on redirect to specify what this event in September was, the defense objected and the judge had to ask the jury to leave the courtroom so that they could discuss the objection in more detail.

Testified about Alec not being focused on trying to figure out who killed Maggie and Paul, and then something happened in September. Is that right? Correct. And that changed for you as you started to look at the motive. Is that correct? That's what you just testified, correct? Correct. And in September, he got fired from the law firm, right? Correct. And it started to come out about years and years of theft and misappropriation from clients. Is that correct? Objection leading...

Objection sustained. What came out in September that changed your calculus? An objection exceeding the scope across. Objection is overruled. We were on our way to a football game and we received a phone call from a friend of ours saying how sorry they were. This issue has not been ruled upon. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll have you go to the jury room. Please do not discuss the case.

And after a good deal of back and forth, the judge sided with the state. He let Marion continue with her testimony regarding the Roadhouse shooting, which, like I talked about when going over his financial crimes, helped establish that Alec was the type of person to go to extremes

when the walls were closing in on him. So like we've been over, lead investigator David Owen was present during all three interviews that Alec had with SLED and he took the stand on Wednesday, February 15th. He summarized his investigation of the double homicide in the video from Alec's third interview conducted on August 11th

was then played for the jury. In his testimony, Special Agent Owen brought up the countless inconsistencies in Alec's story, one of the biggest things being the lie he told about being at the kennels that night. During interview number three, Special Agent Owen told Alec that Rogan Gibson heard him in the background of his phone call with Paul that night, alluding that he was down at the kennel.

And keep in mind that during this time, neither Alec or Sled knew about the kennel video. And even after learning that someone identified him at the crime scene that night, Alec still denies being there and says that Rogan must have mistaken him.

Really. And testimony from David Owen really points to the fact that Alec wasn't willing to tell the truth until indisputable evidence forced him to. And we all know that Alec would not have admitted to being there until he was forced to when that Kennel video came out. And according to Special Agent Owen, the shell casings and lack of third-party DNA is what ultimately led his team to believe that Alec

During cross-examination, a big window opened for the defense to get into some of their main arguments. Those arguments being that Alec was cooperative, that SLED botched the investigation, and that Alec was unfairly zeroed in on from the beginning. Up until August 11th,

Alec had given you carte blanche to search anywhere, anytime on any property he had. Is that right? That is correct. And on August 11th, he was encouraging you to try to get information from General Motors and he would do whatever he could to facilitate that exchange, right? Yes. And up until August 11th, I mean, you'd reached out.

He was grilled about evidence that was possibly missed or destroyed, and even got David Owen to admit that SLED never asked Alec for the clothes that he was seen wearing in the Snapchat video.

Now we know from Blanca's testimony that she never saw these items again. But because the prosecution was placing so much importance on the fact that he changed, it definitely looked bad for investigators that they never even asked him to turn them over.

So towards the end of week four, crime scene expert Dr. Kenneth Kinsey took the stand. And I mentioned him when we went over pretrial motions because he was one of the experts whose testimony the defense tried to block. Similarly to the testimony we heard from Dr. Ellen Reimer, he spoke about the trajectory of the bullets as well as where Paul and Maggie would have been responsible.

they were shot and he also testified about the location of the shooter based on his assessment paul was about five feet into the feed room when he was shot the first time in his chest the second shot was closer to the feed room door after he likely walked forward after being shot the first time dr kinsey states that the shooter would have been just outside the feed room door for shot one

and to the right of the feed room door for shot two. And because the trajectory of the shots were low, they suggest that after the first shot didn't kill Paul, Alec picked up the shotgun once more and blasted his head from a lower angle.

In his testimony, Dr. Kinsey denies the second gunshot wound to Paul's head was a contact wound, which would mean that his death wasn't a suicide. And he also states that when Paul received the first shot, his hands would have been by his side, indicating no defense wounds. So the prosecution finally rested their case on February 17th after their last witness walked through the timeline a final time.

SLED Special Agent Peter Rudolfski went through a minute-by-minute timeline and pointed to all the inconsistencies shared by Alec. And one of the most glaring things detailed during his testimony was that Alec called 911 only 20 seconds after he arrived at the kennels, according to his car data. And that's just not reasonable time for him to have done what he said he did.

