About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Alex Murdaugh Prosecutor Delivers Intense Closing Arguments in Family Murders Trial from Law&Crime Network, published June 18, 2026. The transcript contains 22,551 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"Good morning. It's been a long trial, hasn't it? On June 7th, 2021, at the Moselle property in Colleton County, Maggie Murdoch and Paul Murdoch were brutally and maliciously murdered at the kennels by Alec Murdoch. Paul, as you know, suffered two shotgun blasts. Maggie suffered five blackout rifle..."
[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Good morning. It's been a long trial, hasn't it? On June 7th, 2021, at the Moselle property in Colleton County, Maggie Murdoch and Paul Murdoch were brutally and maliciously murdered at the kennels by Alec Murdoch. Paul, as you know, suffered two shotgun blasts. Maggie suffered five blackout rifle wounds. And after an exhaustive investigation, there is only one person who had the motive, who had the means, who had the opportunity to commit these crimes, and also whose guilty conduct after these crimes betrays them. The defendant was the one person who was living a lie. The defendant is the person on which a storm was descending. And the defendant is a person where his own storm would actually mean consequences for Maggie and Paul and consequences for those who trusted him. And that person is the defendant, Richard Alexander Murdoch. I know this has been a long trial because it's a complicated case. And I'm not going to talk forever. I promise. But I am going to try to distill this down for you. And the first thing I want to do is set the stage. And to set the stage, we have to understand a little bit about Alec Murdoch and who he was and who he is. He was a person of singular prominence and respect in this community. But he's also a person who's been able to avoid accountability for all of his life. While he was outwardly giving the illusion of wealth and a very lucrative law practice, some bad land deals and that sort of thing exacerbated by the economic recession led to some financial problems. And then he had some big cases in the early 2000, 2011, 2012. And all his partners, and you've heard testimony to this, thought that that had taken care of things. You've heard cases like the Thomas case and the Pinckney case and the Plowler case and the Badger case. But the evidence that you've heard shows that the defendant became so addicted and so dependent on a velocity of money that the millions of dollars in legal fees that he was receiving was not enough. And so he started to steal. And how did he steal? He stole by billing personal expenses to the firm. He stole by stealing from his own family. You heard the testimony about the check he stole from his brother Randy. But then the main ways were two schemes that he developed. And the first one was to get checks made out from the client trust account to Palmetto State Bank to fast talk the staff and fast talk the clients with those disbursements and then take it to Palmetto State Bank where his buddy Russell Lafitte would convert those and use those to pay personal expenses. And each time, until the end, it worked because the client was also getting a big check. And they were walking out of there thinking that everything had been fine when it was not. But then in 2015, he opened up the fake forge account. And then all he had to do was get disbursements made out to the forge account. And once he did that, he would convert those to his personal use. And to do that, though, he also had to fast talk staff and fast talk clients. And that scheme continued up until everything fell apart in the end. The other thing you have to understand is during this time when he's earning millions of dollars and stealing millions of dollars, he's also borrowing millions of dollars from wherever he can. The bank, his law partners, his father. And it still wasn't enough. And this slow burn was continuing and continuing until the boat crash happened in February of 2019. And that changed everything. That set in motion things that were going to happen because of the criminal charges related to that case as well as the civil charges related to that case. And in the aftermath of the boat case, things changed. The pace of his stealing increased. In fact, that's when he stole the money from Tony Satterfield that you heard from. Ultimately stole about $4.5 million between the Satterfields and others. And unlike other cases, Tony Satterfield, who was the son of his longtime housekeeper, he took all the money. Took every bit of it. And that was coming to a head as we move into the spring of 2021 because there had been some publicity. And you heard from Tony Satterfield that he was the defendant reached out in the spring of 2021 because there had been publicity and saying, hey, I'm still working on the case. Everything's fine. I'm still working on the case. It's good. But the reality is the defendant didn't have that money to pay it back. And he had one saving grace because, as you've heard, they don't get paid until the end of the year. And his saving grace was the Ferris case, which they tried in December. They get the verdict and get paid in March. And that's when he convinces Chris Wilson to send those $792,000 of fees to him. But the problem is that only lasted for about two months. $792,000 only lasted for about two months. And then he's running out of money again. Meanwhile, you've heard in the Boat case that Mark Tinsley was seeking to get a large personal recovery from Alec Murdoch of $10 million because he thought, as many people did, that he was wealthy and had a lot of money. And when they said he didn't, he filed a motion to compel. And you've heard testimony about whether or not that had been granted, but it doesn't change the fact that that's what Mark Tinsley was seeking to do. And that Boat case hearing had been scheduled for June 10th. In May of 2021, as we move into June, that's when Alec's own paralegal got the expense check for the Ferris case but not the fee check and tried to raise that to Alec and couldn't get a straight answer, tried to raise it to Chris Wilson and couldn't get a straight answer to his office. And so it goes to Jeannie Seconder, and Jeannie Seconder goes to the partners, and they can't get an answer about that either. And they want an answer to that because they're worried, because Alec has been talking about structuring fees, and they're worried he may be trying to hide assets because of the Boat case, and they don't want to be a part of that. All of these things are coming to a head, and his finances are falling apart. And you heard from the banker there. You heard where his finances were at on June 7th, 2021. And you saw what happened in the wake of that. Within a short period of time, he was negative $347,000. On June 7th, 2021, he was in the office. He was working on the Boat case, working on those financial disclosures. When Jeannie Seconder came in and confronted him about those fees that he no longer had and couldn't pay back. And on June 7th, 2021, and he tells this to Jeannie Seconder, his father, Randolph, is having a very difficult time. And while they might have said it was some positive news, the reality is that he was very, very sick. And he had always been someone that the defender could go to, that he could borrow money from. And so that pressure is happening as well. And on June 7th, 2021, as all these pressures were mounting, the defendant killed Maggie and Paul. And how do we know that? We're going to talk in detail about that. But the timeline puts him there. The forensic timeline puts him there. The use of his family weapons corroborates that. And his lies and guilty actions afterwards confirms it. And we'll go over each of those in great detail. Before we get to that, though, I want to finish out. Because in the wake of this, everything changes. All those things that were coming to a head immediately go away. It's a different world now. They're not asking about the Ferris fees anymore. And you heard testimony to that. Mark Tinsley doesn't believe the case is going to have the same value anymore. Because the sympathies of the case have changed after this tragedy. And you heard that. And who would better understand that than Alec Murdoch, who does the same work. The vote case hearing goes away. And everyone immediately rallies around Alec Murdoch. And it worked. Because it allowed him to borrow $250,000 from Johnny Parker, his law partner. Who, of course, wouldn't have loaned him that money if he knew what Alec was up to. And allowed him to go to Palmetto State Bank and get $350,000 and then off the books loan. That hadn't even been applied for. And to send that money to Chris Wilson. And convince Chris Wilson to pay another $192,000 of his own money. And to send an email to the firm that everything was okay. And that made it another month or so until Annette Griswold found that Ferris check in his office. And Jeannie Seconder looked up the Forge accounts. And what happened in the wake of that? What was the reaction of Alec Murdoch? Within a day of September 3rd of him being forced to resign, his buddy Chris Wilson is trying to see him. He comes and sees him on September 4th and confronts him about what he's been doing. And then within two hours, the side of the road happens. And Alec is a victim again. When accountability was at his door, he was a victim again. And he told a extremely detailed lie and went so far as to draw a composite sketch with the police of this assailant. And the accountability that had arrived at his doorstep again, he tried again. Tried to get it to go away. And it worked for a little while. People thought, oh my gosh, what's happened here? So we'd be suspicious of Alec anymore. But this time it fell apart a little quicker. Because his own brother figured out that he was trying to buy drugs. And the case fell apart very quickly. This is the setup for what we look at and what's going on. And it seems like a story that's far removed from most people's experience because it is. It is a different story like has never been seen before. But the reason is, is that he is a different man than the kind of stories that we've seen before. This is a different set of circumstances than we've seen before. And it's certainly easy to understand when you have a middle-aged man who's outwardly successful. Who has a strong family legacy. Who has a prominence in the community and a reputation. But is living a lie. Is living a lie. And that leads to, and can lead to, those pressures being overwhelming. And actions like this happening. Husbands have been killing wives, unfortunately, for years. And husbands killing sons goes back as far as King Herod. Probably further. When those pressures mount. And someone becomes. A family annihilator. Now the computer input, please. All right. We've got to do a little law school. I'm certainly not a professor. But we need to go through a few of the concepts here. And one of the most important concepts is the fundamental role. One of the fundamental roles while y'all are here. As the judge has told you, he's the judge of the law. But y'all are the judge of the facts. And what does judge of the facts mean? Well, a big part of that is that you determine credibility. You determine believability. You determine which witnesses you want to rely on or not rely on. You can rely on a part of a witness's testimony, all of a witness's testimony, one against many, many against one. It's up to each one of you individually to make that, determinations and decisions, and then to collectively discuss those into a group decision. Credibility is important. Is it believable? Is what somebody is telling you believable? And there's many things you can consider in credibility. But a few of those are the demeanor of the witness on the witness stand, whether the witness has a reason to be biased, whether the testimony of the witness was contradicted on one hand or supported or corroborated on another, whether the witness has been dishonest in the past. And, again, you can believe witnesses all against one, one against others, and you can believe portions of a witness's testimony as you see fit. Same thing goes for experts. Expert is a legal determination that allows them to give an opinion. Just because someone's qualified as an expert doesn't mean that you have to accept their opinion. You can judge that based on your assessment of the credibility and the relevance and the believability of that testimony. There's nothing different about that when someone's an expert. Beyond a reasonable doubt, I talked about this at the beginning of the case, and it's our burden. It's a burden we welcome. It's how this system works, that we have to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And what is a reasonable doubt? A reasonable doubt is a doubt that makes a reasonable, honest, sincere juror hesitate to act. It's proof that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely on in their affairs. But a reasonable doubt is not and leaves you firmly convinced of the guilt of the defendant. But it doesn't have to overcome every possible doubt. It doesn't have to overcome every possible doubt. I used to try a case against a defense attorney, and he would pull up a picture of something right here. I have the Mona Lisa. And he would tear off a piece like that and say, ladies and gentlemen, that's reasonable doubt. And my response to that is, you still know what this is, right? You still know what it is. And that's reasonable doubt, okay? If you still know what it is, and you're firmly convinced, then it's your duty under the oath that you've taken, as the judge will give you the law, to convict a defendant. Direct and circumstantial. Direct directly proves the existence of the fact, and circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating the existence of that fact. And we talked a little bit about that at the beginning. Sometimes people in common discussions will say, oh, the case is just circumstantial. But the law says that it doesn't matter. The circumstantial evidence can be just as good as direct evidence. It is just as good. It makes no distinction between that, and the judge will charge you on that. There's no greater degree of certainty required of circumstantial evidence than of direct evidence. The circumstances must be consistent with each other, and when taken together, point conclusively to the guilt of the defendant. And I gave you all an illustration at the beginning. I'm not going to redo the whole thing, but about being inside. And you go outside, and it starts raining, and then you know it's raining, okay? Because you've got direct evidence. You're getting wet. But if you go inside, and you're in a closed room, and all of a sudden it gets dark, and you hear thunder, and you hear the wind rustling, and you hear the rain coming down on top of the roof, and then after an hour or so, you go outside, and the sun's shining, but there's limbs all down in the yard, and it's wet as far as the eye can see, and there are puddles in the yard and puddles in the driveway. Is there any reasonable doubt what happened, that it rained? Now, again, I'll say it again. Supposedly, I guess somebody could have sprayed the whole neighborhood with a hose and blown a fan to blow the wind down, or blow the limbs down, simulate wind, but that's not a reasonable doubt, ladies and gentlemen. Circumstantial evidence can be just as strong as direct evidence. It is just as strong. The law makes no distinction just because it's circumstantial. All right, let's talk about murder. Murder is the willful killing of someone with malice aforethought. It's the unlawful and willful killing of any person by one with malice aforethought. The crime of murder is really, as far as the elements go, fairly simple. The operative terms here, the most important terms, are malice, which is the mental state that the person must have, and a forethought. But let's talk about those. What exactly do they mean? Malice, and it could be any of these. It can be the hatred, ill will, or hostility towards another, but it also can be the intentional doing of a wrongful act with an intent to flick an injury under the circumstances that the law would infer an evil intent. It could be a general malignant recklessness of the lives and safety of others. It could be a wicked or depraved spirit intent on doing wrong. It could be using firearms, shotgun, and a blackout to blow somebody away. That can be malice, ladies and gentlemen, if that's what you decide. A forethought sounds like it has to be planned, and certainly planning would account for a forethought, but it may be conceived at the very moment, a split second or in conjunction with the act. So a forethought doesn't require planning for that malice to occur. All it has to do is exist in the moment, just a split second, or in the moment that the act occurs. So when that trigger's pulled, as long as there's that intentional doing of a wrongful act, intent to inflict an injury, that would be an evil intent, a malignant recklessness, which you can infer from the circumstances of the case, then that's all you need. And how do you do that? I said infer. Because people don't always yell out what their intentions are. You have to infer it from the circumstances of the case itself. Look at the crime scene. Look at what happened. Look at the back story. Look at all the circumstances that come together, and you can infer malice from those. Laszlo Middle Law School. Malice and drugs. Voluntary intoxication does not impair a person's ability to act with malice aforethought. That's a legal principle. If you voluntarily get intoxicated, it is not a defense to a crime, and it does not negate the malicious nature of that crime. If one voluntarily intoxicates themselves, they are just as responsible for their actions as when they are not intoxicated. And the judge, again, take what the law comes from the judge, but this is a legal principle that you will hear. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a crime. And why does the law say that? Well, you can't take whatever it is and deny responsibility for what you've done under the law. I'm going to move through this quickly because we've already talked about it. And just for scheduling, I'm going to have to stop my argument so that we can all eat. But I'll give you all a chance to get away from this for a little bit. But I'm going to go ahead and go through some of this that we just talked about, but very quickly. Gathering storm in Alex's life. We talked about the family legacy. You heard how important that was to him and how important that was to this family and how it was in danger because of the vote case. And it was threatening also to expose him for who he really was, which would totally destroy his part of that legacy. Lose his career. Lose his bar license. Face consequences like he's never seen. He's also a successful lawyer and a part-time prosecutor. And as we go through and talk about the circumstances of this case and talk about the crime scene and the timeline and all the rest of it, think of it with that in mind. That this is an individual who is trained to understand how to put together cases, complex cases. He's been a prosecutor. He's done complex car wrecks. He understands the law. He's given closing arguments to juries before. So when you have a defendant like that, be thinking about whether or not this individual is constructing defenses and constructing alibis. Talk about his law practice. You've heard how lucrative it is. I had to struggle with him to get him to admit that he was wealthy, making more than a million dollars a year. I'll let you all decide whether or not that's wealthy. But he admitted ultimately that, you know, that was not uncommon for him to make that much money on top of stealing and borrowing on top of that. The important thing, though, to remember again, and I want to highlight this, is that they get, under the way that firm worked, they get their money at the end of the year. And then it's up to them to make it last. And that's the big problem that he had. That's why he had to get the Pharisees. He can't, if he's out of money in May, he's not going to, unless he can borrow it or steal it, he's out of luck. And the hounds were at the gate. All right. We talked about this. He's got, you heard, I think, Jeannie describe him as having intentional chaos. We had the land deals. He's serving this huge debt load. He constantly needs new money coming in. And this has been going on for more than a decade, a constant hamster wheel. The stress and the pressure of that would be extreme because it's been going on for so long, always having to stay one step ahead of the game, always having to beg, literally beg, borrow, or steal for over a decade to have the truth from being exposed. That's been going on all that time. The big case is his partners think he's straightened it out and paid off his debts, but he's getting paid millions of dollars, but he's stealing on top of that. It's not enough to keep that hamster wheel going. So he borrows and he steals. The methods I mentioned, you've got the PSB checks. You've got the fake forge. You've got fake business expenses, running the firm card, and from his family and his law partners. Each one of these depends on him being able to sit down and look someone in the eye and convince them that what they're doing is right when in reality that wasn't happening. And all those clients trusted him based on those. And we sat there and went through that, and it may have been exhausting, and I apologize for that, but he couldn't tell you about one conversation that he had that stuck with him. That's how easily it came to him. Is that relevant to your consideration of what he had to say to you? That's for y'all to decide. Couldn't name one conversation. Just had that same answer that he had rehearsed. And didn't want to talk about any of those individuals who trusted him. As he looked you in the eye and asked you to do the same. Down at the bottom. It's not just the clients, too. It's his staff. They're doing paperwork. They're filling all that out. He had to fast talk to them, as well. Alex's situation, I think, is akin to a Ponzi. And a Ponzi's kind of like a pyramid scheme, where it depends on new money coming in to pay old investors. And it works. It'll work for a long time, as long as you can keep that money coming in. But the second you can't, the second that you're out of options, it crashes and burns. That's how every Ponzi crashes