Also, another important thing that I haven't mentioned yet is that Maggie's phone was not found at the crime scene. It wasn't until the following day that it was found by John Marvin, and he found it with a detective by using the find my iPhone feature on Buster's phone. Well, data from Alex Carr also shows that he drove in the direction where her phone was found, which means he can't be excluded from having taken her phone.

even though the defense argued that the movement activity on their phones doesn't match. Therefore, Alec couldn't have been the one to take it. Data from Maggie's cell phone really played a big part in determining time of death. And that's because the data showed that her phone's orientation changed several times after it's believed she was killed. And I know that's pretty technical and confusing, but the state is basically arguing that the phone could have registered movement and orientation changes after the fact,

with someone else in control of her phone. And like I said, the defense made a very solid point that her phone is not seen moving at the same distance as Alex's phone when he was leaving Moselle. And if he did have her phone, and if he did bring it with him and throw it out the window, their phones should show the same movement. And I know this has been a lot of information, very confusing, and also out of order, but that's actually how the state...

laid out their case. It didn't always make sense at times, but they hit all the overall points that nobody other than Alec could have been responsible for the murders of his wife and son. He had the motive. His financial crimes were about to be found out and the storm was brewing. Also, he had the opportunity. The Kennel videos places him at the scene of the crime when the murders took place. And he had the meats. The

Full of guns, an expert testimony pretty conclusively connected the murder weapons to the weapons owned by the Murdoch family. Hang with me, we are in the final stretch here. So the defense took the lead starting February 21st. And to kick it off, Buster, Alec's only living son, was called to the stand. And above all else, Buster's testimony in support of his father was guaranteed to impact the jury.

and Jim Griffin spent a lot of time establishing that Alec had a close relationship with his family as well as Maggie's extended family. He is described as a devoted parent and Buster talks about how he coached every little league team he ever played on. Buster also describes finding out about his mother and brother's death as a total shock. My dad called me. I can't remember the exact time, but it was later. And he called me on the phone saying,

He asked me if I was sitting down, and I was like, yeah. And then he, you know, sounded odd, and then he told me that my mom and brother had been shot. And what did you do? Well, Brooklyn, my girlfriend, was with me, and I think she heard the, she could hear my conversation kind of over the phone. And so she just started packing stuff, and I kind of just sat there for a minute, and I was in shock.

And he recalled that his father sounded completely normal when they spoke on the phone that night while Alec was on his way to Alameda. Which,

which matches the testimony of others that spoke with him. And the defense continued to try and poke holes in the state's case. And in one example, Buster testified that it wasn't uncommon for his father to change clothes several times a day. He said that if he was outside on the property and sweating, it wasn't uncommon for him to shower more than once and change his clothes. Buster also testified about Alex's drug addiction.

He says that he was aware of the problems that his father had been facing, but admits that Maggie and Paul knew more about it than he did. And he also talked in detail about the effort Alec made at overcoming his drug addiction, but he also said he knew he had relapsed on a few occasions.

He testified that even when Paul and Maggie would confront Alec about his drug addiction, that things never got violent because his father wasn't a violent man. But despite knowing about his father's drug addiction, he claims that he didn't know about his father's financial crimes. At the very least, Buster's testimony for the defense showed a loving, supportive son who couldn't imagine that his own father was responsible for killing his mother and brother.

considering some of Alec's closest friends and colleagues testified against him, having Buster on his side was beneficial for the defense. Forensic engineer Mike Sutton took the stand as well, and he created a digital reproduction of the crime scene to show the bullets' trajectories. In his testimony, he refuted SLED's conclusions and said that it would have been impossible for Alec to be the shooter given his height. According to his findings,

The person who fired the weapon was between 5'2" and 5'4", which excludes Alex, who was 6'4". Tell us how you get to a height for the shooter. So for the purposes of what I've been showing you is that I started putting different height people in the trajectory analysis. And so what I've been showing you is a person that's 5'2". The person's how tall? The shooter's how tall? 5'2". Could be someone a little taller crouching down a little bit? Could be.

5-3, 5-4? Yes. So between 5-2 and 5-4? Yes. The shooter. Because what happens if, let's say, if you put a 5-4 person even, or 5-5, 5-6, in kind of that shooting position from the hip, you've got to move them all the way up to the quail pen. And it doesn't make any sense there because there's no shell casings. And it starts to not make any sense why would a person...

In his testimony, the defense is also able to pose the idea that there could have been two shooters, which is explained more in testimony later on. The state, however, questioned this guy's credibility because he doesn't even have formal pathology or firearm training.

and when asked if he has ever taken a class in shooting reconstruction or gunshot wounds, Mike Sutton replied no. Mark Ball, who is a former law partner of Alec, got on the stand for the defense and shared how he, as well as many others, were allowed to walk around the crime scene the night of and the morning after. He testified that the day after the murders, he returned to the scene and noticed that there were several casings that hadn't been collected, and even parts of Paul's skull that had been left behind.

Mark's testimony pointed to the mishandling of evidence by SLED. However, his cross-examination was helpful for the state, particularly when he admitted without hesitation that Alec was good at hiding who he really was. And he also said that he had no idea that Alec struggled physically.

with a drug addiction. And for how many pills the defense claims he was taking daily, it feels kind of impossible for him to have hid this. Additional testimony halfway through week five came from a crime scene analyst who pointed to several areas around the crime scene that weren't processed for fingerprints, such as the feed room door. And again, this goes with the defense's argument that SLED botched this investigation. And then finally, on February 23rd, Alec Murdoch takes the stand.

I'm Alec Murdoch, M-U-R-D-A-U-G-H. Good morning. And as soon as he's up there, Jim Griffin didn't waste a single second getting right into the murders. Mr. Murdoch, on June 7th, 2021, did you take this gun or any gun like it and shoot your son Paul in the chest in the feed room at your property off Moselle Road? No, I did not. Mr. Murdoch, did you take this gun or any gun like it

and blow your son's brains out on June 7th or any day or any time? No, I did not. Mr. Murray, take a 300 blackout such as this and fire it into your wife Maggie's leg, torso, or any part of her body. No, I did not. Did you shoot a 300 blackout into her head causing her death? Mr. Griffin, I didn't shoot my wife or my son any time.

Of course, Alec denies shooting his son and his wife. And for the first time ever, he admits that he was down at the kennels the night of June 7th. Were you in fact at the kennels at 8.44 p.m. on the night Maggie and Paul were murdered? I was. Did you lie to SLED agent Owen and deputy Laura Rutland on the night of June 7th and told them that you stayed at the house after dinner?

I did lie to them. Did you lie to Agent Owen and Agent Croft on the follow-up interview on June 10th that the last time you saw Maggie and Paul was at dinner? I did lie to them. And in the interview of August 11th, did you tell Agent Owen and Agent Croft, did you lie to them by telling them that you were not down at the kennels?

And when he asked why he did what he did, Alec dove right into his battle with addiction. He talked about how he developed paranoia that could have come from a look someone gave him to a reaction someone had about something he did. Alec says that on the night of June 7th, there were so many factors causing him to lie, his distrust of SLED being one of them. He said,

He said he was incapable of reason and couldn't get past his paranoid thinking. Don't talk to anybody without Danny with you. All my partners were just repeatedly telling me that. I had a deputy sheriff taking gunshot tests from my hands. I'm sitting in a police car with David Owen asking me about my relationship with my wife and my son. And all those things coupled together after finding them,

coupled with my distrust for SLED caused me to have paranoid thoughts. Normally when these paranoid thoughts would hit me I could take a deep breath real quick, just think about it, reason my way through it, and just get past it really quickly. On June the 7th, I wasn't thinking clearly. I don't think I was capable of reason and I lied about being down there.

After these admissions, he walks through the timeline of that day once more. Obviously, this time, the details include what he claims to be the truth. He says that when dinner ended, Maggie and Paul walked down to the kennels together and he stayed back.