and burns. And that's the situation, fundamentally, his finances were like. And that's the situation that was arriving in June of 2021, when he was at the scene with the victims minutes before they died and lied to everyone he would listen about. a gathering storm, the boat case, other factors that were arising, each one leading to that inevitable day of reckoning. He had the trial lawyers conference where he was confronted by Alec. Alec, of course, denied it. Everybody's lying on Alec. Alec's telling you the truth, even though everyone who knew him had no idea who he was. Everyone, no one knew who he really was. The people who came in here and said we thought this about him, not a single person knew who he really was. But he denies this confrontation when Mark Tinsley was like, he bows up on Mark Tinsley, he's like, "What you doing, man, about the boat case?" And Mark says, "You're going to have to pay money to the Beach family, millions of dollars." Alec doesn't have that. He's barely one step ahead of the game, he doesn't have insurance coverage anymore, or at least not a big umbrella policy. And why? Because his insurance company dropped him after the Satterfield case. The insurance company thinks the money went to the Satterfield boys, but it didn't. They don't know that he's stolen it all. But they don't want to insure him anymore. So he doesn't have that to help him pay the Beach case. And so what's the one hope he has? And that's the Ferris case. And it's tried. And you get a verdict in February of 2021, $792,000. And eventually, he tells Chris Wilson, "I'm going to structure those," which is a lie, and gets the fees sent to him in March. And it's spent in two months. But the boat case isn't going away. Mark says, "Show us your books if you're telling me you're broke." I think his testimony was they said that he could probably cobble together a million dollars, which I guess that's broke for him. But it wasn't enough. And so they refused, and that's what leads to the motion to compel. And there's been a lot of argument about, "Oh, is that going to be granted or not? Will the judge have granted it?" What we do know is that Mark Tinsley said that's what he was seeking to do. And he was seeking to do it because he had been told by the defense that he didn't have money. So he's like, "Prove it." None of us believe that, knowing what we know about you in this community. Prove it. Alec can't have anybody painting his financial records because it's all going to be apparent. That Ford account is going to open right up. He can't have that happen. It will all end. He'll lose his career. He will lose his livelihood. He will face investigations and consequences like he's never, like he's been able to avoid his entire life. But if he can just stay one step ahead, just one month longer, one day longer, then he's never going to have to face that accountability that he has to face. The hearing is scheduled for June 10th, 2021. And no one's here to argue to you that it's definitely going to be granted. All we're arguing to you is what the witnesses said they were intending to do. And as you've seen in court over the past six weeks, things happen and a process starts. And once that process starts, there's a conclusion to it. There's a conclusion to that. And then you heard from Tony Satterfield, who got up on the stand and talked about the fact that there was some coverage about this case as we move into the spring of 2021. And he hears from Alec. And Alec lies to him and says, yeah, we're hoping to get this case moving. And you saw the text message to that effect when the reality was that it had already been stolen. How's he going to pay that, ladies and gentlemen? That's millions of dollars. That's millions of dollars. And eventually, eventually, they're going to figure out that this money has already been paid. The insurance company thinks it's going to the right place. At some point, the question is going to get asked. And that alone is going to break everything apart. Ferris case, this is when his paralegal finds the expense check and not the fee check. And I've already told you this part of the story. And you all have heard the testimony. But it sets off that inquiry from the seconder. So now we have this on top of everything else that we're mentioning. This is like nothing he's ever experienced. He's always been able to stay one step ahead of the game. But after the boat case, his appetite has increased greatly. He started stealing millions of dollars. And now he's running out of options. And all these factors are converging. Oh, they're converging. And they're converging on one week, one day. And that arrives. His father's in the hospital. There's a confrontation with Jeannie. Alec tells her, manages to ward off the conversation by saying Mr. Randolph is terminal. He, of course, denies that. So I guess Jeannie's lying on him, too. But that's what she says happened. He's working on the boat case. And then the tragedy happens.
[00:36:11] Speaker ?: And it worked.
[00:36:14] Speaker 1: It's not the only reason. But it's part of the reason. The pressures on this man were unbearable. And they were all reaching a crescendo the day his wife and son were murdered by him. All on that day. And in the wake of this, everything changes. People stop asking about these things. The community has changed like you would expect.
[00:36:54] Speaker ?: People are concerned. They're scared. They're worried.
[00:36:57] Speaker 1: And everything's changed. The backlash from the boat case has gone away. And all of that has changed. And that's why Mark Tinsley thought his case was over.
[00:37:06] Speaker ?: This may seem like, really?
[00:37:08] Speaker 1: But who would understand that better than him? This is exactly the kind of work he did. His skills as a lawyer were understanding the emotional value of a case. Understanding the sympathies of a case. If you have a sympathetic plaintiff and an unsympathetic defendant, that is, in the civil world, that's a big case. But if those get reversed, if those change, if all of a sudden your defendant is more sympathetic, it changes it. It changes the entirety of what Mark Tinsley's position on this case was for the Beach family, that Alec was going to have to pay money. And that's what he told you from the stand. He said, if Alec had been the victim of some unsuspect or some random vigilante, the entirety of the case has changed. And I'm not taking the same position. I'm not trying to demand that level of recovery. And he gets the 750. Well, he gets 600 of it. Ultimately, he gets the 750 loan. He convinces Chris Wilson. That heads off to Ferris. That's pretty much the main thing he did after this was to make sure he could get that money, enough of it to Chris Wilson, so that he would send an email to the law firm saying, "Hey, everything's cool. I got it. It's all good." And that's what the law firm thought. And the same thing he did in the wake of the murders of his wife and son was he made sure to stay again one step ahead of the game because he had more time now. He had time he didn't have on June 7th, but he had it now. And that's the first thing he did. It's the first thing he did. It's the main thing he did was keep the hamster wheel going. I know it seems like a lot, but you have to consider the unique circumstances of this particular man. This particular man who has proven over and over again that he will do anything to keep that hamster wheel going and to avoid accountability. He just finally reached a point that he had never reached before. Of course, the hearing on the motion to compel gets canceled. Who would go forward with that in the wake of what's happened? It doesn't, I think you heard from the testimony up there, it doesn't get rescheduled until long after everything crashes and burns in September. It doesn't even get rescheduled in the wake of this. They don't have to worry about that either and the potential that had for exposing who he was. Because the second somebody looks at his accounts, the second his own partner, Danny Henderson, looks at his accounts in representing him and says, "Well, let me see him." He can't do that. He can't do that. He can't even show them to his own partner. Because what's going to happen? They're going to see it too. He can't let that happen. Everything falls apart. And he loses everything, including that legacy that you heard from individuals up there is so important to him. More important than anything. I'm not going to go through all of this, but this is the timeline. And you can see as we, and I'll let you all look at that, but you can see how this develops, how this hamster wheel continues, how he always has to be one step ahead of the game. You know, we've talked about the Red Beard and the Zero United. Those are the land deals that went bad. They get charged off, but you have Palmetto State Bank, you know, still dealing with him. He then appoints Russell Lafitte, a conservator, and borrows up to $1 million from the Plowler Girls' accounts without their knowledge. And then he has to steal money from the Badger case, where he's already making a huge amount of legal fees. He has to steal money from the Badger case to pay off the Plowler Girls before they turn 18, and then there's an accounting for that. And then he opens up the Forge account, and it continues. $338,000 from Deion Martin, Johnny Bush, Manuel Sanderson, Richard, $225,000. He's maxing out a $1 million line of credit. The only way to stay afloat is to beg, borrow, and steal. He's maxing out a $1 million line of credit. He steals some more money, but he's right back to where he was. March of 2018, he's now maxed out not only a $1 million line of credit, but also a $600,000 line of credit. A line of credit, almost like a credit card, maxed out. Then the boat crash happens, and look what happens to the figures. $3.7 million. $1.1 million. $1 million. And then you have the double homicide. And then you have the double homicide. This is some of the exhibits. This is, as you recall, there will be statements, and they're in evidence showing the defendant's assets on June 7, 2021. And the reds are his liabilities. That one's green, but it's negative. And then over here, that's where he was a couple months later. He borrowed $750,000 and still ended up $347,000 in the hole, which part of that had to cover. I think it was called the most generous overdraft policy ever conceived. Because, I mean, in fairness, though, he did get a $5 overdraft charge right there, so. Anyway. All right. What else do we have? Because we've talked about a lot of things about the finances, and I know that there's been a lot of that. But it's really the only way to understand all the things that were affecting this middle-aged, outwardly successful, professional man who had all these pressures upon him. Like no one had ever seen. Well, we've got the pills. He claims he's had a pill addiction for 20 years. But what does he say about that? He says it makes him paranoid. He says it makes him agitated. He says opiates give him energy. I'm using common sense about that. But he also says, and he even said this in the telephone interview after the side of the road, that the withdrawals will make you do anything, anything to get rid of them. That's common sense as well. We know how powerful