He then says he took a golf cart to the kennel, at which point he saw two of the family dogs, Brady and Bubba, who had been let out. And he says that it's typical for them to run out, mark the trees, and start chasing chickens and other birds on the property, which is what can be heard in the background of the kennel video taken on Paul's phone. Once Bubba caught the chicken, Alex says he pulled it out of his mouth,

and went straight back to the house where he laid on the couch and just like in his first story alex said that he dozed off for a minute and then got up and decided to go visit his mom and once he got back he said he didn't see paul or maggie which wasn't too shocking to him at first and it wasn't until he went down to the kennels that he found their bodies did you see them on the ground when you're pulling up in your suburban i did and what'd you do

when you came to a stop, Allen? I think I jumped out of my car. I'm not exactly sure what I did, but, no, I got out of my car. I know I ran back to my car, called 911. I called 911. I was on the phone with 911, and I was trying to tend to Pawpaw. I was trying to tend to Maggie. And I just went back and forth between them.

And then he admits to touching them, checking for a pulse. And this is what I find interesting. Alex says that after touching the bodies, he got blood on his fingertips, which is how he assumes it got on the steering wheel. But what I wonder is where did that blood go? I mean, it wasn't on his shorts. It wasn't on his shirt. And he never mentions anything about washing his hands or doing anything to get rid of it.

He says that he showered later that night after Buster arrived, but that still doesn't explain why he appeared clean when officers arrived. So his testimony continues as part of the 911 call is played, and Jim walks Alec through the statements piece by piece just to confirm certain things he said. Of course, Alec's cooperation with SLED was highlighted. I told SLED they could do anything, anywhere, anytime that they wanted to.

anything to do with me, my property, my cars. Even though I didn't own the cars, I would get my law firm to own the cars. I would have the people. They had full, whatever they wanted.

They were welcome to. He explained how he wanted his cell phone and car data to be processed so that they could see his movements aren't consistent with being the killer. Alec even said he told investigators what Maggie's passcode was so that they could search her phone more easily, which in a sense I think backfired because it was Maggie's phone that showed proof of certain calls that weren't found when processing Alec's phone.

suggesting he deleted data off his phone. Later on in his testimony, Alec is confronted with the notion that he spoke to Shelly and Blanca and made comments to them that could be seen as witness tampering or bribery. Even though he says he spoke with them briefly, he denies these conversations.

heavily. After the boat crashed, he said there was so much talk about him fixing witnesses that he knew not to talk to people he thought may have been involved in the investigation. Basically, he's saying everyone is lying but him.

so then the courtroom broke for lunch and afterwards Alec got into what everyone really wanted to hear his take on the June 7th confrontation with Jeannie second year and it shouldn't be shocking to hear that he downplayed what happened that afternoon and said that by no means did he think his financial house of cards was falling what what was your level of concern about Ms second year's inquiry to you on June the 7th

There was some level of concern because she's asking me about money that I took that I wasn't supposed to have. So certainly I had some level of concern, but it wasn't a very big concern. On June the 7th, did you believe that your financial house of cards was about to crumble? On June the 7th? Yes, sir. Absolutely not.

When he was asked about the $10 million civil suit, and if he was concerned about being exposed for theft, fraud, and so much more, Alex said he wasn't, which obviously we all find very hard to believe. He admits without hesitation that he is a thief and a liar, and that

all the bad situations that he has gotten into is because of his drug addiction. But the defense's point through all of this is that even though Alec is a liar and a thief and is done wrong by so many people, that he should be believed when he says he didn't kill Maggie and Paul. And

And to wrap up his direct examination, he is then asked about his relationship with Maggie and Paul. And what's interesting to me is the way he talks about Maggie is so different from the way he talks about Paul. His descriptions of Maggie are just so...

and unspecific. Basically, the way he spoke about Paul was just so much more detailed and personal. So then it was time for Alec's cross-examination. Creighton made sure to start by having Alec admit he lied to investigators repeatedly, and that

That day was the first time he'd ever admitted being down by the kennels. He lets that sink in and then spends a good amount of time talking about the Murdoch family history and the legacy that they have established in this area.

And the point of establishing how powerful this family was, was so that Creighton could introduce Alec's solicitor badge. Alec would put this on his console or dashboard of his car. And admittedly, he says he did this in order to receive better treatment when he was pulled over. And 571, where did you, where'd you keep this one?

Usually in my car. Where in your car? It could be all over. It could be on the dash like you were talking to Mark Ball about. It could be in the center console. It could be in the cup holder. It could be on the seat. Usually in the front seat, but in my car is where I tried to keep it. So if you could use it to get away with something, correct? Get better treatment if you got pulled over? Get better treatment if I got pulled over? I mean, that's probably a fair statement. Yeah, if somebody in law enforcement saw that...

Yeah, I'd say that's true. Creighton also introduces a card that reads, the state of South Carolina solicitor of 14th Circuit Court with an oath on the back,

as well as Alec's name. But let's not forget that Alec never actually served as the 14th Circuit Solicitor. But here he is, carrying around this badge, carrying around false documents, and using them to his advantage when it benefits him the most. So when getting into his financial crimes, Alec continued to admit what he did for so many years, and that it was his addiction that put him in this dark spiral.

Creighton also brings up several cases that make Alec look like a giant piece of shit. For instance, like when he stole from two girls whose mother just died and cross-examination took so long that it went into a second day, which was February 24th. Creighton absolutely grilled Alec on the timeline of what he's calling Alec's new story. And he's talking about being down at the kennels.

Alec isn't able to remember a lot of the details, such as how long he was there and what he talked to Maggie about. But he does say that neither of the dogs were barking or indicating that anyone they didn't know was on the property. And if you believe the prosecution's time of death, that really only leaves one person who could be responsible for these murders. And really, the most important thing that Creighton had to do here was establish that it couldn't have been anyone else based on the timeline.

After some very heated back and forth, they come to an agreement that Alec likely left the kennels at 8.47 p.m., which places him back up at the house at 8.49, assuming it takes two minutes to make it up to the house on a golf cart. And like we've said, Alec's previous testimony is that he went inside, sat on the couch, dozed off for a little, and then woke up and decided to go visit his mom. And that leaves about 13 minutes for Alec to be in the house, fall asleep, wake up, and decide to go to Alameda.

You laid down, is that right? I did. Before you said you'd been napping for an hour or so, were napping that entire time, but now you laid down on the couch? That's correct. All right. And maybe dozed for a second? Maybe. According to your news story? How long did you doze? If I dozed, extremely short time. Extremely short time? Because you would agree with me that at 9.02, you're up and moving, according to the data. I agree that according to that data, yes.

My phone's recording steps at whatever time it is, 902-something. And even after being exposed as a liar, he continues to push the idea that he was so cooperative with police. Other than lying to them about going to the kennel,

I was cooperative in every aspect of this investigation. Now let's get into what Alec said about his addiction. Let's remember, many of his closest friends and business partners have testified that they had no clue Alec was an addict. According to his own testimony, Alec said that his addiction grew,

And he was taking upwards of 1,000 to 2,000 milligrams of pills per day, all while being able to maintain elaborate money-stealing schemes. He admits to carrying the pills on him all the time and even said he has a handful of pills in his pockets when he was interviewed by SLED just hours after the murders took place. And to bring all this full circle, Alex said that when he was interviewed by SLED, he lied to them about being down at the kennels because he was paranoid. And the more pills he took...

the more paranoid he was. And just two or three weeks before the murders, Paul actually found one of Alec's stashes of pills and confronted him. Meanwhile, his law firm and the civil suit are close to finding out that he was a liar and a thief. And even though Alec testified that he didn't think the financial house of cards was falling on June 7th, I'd have to imagine that this paranoia he claims was so bad may have convinced him otherwise. Now, if you ask me, a paranoid person who is taking two things

thousand milligrams of oxy a day could definitely be capable of committing murder and let's not forget that taking two thousand plus milligrams of oxy a day seemingly for years on end without tipping off anyone that he worked with or anyone in his family and without quite literally dying is

just doesn't add up. Obviously, I don't want to diminish addiction in any way, and I do know that secrecy is a big part of the disease, and I don't doubt that Alec did hide his addiction very well. I just think the magnitude of everything makes this story very hard to believe, and I wish I had time to go through his entire testimony, but Alec was on the stand for two days, and this has already...

becoming extremely long. His testimony concluded in week four and week five picked up on February 27th, which is also the same day the defense rested their case. But before they did, there were a handful of witnesses that still needed to testify. And this included a forensic pathologist, a crime scene analyst, and lastly, Alex's brother, John Marvin.