opiates can be, and how the addiction of opiates can be extremely powerful. The withdrawals, not being dope sick, can be extremely powerful. But he's also saying he's taking a thousand milligrams a day. And he's trying to blame all his theft on that. But that's not what these records reflect. They reflect an insatiable desire for money in a hamster wheel that's been going on for a long time. And you don't really see the escalation from his drug dealer until March of 2021. I would ask you also, one of the tenets of juries is common sense. That's what you're here for, is for an individual and then a collective common sense. Common sense, a thousand milligrams a day. Does that sound survivable? He sat there on that stand and told you that's what he was taking. And as we're going to go through this process, we're going to talk about what he said on the stand and how many times on the fly that he looked you in your eyes and didn't tell you the truth. He's very good at it. His own partner said that. He's very, very good at it. I'll leave it to you to decide whether a thousand milligrams a day is survivable of opiates. And if it was that you could still engage in work, have a successful practice, and then on top of that engage in these complex conspiracies to steal and fool everyone and live a life and how people outwardly think that you're, you know, who you profess to be in public. If you were taking a thousand milligrams a day, does that make common sense? I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, it doesn't. I have no doubt that he was taking opiate pills. But I think he looked you and I would submit to you to decide whether or not he looked you in the eye and claimed the amount that's inconsistent with whatever else we know about this man. He's consistent with survivability as a matter of common sense. He can never function at the level he's been functioning, keeping up with these pressures, staying one step ahead for over a decade if he was taking that much dough. Just one other lie that I would submit to you is a lie that he's trying to get you to believe, to feel sympathetic for him as if the dough was the cause of the money and the cause of his issues when the reality is it wasn't. He's been going on for a long time and the finances proved differently. Well, what else about this? You've seen the interviews. We're going to play some clips of these interviews, but I'm not going to play them all for you again. You've watched them. But if you have any questions, go back and watch them. He talks about being paranoid. Listen, watch those interviews when he's with Dave Owen. He doesn't look like he's withdrawing from any drugs. His responses are appropriate. He's not displaying any paranoia.
[00:47:58] Speaker ?: He's smooth.
[00:48:02] Speaker 1: He's focused on the events. He's focused on trying to get information about the case from law enforcement officers, which is interesting in its own right. Why is he so focused on that? And in Savannah, where supposedly he was detoxing, he sat down, as you've heard the testimony, with a composite sketch artist and went through the whole process to come out with this picture, which I swear is not me. How do you do that? How do you do that if you're on that much dough? So why did he tell you that, ladies and gentlemen? Why did he look you in the eye and tell you that as he sat there on that stand trying to explain what was going on? It's interesting also that in one of the interviews with law enforcement, there were three interviews, June 8th, June 10th, and August 11th, before we get to the side of the road, that he mentions that Paul was a little detective. That's very interesting for him to mention that because you heard from Marion Proctor, Maggie's sister, that Maggie called Paul that, the little detective, specifically in reference to Paul paying attention and trying to keep Alec from taking pills. Why would he bring that up? That's an interesting thing to bring up because that was what that was in reference to, and what do we know? We know that in May, if we talk about all the pressures that are coming upon him, all these financial things that we've talked about, this exhausting hamster wheel that's been going on forever, the need to beg, borrow, and stay one step ahead, and he's running out of options there. On top of that, we know in May that Paul sends a text to him saying, "Mom found some pills, we need to talk." Mom found some pills, and we need to talk. We need to talk another pressure from Paul and Maggie on him. And if you look at the texts, the weekend of the ball game on June the 7th, and those are in evidence. And Alec is not at the game. And he's texting back and forth, and Maggie's like, "Don't come if you feel bad." And he's like, "Well, you know, I think I can get a late check out." And then he's like, "At 1 o'clock they made me leave." I submit to you, it's a reasonable inference they were on him at this time. They were watching him like a hawk. Opiates, the most powerful of withdrawals. And everything's coming to a head, including this, as well. Run out of money, running out of options, doesn't get paid in any significant way until December. Already stole the Ferris fees and spent that money in two months. He has an expensive pill habit, and accountability and consequences will undo everything in his life, everything that is his self-identity, everything, the only things that he cares about. He doesn't care about lying to his partners and his family and his friends and his clients will delay accountability for him. He'll do it in a heartbeat. And all of that is about to be undone.
[00:52:05] Speaker ?: Are you at a good stopping point?
[00:52:08] Speaker 2: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
[00:52:10] Speaker ?: All right.
[00:52:12] Speaker 2: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take one hour and 15 minutes for lunch. Please do not discuss the case.
[00:52:19] Speaker ?: Thank you. You may continue. May it please, Corey, Your Honor. All right. Hope everybody had a good lunch.
[00:52:19] Speaker 2: Motive, means, opportunity. guilty acts.
[00:52:21] Speaker ?: May it please, Corey, Your Honor. All right. Hope everybody had a good lunch. Motive, means, opportunity. Guilty acts. That's the basic way. The basic way. You need to talk. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. May it please, Corey, Your Honor.
[00:52:30] Speaker 3: All right. Hope everybody had a good lunch.
[00:52:32] Speaker 2: Motive, means, opportunity.
[00:52:33] Speaker ?: Guilty acts.
[00:52:33] Speaker 2: That's the basic way to determine identity. So let's talk a little bit now about means. The tools to determine identity.
[00:52:36] Speaker ?: All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you.
[00:52:40] Speaker 1: You may continue. May it please, Corey, Your Honor. May it please, Corey, Your Honor. All right. Hope everybody had a good lunch. Motive, means, opportunity, guilty acts. That's the basic way to determine identity. So let's talk a little bit now about means. The tools to commit the crime. Family weapons were used to commit this crime. And this is forensic evidence that was presented to you. First of all, we'll talk about the blackout. And you've heard testimony that there were two blackouts purchased in December of '16. And that one went missing around Halloween of '17, years prior to these murders. And that a replacement without a thermal scope was bought in April of 2018. Three blackouts that the defendant purchased can only account for one of them. And it's this third blackout which is the one that's at issue. You heard from Paul's friend, Will Loving. And first of all, let me say this. You heard the defendant in his various statements. And he's very concerned about saying that there's no -- they didn't have a blackout. There was no blackout along with them. Even though he slipped up once and said, yeah, we were out looking for hogs. And you heard from his law partners who did the same thing saying, yeah, you can look for hogs in the daytime. Very, very concerned early on in his statements and saying they didn't have a blackout. They just had a .22 pistol. And he also said eventually -- he's like, well, I think I replaced it. Well, I guess I replaced it. I'm certain I replaced it if you listen to his various statements. Very vague and fuzzy about this third blackout. And told the friends, Paul's friends, one of whom -- both of whom testified, but Will Loving in particular. And what did Will Loving say? The defendant said the gun went missing around Christmas time of 2020. But Will Loving said, no, I was with Paul. I was with Paul in turkey season, which is in the spring. And we sat out at the steps right outside the house that you all went to today, right on that side entrance that goes into the gun room. And if you look down, you can see how they were digging a pond and how you could fire down in that area. And they set up some targets to sight it in. And we were shooting that other gun. We were shooting that other gun, that replacement gun. And it had a red dot sight on it. Not a thermoscope, but a red dot. A red dot. Which is not good at shooting at night. But they were shooting it and sighting it in with the red dot, the tan gun. He was with Paul while they were shooting that gun right there. And what did Jeff Croft, who testified before you, find right there? Weathered cases, or casings. Weathered cases, right where Will said he and Paul were shooting that gun just a couple months prior to the murders. S&B 147 grain blackout rounds. And those rounds and empty boxes, and the pictures are in evidence, and the rounds are in evidence, were found all over that property. S&B 147 grain blackout. There were full clips found. There were empty boxes found. And there were also cases found. S&B 147 grain blackout rounds found across the street at their shooting house. Two separate locations on the property. But what's really important, again, goes back to what Will said. I was with Paul when we shot that replacement gun right there. Right there. And you heard forensic scientist Paul Greer testify that the six cases, items two through seven, The six cases found around Maggie that killed her were loaded into, extracted, and ejected through the same firearm that fired those weathered cases right outside the door where you all went to today and at the shooting range across the street. A family blackout killed Maggie. It was present just a couple months prior to the murders. And it's gone now. It's gone now. It's gone now. A family weapon the defendant cannot account for. Killed Maggie. Killed Maggie. But what about the shotgun? The 12-gauge shotgun that was loaded with one federal double-aught buck and one drylock number two steel shot. Well, first of all, you heard that the two weapons that Paul often favored and often carried were this shotgun right here and the blackout. Those were his two guns, his favorite guns aside from his deer rifle. The defendant had that gun with him when Daniel Green, the first deputy on the scene, showed up. And shotguns, as you heard, are a little bit different than rifles. And the conclusion there was, was that the two fired shells that were inside the feed room that killed Paul had class characteristics similar with that Benelli. Super Black Eagle 3.
[00:59:53] Speaker ?: Super Black Eagle 3.
[00:59:54] Speaker 1: But insufficient individual identifying marks to either match or exclude it. That shotgun right there. But what else did you hear about the shotguns? Paul had this Benelli Super Black Eagle 3. That was his gun. Camo print, camo strap, Nolan Tootin, Nathan Tootin, Will Loving. Rogan all identified that as Paul's gun. It's the one that Alec had. It's got Maggie's DNA and blood on the receiver. You heard from the DNA experts. And it was loaded with 12 gauge and a 16 gauge misloaded round. What else did you hear? You also heard about the Super Black Eagle 2. And you heard from Nolan and Nathan that this was Buster's gun. This is the Super Black Eagle 2. That had the Mojo sticker on it. It had the Mojo sticker on it. And that was recovered during SLED's search of the residence the next day. But what else did you hear? What else did you hear? You heard from Nathan and Nolan that the defendant's favorite gun was a Super Black Eagle 1. Remember Nathan going through each one of these guns and how knowledgeable he was as to the differences between them? SLED search Moselle for every 12 gauge. No Super Black Eagle 1. Family weapons. Family weapons killed these victims. And on top of that, just like the S&B 147, well not as much, but they're in evidence. The Federal Double Ault Buck and the Winchester Drylock steel two shot rounds were recovered at various locations on the property. What does that mean? We started, we talked about motive, means. The defendant had the means to commit these crimes. At the beginning of the case, I talked to you about some of the evidence that you would hear. And I held up my cell phone. And there's been a lot of that evidence. But the last witness you heard in the state's case in chief was Peter Rudolfski. And he went through that timeline. And what does it show? We've gone motive means opportunity. Opportunity to commit the crime. And what does this timeline show? These are all the information, the various sources of information that were in this timeline. And let's look at what it shows. First thing right here is that the defendant arrived at Moselle at 6:42. Now I'll say one thing. You've heard a lot of testimony about what he said about times. What time he got home, what time he went to the office, how long he was at Almeida. Certainly, people can have some variability in assessing that. But he almost never was right. Almost never was right. But it's 6:42, he arrives at Moselle. Paul, according to his extraction, gets there about 7:04. And about 7:03, we see the defendant steps registering on his phone. And then, over the next 30 minutes or so, we see a symmetry, general symmetry, between the steps between Paul's phone and Alex's phone, as he described, walking the property. At 7:39, we have creation of the Snapchat video that had the clothes on it. When that ultimately was recovered, and you saw the interview, it was shown to the defendant, who had provided his clothes that night. And at the first time, then, he started talking about changing his clothes. And we'll talk more about that later. Again, 7:55 to 8:05, we have some symmetry with the steps. We have Paul Murdaugh's battery life. And you heard from the experts that have reviewed Paul's usage that, like many kids his age, he's constantly flirting with it being low. But that doesn't stop him from using it, and you see that in the evidence in this case, as well. 7:56 again, that's when Paul sends the Snapchat to his friends. And then, at 8:08, we see Paul leave the kennel area at 8:06, and 8:08 make his way down to the residence. 8:05 to 8:09, around that time that Paul is getting there at 8:08, that's the last step activity on Alex's phone. And it's the last step activity until 9:02, which we'll talk about in a minute. 8:08, Alex's phone pretty much goes with no activity for that time period. And also, he has no cell activity from 6:52 to 9:04, which is right in that time period we'll talk about in a little bit. So, eating dinner. You heard the defendant talk about eating dinner. Paul is at that residence, if you look right here, from 8:14 down to 8:35. And again, that timeline exhibit, there's a big one and then there's a condensed one. And all of this is in there in evidence for you all to look at. He's at that residence from 8:14 to 8:35. Now, the defendant, again, despite having a photographic memory, a new photographic memory about things that he told y'all that people were hearing for the first time, he still can't remember specific things about Maggie's activities, as to when Maggie arrived, as to what they talked about. He can remember dropping his phone down on the console, but he can't remember things like that. He wants to remember things that help him try to explain to you why he never told the truth about maybe the most important thing he could tell law enforcement. But he can remember very specific details. He still gets this wrong. But she arrives at 8:17 in Moselle, they're already there. How do we know that? Because her cell phone disconnects from her Mercedes at 8:17, and that's when she starts showing steps. And Paul, what's he doing? He's still using his phone like always. We see the battery life, but he's still sending snaps. He's receiving snaps. Bless you. He's sending to his friends, all these friends right here. He's receiving these snaps. All during that time, from 8:17 to 8:30, continuing to communicate with his friends, using his phone like always. And then what happens? About 8:30, Maggie's phone registers some steps. And consistent with that, consistent with her and Paul going down to the kennels, riding down to the kennels, we see Paul's Murdoch phone start showing steps. And then down here in 8:38, he's in that kennel area where those dots are. And if you look at that particular slide from 8:38 to 8:44, that's going to be the last GPS reading on Paul's phone, 8:44. You heard from Rogan. And you've heard from Rogan as it references this timeline. And Rogan tells you and told you from that witness stand that he was having a conversation with Paul about cash and the dog's tail. They were having an active conversation about that. Paul calls Rogan at 8:40 and they're talking about it. And Rogan says, "Send me a FaceTime, but if it doesn't work, send me a video." At 8:44, 4 minutes and 14 seconds, we have right here the FaceTime, but it only lasts 11 seconds. And then at 8:44, 55, that's when the kennel video was recorded, the last 50 seconds. At the beginning of this investigation, as you will call the testimony, they didn't have Paul's password and couldn't get in. And you heard in the defendant's August 11th statement that when he was asked about Rogan saying he may have heard Alec on the phone during this time, he said, "Well, I'd be surprised if that were the case." Because law enforcement didn't have this kennel video. They didn't have this kennel video until April of 2022 when Paul's phone was finally unlocked. And that changed everything. Why did it change everything?
[01:11:44] Speaker ?: Opportunity.