The forensic pathologist, Dr. Jonathan Eisenstadt, really tried to discredit the Colleton County coroner's testimony. He stated that the method of sticking your hand under someone's armpit to determine temperature and time of death would be largely inaccurate. He also gave his own explanation of the bullet trajectories, which would later be highly questioned. And next on the stand was crime scene analyst Timothy Pomback.

And he also specializes in blood spatter. And he spoke about the injuries that Paul and Maggie sustained. And I don't think it'll shock you to hear that his findings were very different from the findings of Kenneth Kinsey, the chronicler.

the crime scene analyst who testified for the state now the science of it goes way over my head but from what i gathered they really differed in their opinion on the trajectory of the bullets ultimately it's his testimony that hammers home the defense's belief that two shooters were responsible he was the first person to really say it but the defense had been hinting at it for the last four weeks mr palmbach do you have an opinion um based upon a

More probably than not, whether there was one or two shooters who murdered Maggie and Paul on the 9th of June 7th. I do have an opinion on that.

And what's your opinion? My opinion is the totality of the evidence is more suggestive of a two shooter scenario. And one reasoning behind this conclusion is the impact of shooting the shotgun so close to Paul in the feed room would have at the very least temporarily stunned the shooter. He argues that it would have made it impossible for that same person to put the shotgun down, pick up the rifle and shoot Maggie so many times. He also says that it's not logical for one shooter to bring two large guns with them.

lending itself to one gun per shooter.

But like I've said, and like the prosecution has said, Alec was smart enough to make it look like there were two people involved. Lastly, John Marvin took the stand. And like many others who testified, he spoke about his relationship to the victims and the victims' relationships with each other. And he painted a picture of a happy, loving family. He goes into finding out about the murders and then tells the jury how the next morning he went over to the kennels to see that Paul's blood and brains

were still all over the feed room. John then explains cleaning his nephew's remains and

To say that this testimony was emotional would be an understatement. He was then asked about the weapons on the property and the usage of those weapons. During cross-examination, the prosecution did a really good job reminding the jury that even Alec's own brother didn't know who he truly was. John testified that he didn't know about Alec's drug addiction until September of 2021 and didn't know about his financial crimes.

So who's to say that he also didn't know his brother was a killer? So finally, the defense rested after John Marvin's testimony. However, the state was able to bring in several rebuttal witnesses. And for a second there, Dick Harpootlian got sassy with the judge. And literally like a child, he starts saying that if they get a rebuttal witness, I want one too. I just, this has got to end at some point.

We spent two weeks on financial, two and a half weeks of the six weeks on financial matters. In my opinion, it could have been done in a day. That's just my opinion. But I'd ask the court, as we make objections, to consider and maybe even proffer what they're going to put up before we get in front of the jury so that you, Your Honor, can make an evaluation before we start down that road for a half-a-day witness that may not be

add anything that they to the case. Thank you, Your Honor. But Judge Clifton Newman was having none of that shit and quickly shut him down. So among the rebuttal witnesses was forensic pathologist Dr. Ellen Reimer, who performed the autopsies. She refuted the testimony of Dr. Jonathan Eisenstadt about Paul's wound being a close contact wound, therefore refuting that Paul could have shot his mom and then himself. Another rebuttal witness was Mark Ball, Alec's former law partner. When

When testifying a second time, he spoke more about what Alec told him about the night of the murders. He said that Alec changed his story about who he touched first, but he was confident he touched both bodies before calling 911. And this is really powerful. He testified that after 34 years of knowing Alec, he still effortlessly lied to his face.

Crime scene expert Dr. Kenneth Kinsey was also called to testify again, and he completely rejected the idea that there were two shooters involved and shared calculations which proved that they were wrong and said that it was incorrect to assume the shooter was 5'2". Dr. Kinsey also explained,

how there are many more factors to consider than just where the spent casings fall, such as if the shooter and victim are still moving. The rebuttal witnesses took an additional two days of testimony, and everyone was really getting tired of this shit at this point. But finally, the next day, the 12 remaining jurors and two alternates were taken to Moselle and actually given 30 minutes to see the property. That same day, closing arguments finally began, and it started with the prosecution.