[01:11:45] Speaker 1: Being at the scene of the crime when the murders occurred. Opportunity. Opportunity. And more importantly, exposing the defendant's lies about the most important thing he could have told law enforcement. When was the last time I saw my wife and child alive? Why in the world would an innocent, reasonable father and husband lie about that? And lie about it so early? Because he didn't know that was there. And he could always say, "Well, Rogan must be mistaken." I'm surprised. Not if my times are right, was what he said. Rogan told you. I was expecting that video right there. That was supposed to be the next thing that happened. Send me the video. Because we were worried about Cash the dog's tail. He talked about how his girlfriend was going to call a veterinarian. Or she had some association with one. It was an active conversation going on right then and right there. And what's going on still? Paul's still also texting his friends. You might recall that in an opening statement, the defense counsel said, "Oh, he was texting after that video for 10 minutes." It's not for 10 minutes. It's for barely a minute. Down here, 848-58 to 849-01, that's the last time that Paul's phone was unlocked. And what do we know? We know that the defendant was there. Just minutes earlier, at the scene of the crime, with the victims. 849-01, Paul's phone locks. He never sends that video to Rogan. You heard Rogan say that when he watched that video. You heard him say, that's the video I was supposed to receive. That is the video that my friend was supposed to send to me. And he never did. In fact, Rogan responds at 849-35, and he says, see if you can get a good picture of it. Mary Ann, his girlfriend, wants to send it to a girl. We know that's a vet. Tell him to sit and stay, and he shouldn't move around too much. Even though this is an act of conversation with Paul, who you heard from multiple friends, is one to respond and use his cell phone, Paul never reads it. Paul never reads it. What happens at 849-31? We're at 849-01 for Paul. 849-31. Maggie reads Lynn's response to the group thread about Mr. Randolph. And then her phone locks forever. And it's never unlocked again until it's recovered the next day. Down here. 6-8 and 1-10. 849 for both of them. The defendant, after hearing multiple individuals of his family and friends and law partners get on the stand and listen to that video and say, that's him on that video, got on the stand for the first time and said, okay, I was there. He was forced into doing what he does all the time, and that's coming up with a new lie when he's confronted with evidence he can no longer deny. And the only reason he did that, the only reason he did that, is because all those witnesses at that witness stand said, yeah, that's him. He's there. Why would he lie about that, ladies and gentlemen? Why would he even think to lie about that if he were an innocent man? Why would he even think about that? But he got on the stand, and he's told you a story, and we're going to talk more about that story in a minute. But his story was, was that he didn't want to go down there, and then he went down there, and he went down there really quick, and got care of the chicken, and went straight back, and he can't remember anything about what he talked about with Maggie. He can't remember their conversation at dinner, but he's dadgum sure about the fact that he went down there and went straight back. But even if you give him the benefit of the doubt, his story doesn't make sense. Because that kennel video is 50 seconds. It's over at 845.45. Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt that he could take care of the chicken, and maybe the fastest dog and chicken chase ever, and put that chicken up, and not say a word to Maggie and Paul, and get on that golf cart, and drive all the way back to the house, where does that put you? It puts you right at 849. At which point he claims he went inside, and he managed to doze for a second. Then he's up at 902. Perhaps the quickest nap ever. It doesn't make sense, ladies and gentlemen. It's a new story to fit facts he can no longer deny. From a person who, not a single person who was close to him knew who he really was. Not a single person close to him hadn't been lied to by this man. And I will submit to you that this one is the most blatant one yet. And we'll talk more about that in a second. What happened at 849? Y'all been to the scene. That feed room door is probably a bit tighter than this. But you saw the evidence from Kenny Kinsey and all the rest of them that clearly Paul was in. In the middle of that feed room is a kill zone. Nobody in there with him. He's in that room. No defensive wounds at all. His hands are down. And he takes that shot, buckshot to the chest. And any person who did that would probably think that took care of business because it's buckshot. But for some reason he was canned it this way and it went through. It was a million and one shot. But it didn't kill him. Alec thought of that. Alec, the lawyer. Alec, the prosecutor. Alec is thinking through that we'll see. He's manufacturing an alibi. And he's also manufacturing the fact that there's two guns used. But we know, unlike the expert they call from Connecticut where they can't even get ARs, he doesn't know about people riding around on property. He doesn't know about Paul and the two guns he likes to use. He doesn't know about this family and how common those guns are together. He says, well, his only conclusion is all of it would be practical for somebody just to fire out the cliff. But this is him. This is Alec, the prosecutor, the lawyer. And he's thinking through this. He's thought through this. He's going to use two guns because it's going to confuse people that perhaps there were two shooters. But again, it doesn't make sense. Two family weapons? But he thinks Paul's shot. And you heard the testimony that Paul appears in the feed room doorway. Is Alec putting down that shotgun to pick up the blackout? And is startled by Paul? And that's why the angle's like that? And catches Paul like that? And goes up into the ceiling? As you've heard the testimony from Kinsey? And blows his brains out. And what happens with Maggie right here? We see activity on Maggie's phone. You heard about sandal prints. You heard from Kenny Kinsey about the mark on her leg from the Polaris over there by the overhang next to the feed room. You've seen the diagrams and the crime scene photos of that all those cases are in that area between the doorway to the feed room and where Maggie was found. You heard that Maggie had no defensive wounds. You also heard Paul, that sibling from that first shot, a close-range shot, with no indication that he detected a threat from the person who fired that weapon. Why? Because it was him. Same with Maggie. Because Maggie sees what happens and she comes running over there, running to her baby. Probably the last thing on her mind, thinking that it was him who had done this, she's running to her baby. While he's gotten picked up the blackout and opens fire at close range, again with no defensive wounds. And she takes those two shots that you heard Dr. Reber say were parallel, and it crumples her over. In those cases, you can see them move around. It takes that shot that goes through here, and she goes down flat, and then there's the shot in the back of the head. Is that malice? Is that malice, ladies and gentlemen? Is that malice to do that? Is that intentional harm to another with a bad intent, with an evil intent to do those things? Clearly, I submit to you. Clearly, it's malicious. Clearly, it's malicious. She was running to her baby. Heard that shot, and was running to her baby when she got mowed down. About the only person that we have conclusive proof was at that scene just minutes before. And who lied about that very fact until he could no longer do it to you last week. Alec told you he went down there in the golf cart. We'll talk about this a little bit, but they had their expert come up here with the two, five, two people, and all the rest of it. Be sitting in a golf cart. But he comes up in the golf cart. But what we don't see, as I said before, is any activity on his phone until 9.02. The crime occurred around 8.49 to 8.53. Down there, at the feed room, state's exhibit 516. It's just a diagram, remember that Roger Dale Davis did, about the kennels and the hose there, and how it wasn't put up the way he would put it up. If you're going to wash off real quick, what better place to do it? The water, the pictures of the water in states 199 and 190. It wouldn't take long to strut down and wash yourself off. Get in that cart and head back to the house. And then at 9.02, the defendant over there, who wouldn't even admit until forced to that he was even at the scene, all of a sudden, he is as busy as he has ever been. 9.02 to 9.06, 283 steps. 9.03, we see the system start up on the car. And that could mean that he's close by the car. Has he returned with Maggie's phone and placed it in that car? And then what do we see from 9.02 to 9.06? Not only is he 283 steps in that four-minute period, but he is making calls like crazy. And I asked him, I said, what were you doing? What were you doing? And even though he has a photographic memory about things that he thinks will convince you, he could not answer what he's doing during this four-minute period that is so illustrating of what we're talking about here. That for four minutes, he is not only going 283 steps. This is a defense exhibit, defense 156. 283 steps, and they put in the distance. We heard the distance isn't as accurate, but it illustrates the point. That's 208 meters. Meter, you know, roughly is a yard, a little bit more, a little bit less, I don't remember. But let's say it's 600 feet. That's a lot. And he couldn't remember what he was doing. I asked him, you been on a treadmill? Were you doing jumping jacks? What were you doing at the same time you're calling all these phones? Why is he calling multiple times? We can see right here. He calls Maggie. He calls Randolph. He calls Maggie again. All in that four-minute period where he's moving around. But he couldn't remember what he was doing. Just getting ready. Is the prosecutor, the lawyer, manufacturing his alibi? Because he knows he's got to get to Alameda quick. He's got to compress those timelines, and that's exactly why he knew to lie about being at the kennels to start with. He's got to compress those timelines so that it would convince whoever down the road that he couldn't have done it. He's got to compress them, and that's why he's doing all that right then and there. System startup, 905-56 in the Suburban. And then, this is interesting, Maggie's phone has that orientation change to portrait two seconds before Alex's second call goes in to her phone. If it's some random vigilante, some random vigilante who knew to hide out there and counted on family guns being there, did he have ESP? Did he have ESP to move that? Or was that Alec turning the phone as he got to the Suburban, checking as he manufactured his alibi that it was coming through? And we saw how quickly out of the gate when law enforcement arrived and in his first interview, how he's immediately referring to his phone. And besides that, you've heard about Alec. You've heard from witnesses. He went down to the kennels, but he didn't take his phone. Is that also the lawyer and the prosecutor making sure his phone was not with him when he went down there? Sir, you've heard testimony. It would be unusual for him not to take that phone down to the kennels. And then he gets underway. This call right here, too. All those calls, all those steps, when his phone finally goes active, just minutes after he was at the scene with the victims and he lied about it and he's so busy. But let's take him at his word again. Why in the world, if he's calling her so much, if he's so busy and so concerned to call her as many times as that in a four-minute period, why, why would he not just drive by the kennels? Why would he not just drive down there to say, hey, hey, Max, I'm going to Alameda. What you guys doing? Hey, Paul, you want to go? Why is he so busy and making so many calls but doesn't drive the less than a minute down there to see what they're up to? Why would he not do that? And you've heard testimony from Marion. You even heard it from the defendant's own mouth about whether or not Maggie was going to go with him to Alameda, that Alec had actually asked her to come home that night, which he denies. And said in his statement that he found out later that that was the case. But you saw the text from Blanca and you heard from Marion that Alec wanted Maggie to come home that night. To make sure of it. Malice. With all of that, why would he not just turn and drive down there? He was just there in the golf cart. Why would he not drive down there? Why is he so anxious to have missed calls for her and he was just there and not drive down there? About the same general time period that he lied to until he tried to tell you what he told you from the stand last week. Right here, he Suburban connects to the Alex's iPhone. He calls Maggie at 906.52 and he's getting in the Suburban right at that time. Maggie's backlight goes off from 907 to 931. And you've heard the testimony from the various experts about the backlight. And then he leaves Moselle Road at 907.06. All of this is fitting together. He's on the move. At 908.36, he's right here doing 42 miles an hour. And there's Maggie's phone location. And at 908.42, he's just passing. And at 908.58, just 20 seconds after he's almost at that location, he texts Maggie's phone and says, going to check on him, be right back. That text was unread. Now, there's been a lot of discussion from all the experts about the backlight issue. And every single one of them said that there's a lot of variables about that light coming on. Every single one of them said it's not going to record an orientation change unless that light is on. And you heard from each one of the experts about those variables and about the fact that there's no guarantee that it's going to come on or not come on. And you heard from Paul McManagall about that issue. And they cross-examined him about that and all the rest of it. But it's just a common-sense determination about how iPhones work. About how they work. That raised-awake feature is set for actual somebody lifting it up in the normal course. It is not set to respond necessarily to violent motion like flipping it. And every single expert testified to that. Every single one of them did. And then, besides that, you'd have to accept the fact that ELEC is driving by just moments prior to that time. All of these circumstances would have to go the other way of the reasonable inferences in this case. Paul McManagall got up there and testified as to these issues and as to the fact that there's no guarantee, in fact, more likely than not, that if the phone is validly thrown or flipped or frisbeed or whatever, it's not going to light up. And that's consistent with what every other expert said. You heard testimony from Mr. Rudolfski about this, from Agent Rudolfski. He's hitting 74 miles an hour at night on that particular route. What's he in a hurry about? That's faster than he drove to work. Why is he in a hurry? Because he knows he has to compress that timeline. And then along the way, he's manufacturing the alibi by making these short calls. 60 seconds. He calls Chris Wilson. He calls John Marvin. Chris Wilson calls him back. He's on the phone the entire way. Does he say to any of them, hey, I can't get Maggie on the phone? Say anything like that? They're very short. He doesn't talk about much. And then we get down here at 920. There's a 131-second call, which means that call is over at 922.45. And that's also when we see the vehicle go into park. That's when we have the arrival at Almeida as well. And you heard from defense witnesses that, well, people would park around back right there. Okay. It's also, though, near these structures. There's that line right there. But what do we see? From 922 to 932, we've got 195 steps taken. We have him calling Libby Murdoch, which will be calling the house two minutes later. And then from there, we have at 931 and 932, we have system startups on the Suburban, which you've heard from the experts could be from having that remote key in your pocket and walking near the car. So 922 to 932 is the steps. And 931, you've got two system startups. And what did you hear from Shelley? That he called, but it still took a number of minutes before he came in. And that's about six minutes right there. Meanwhile, what's he so busy right there? And I'll meet him. Meanwhile, Rogan is trying to call his friend to no avail. He tries to message Maggie. Tell Paul to call me. Neither one of them can respond. Still a busy guy at Alameda. 935 to 945, we've got 60 steps. We've also got another at 936, around the beginning of that time period, another hit on the system startup. 936 to 941. Down here. About a five-minute period, and we've got another hit. And then at 943.05, the Suburban moves that apart. He's not there very long. And he's moving around a lot, and he's sitting off that car. While he's at Alameda. He told law enforcement multiple stories about his trip there. You heard Miss Shelley Smith talk about that. You heard her talk about him trying to tell her how long he had been there. He says he was just trying to tell her the truth. But that's not how she felt. And Blanca didn't feel the same way when he tried to talk to her about what he was wearing that night. Both of these being people that's worked for that family for a long time. But he's a busy guy during all of this. In Alameda, we have the pause. 944. And no seconds to 944 and 54 seconds. And that's during the time period that Alec calls that phone of Maggie's again. This is the time period where he remembered, because I asked him on cross, and he remembered very specifically about his phone falling down on the console and that whole story. Is that true, ladies and gentlemen? Or is he coming up with some details on the fly when he can't remember more important things, like what was the last conversation you had with your wife and child when you jetted down to the kennels and back? What did y'all talk about at dinner? What were you doing from 902 to 906? Those are questions he doesn't want to answer. But would a reasonable person remember those things? Would they not replay in their mind every day the last conversations that they had? Why would he remember that console story? Because he lies convincingly and easily, and he can do it at the drop of the hat. You've heard testimony about that. He's been doing it to all the people who trust him for years. And he did it to y'all. He's manufacturing an alibi. He's smart. He's a good lawyer. His family has a history of prosecution. He understands these issues. That's why this case is a case that had to be figured out this particular way, because he knows what to do to try to prevent evidence from being gathered. And if you listen to his statements again and listen to the questions he asks, he's asking questions like that. He's trying to figure out what do the police have? What do they know? He's a prosecutor trying to manufacture his alibi, and we see this again. He calls Paul. He sends a text. Call me, babe. Of course, none of that's read or responded to. And then, in 952.15, he calls Chris Wilson. Call me if you are. Call me if you are. And Chris calls back, and they chat for about two minutes, including the connection time. Two minutes. And what does Chris Wilson say? Well, he says it was a normal conversation. Well, of course it is with this guy. He's convincing. But what does Chris say? The only thing that they talked about was Chris bringing up some case. And then Alec was like, hey, I've got to go. I'm at Almeda. Did Alec say, hey, I'm trying to get home. I can't get Maggie on the phone. I've called her like six times. Paul won't answer either. Did Alec say, he said call me if you are. Did he say, did Chris say that Alec said, I've got to ask you a question or let's talk about this? No, Chris brought up some case, and it was mundane. It was mundane. It's manufacturing an alibi. He's calling anybody who will answer the phone for these short conversations. And it's one of the first things out of his mouth in the first interview. Look at my phone. I called this person. I called this person. I called this person. I called this person. He's manufacturing this alibi. Also, throughout all of this, all of this relevant time period, you see from the Dillon Hightower extraction, you'll see that over and over again, all these call logs that are deleted from the extraction. They're deleted, which occurred on June 10th. What's up with that? On the way back, these are defense exhibits 141 and 142. Rolling pretty heavy at 75 to get there. And I'm sure the defense will point out that that 80 miles an hour was a peak. Still running pretty good there. What's he going to hurry about in the dark? Doing 80 miles an hour. At 951-42, rolling 80 when he texts Chris, call me if you're up. It's peak speed when he's texting me. 1001, he arrives at Alameda. And this is going to be important. Rogan, of course, is trying to call Paul. And he texts Paul, yo, which is unread, but hits Paul's phone. And then he gets to, says Alameda. Sorry about that. That's obviously back in Moselle. He gets there. He's shifting in and out of park from 2200, which is 10 o'clock, to 10.01.43. He's calling Maggie at 10.03.58. And then at 10.05.06, he leaves for the kennels. At 10.05.57, he arrives at the kennels about a minute later. Make it a minute in a suburban. How long is he going to take in a golf cart? At 10.05.57, he arrives at the kennels. And 10.06.14 is the 911 call. Now, there's a lot of back and forth with him about that. But in his statements, with what he told his law partners that he went in great detail over about his activities that night, including lying to them about ever going to the kennels, he was very clear that he got out of the car and went and checked Paul and Maggie. One time he said to see if they're breathing. Another time to check a pulse. You've seen the horrific injuries they've suffered. 