And I know this has been super long, so I'm going to try to keep this part brief. In closing, Creighton argued that nobody beside Alec had the means, motive, and opportunity to kill Maggie and Paul. As for the motive, a financial storm was brewing and he was weeks, if not days, away from being exposed for stealing millions and millions of dollars.

Creighton also asked the jury to use common sense many times, asking if it even sounds plausible for someone to be taking as many drugs as Alec claimed to be and still be alive, let alone be able to fool dozens of people that he interacted with every day. And while it may have been strange that two weapons were used, he asked the jury to consider how much knowledge Alec had regarding the law and how he would know exactly what to do to make it look like he wasn't the person responsible.

And as for the means, Alec had everything that he needed to commit these crimes. He explained how forensic evidence proved Maggie and Paul were killed with family weapons, and how their property was littered with the same spent casings that were found next to Maggie's dead body. And as for opportunity, well, I think the kennel video says it all. Alec lied about the most important thing he could have told investigators.

and an innocent man would have never done what he did. The cell phone and car data place him at the scene too close to when the murders happened for anyone else to have done this without Alec hearing or seeing something. And I really wish we had time here for me to play Creighton's full closing argument because it's very powerful. So I'll link it below if you want to check it out yourself. But in closing, he asked the jury to not allow themselves to become victims of Alec Murdoch as well and to find him guilty.

This defendant, on the other hand, has fooled everyone, everyone, everyone who thought they were close to him, everyone who thought they knew he was who he was. He's fooled them all. And he fooled Maggie and Paul, too. And they paid for it with their lives. Don't let him fool you, too.

So then it was time for the defense's closing arguments, and Jim Griffin represented the defense during those closing arguments, and he did what he could to convince the jury that circumstantial evidence wasn't enough to convict. There are no murder weapons and no direct evidence such as blood spatter linking Alec to the murders. He says, sure.

Alec was a liar and a thief, but he was also a loving family man who would never be able to do something as horrible as kill his wife and son. It was his addiction to opioids, according to Jim, that made it so easy for Alec to lie. And once he started lying, he didn't know how to stop. And he also said that even if you don't like Alec as a person...

that doesn't make him guilty of murder. Prosecutor John Meters was allowed to give a rebuttal statement, which was a lot shorter than the other closing arguments. And out of everything he said, the thing that stuck with me the most was when he said he didn't know why Alec killed his wife and son. But if he had to guess, it's because he wanted to help the person he loved most. That person being himself. And honestly, when all of this wrapped up, I really thought

this was going to be a hung jury. I mean, there was so much that had been presented during the trial and both sides really did have

Points that were quite convincing. And there was a lot of talk in general about this jury being hung or not even convicting him because of how big the Murdoch influence is. I mean, who's to say that someone on the jury wouldn't later be retaliated against? However, I was so happy, so relieved like many of you, that after three hours of deliberation, the jury came back with a guilty verdict.

On Friday, March 3rd, Judge Clifton Newman sentenced Alec to two life sentences consecutively for the murders of Paul and Maggie. Mr. Murdoch, I sentence you to the State Department of Corrections on each of the murder indictments in the murder of your wife, Maggie Murdoch. I sentence you for the term of the rest of your natural life for the murder of Paul Murdoch, whom you probably love so much.

I sentence you to prison for murdering him for the rest of your natural life. Those sentences will run consecutive. And of course, despite all this, Alec maintains that he is an innocent man and says that he will continue to fight for his freedom through the appeals process. And it doesn't end for Alec there because he is still charged with 99 counts of money laundering, conspiracy, impunity,

embezzlement, and more. And that doesn't even include the charges for his staged suicide attempt from September of 2021. So he is currently facing a double life sentence at the Kirkland Correctional Institution in Columbia, South Carolina, where I hope he rots for the rest of his miserable life. The end. ♪

Okay, for real, I think that was the longest video I've ever done, and I'm exhausted, and my back really hurts, and I need to stop thinking about Alec Murdoch for at least a good month. Thank you to those of you who stuck with me through all of that. Y'all are troopers.

That is going to be it for me today, guys. Thank you for joining me for another episode and make sure you follow the show on Spotify and Apple podcasts. It really does help me out. If you want to watch the video version of this show, you can find it on my YouTube channel, which will be linked, or you can just search Kendall Ray. I will be back with another episode soon, but until then stay safe out there.