19 seconds. Is that enough time for a surprised human being to come across that scene, process what they were seeing? Get out of the car. Go over there. Check both those bodies and then call 911. He's changed the story now yet again because he's confronted with this evidence. The reason why it's so quick, the reason why it's so quick is because he knew exactly what scene he was going to find. 19 seconds. 19 seconds. During that 911 call, and you can hear it on the 911 call, he leaves for the residents from 1011 to 1014. And you can see the map points on there. And those are the speeds on the suburban on those trips. It took just under a minute doing 35 and 30 miles an hour. So think about that when you go back to his story about a casual trip down to the Kimmels and the golf cart. And you look at his times that he's trying to convince you of. 1017, he gets off the 911 call. He calls Randy. He calls Randy again. He calls John Marvin. And then we see at 1020 and eight seconds, Paul's phone reflect that auto lot thing that could be, as you heard from the testimony, it not recognizing a face. And this is interesting. As we'll see over the next few slides, he spends a whole lot of time trying to call Rogan Gibson. He told you, oh, well, he's a good boy who lives down the street, who lives close by. He's calling Rogan before he calls many of his family. Before he calls Buster. Calling Rogan multiple times. And those texts would have come in on Paul's phone. What's he so concerned about? He said he turned Paul over and his cell phone popped out. This is a sealed exhibit. I'm not going to name it. Popped out. Manufacturing an alibi. Concerned about the evidence. Worried about what Rogan may have known or may have heard. I'll put it down. Can I have this back, please? I'm sorry, Mr. Thank you, Mr. There. 1024. iMessages. Call me. 1025. 1029. 1025. The first deputy's on the scene. 1029. Call in Randy. 1030. Rogan again. And then finally at 1034 is when Paul's phone powers off. Opportunity. Motive. It means an opportunity. Guilty conscience. Guilty conscience. I've already kind of talked about these, so I'm not going to belabor the point. But you heard from Blanca Simpson. Blanca Simpson said he was wearing like a polo shirt when he left. He was wearing this shirt in the Vinnie Vines. She recognized both of those. He, of course, turned over the T-shirt that he was wearing when law enforcement arrived. And then you heard Blanca say he later tried to convince her that he was wearing a Vinnie Vines shirt. Three shirts in one day, and a fourth one he tried to get Blanca to say. And you heard her testimony. She felt very uncomfortable by that. Multiple changes of shoes in the day. He wouldn't be wearing those shoes if he were out riding the property. I've already mentioned the text from Maggie that Alec wants me to come home, but he can't even be clear about that point because that doesn't fit with his narrative. Marion Proctor says the same thing, but he can't admit that because that doesn't fit with his narrative. She was surprised that Maggie didn't go along to Almeida. And then she said, Alec made an interesting comment, one of many, some of which came from that stand that we'll talk about in a little bit. Whoever did this thought about it for a really long time. Why would he say that? Because he told you that it was just random vigilantes from the boat case of which there is no evidence whatsoever that you've seen in this record. Trials depend on evidence. There has to be evidence to make a decision. And his claims trying to manufacture something about the babe case, there's been no evidence whatsoever of any specific other individual. There has to be evidence to consider, not just mere allegations that have no basis in any sort of evidence. Whoever did this thought about it for a really long time. I think if you think about the defendant's statements and some of the things he says, a lot of times he says things in one context, but he means them in another. When he says things like, I hurt the ones I love the most. We talked about Shelly. After Randolph's funeral, he shows up early. She might have said Wednesday, but there was other information that Randolph's funeral was on Monday. But anyway, shows up in something blue, shows up early, wants to come in, goes and moves some vehicles. And then there's that raincoat. Huge raincoat. She calls it a tarp, but it's a huge raincoat. And it's got a ton of GSR on the inside. And it's found in a closet upstairs. And it's found in a closet upstairs. States 411. It was a busy guy in Almeda, as we just saw. He was moving around, kept hitting off of his Suburban. And then, of course, as you heard, he was with family for the next few days. After the funeral, he's back. And it was weird enough and interesting enough that Shelly said something about it. I'm also saying that in her experience, it was unusual for him to come that way. And then we have the defendant and his many statements. I went through a lot with the defendant who told you that the reason why he was telling you this new story was because he was paranoid because he had a bag of pills in his pocket, because he had a distrust of SLED, because David Owen asked him about his relationship with Maggie. And his law partners told him that he should have an attorney present, which one is in here, one of his law partners sitting in the back. I asked him repeatedly, is this the point where you decided to lie? At which point did you decide to lie?
[01:57:02] Speaker 4: I hate to have to do this.
[01:57:04] Speaker 1: I'm going to do that twice. Or was it this point when he first says, I was at the house? I was at the house. Or was this the point? He said, he mentioned specifically, and he kept adding factors. And one of the things was, well, Dave Owen asked me how my relationship was. This question, this is when he decided to lie?
[01:57:36] Speaker 5: How about yours and Maggie's? Wonderful. I mean, I'm sure we had little things here and there, but we had a wonderful marriage, wonderful relationship.
[01:57:51] Speaker 1: But he digs in on the point.
[01:57:55] Speaker 4: What did you do to do? Were you at the office, sir?
[01:57:58] Speaker 5: No, I was home. I came home, Paul and I messed around. I, I, uh, I was up at the house. I laid down, took a nap on the couch, probably, I don't know, 25, 30 minutes. I got up, I called Maggie, didn't get an answer. And I left to go to my mom's. And she had said,
[01:58:24] Speaker 1: This is June 8th at 1.21 in the morning. And he's admitted to you that he's lying right there. Look how easily he did it. About such a crucial thing.
[01:59:05] Speaker 5: And she's very good about answering the phone. So that was odd, or calling me back. So that was odd, but it wasn't that big a deal.
[01:59:13] Speaker 1: It was odd. It was not that big a deal. But again, he's enough to say it was odd. He's enough to make all those calls while he's doing 283 steps. But he doesn't drive 50 seconds down to the kennels. Going to the next interview. Again, what's the tone of this interview? How is he being treated?
[01:59:37] Speaker 4: Pretty traumatic.
[01:59:38] Speaker 5: That's okay.
[01:59:39] Speaker 1: I know you need to ask me. You asked me what you need to do. Is that an aggressive interview? Is that something to make somebody paranoid?
[01:59:53] Speaker 5: I'm a defendant in a civil case involving my son. I told you about the boat wreck. Yes, sir. And there were some motions coming up in that on Thursday. And I was mostly just getting ready for those things. And then other junk.
[02:00:10] Speaker 1: Mentions the boat case.
[02:00:13] Speaker 4: Paul and Paul left.
[02:00:15] Speaker 5: And I'm assuming, you know, I'm assuming Paul left. Okay. Because of, you know, what happened. I mean, I'm assuming Paul went to the kennels.
[02:00:24] Speaker 4: Okay. And what did you do once Maggie and Paul left?
[02:00:30] Speaker 5: I stayed in the house. Okay. And I was watching TV, looking at my phone, and I actually fell asleep on the couch.
[02:00:39] Speaker 4: Okay.
[02:00:40] Speaker 5: And what time did you, you know, I don't know exactly what time I woke up. But when y'all get my phone, you know, I think one of the first things I did when I got up was call Maggie. Because I was going to my mom's. And I know I texted her because I checked my phone. And what time did you say the text was, Jim? Like 9-0-6.
[02:01:03] Speaker 4: I didn't see it. Yeah. I got it written down for you.
[02:01:06] Speaker 5: I showed you the mic, didn't I?
[02:01:07] Speaker 4: Yes, sir. I got it written.
[02:01:08] Speaker 5: So, you know, I texted her. So I called her just before that. And, I mean, she didn't answer at that point. And I left to go to my mom's.
[02:01:26] Speaker 1: It's so easy for him to do.
[02:01:31] Speaker 6: And you said you laid down and took a little nap. And when you got up, Maggie and Paula was gone. Or did they leave when you laid down?
[02:01:40] Speaker 5: I believe that.
[02:01:48] Speaker 6: I'm not sure. But they weren't there when you woke up around the 9 o'clock mark or so when you made a call to Maggie to let her know you were going to your house.
[02:01:59] Speaker 5: No. Nobody was in that house when I left.
[02:02:07] Speaker 1: Adding more detail, this just lies. Watch how he responds to this one. Watch what his head does. See if you observe that yourself when he's over there looking you in your eyes and trying to convince you of something.
[02:02:23] Speaker 6: Trying to narrow it the last time that Paul and you saw Paul at Maggie's when y'all were eating supper.
[02:02:32] Speaker 5: Yes, sir.
[02:02:40] Speaker 6: When Paul's phone came out, did you just pick it up and put it on, you know, place it back down on him or?
[02:02:52] Speaker 5: You know, yeah, I did not try to open it or anything. You know, I just, I don't know how I had in my mind that I needed to not mess anything up. I had that, I had that, you know.
[02:03:16] Speaker 1: Going to the third interview on August 11th. And after dinner, you know, I don't know exactly how that went.
[02:03:30] Speaker 7: Um, I stayed on the couch and I dozed off.
[02:03:44] Speaker 4: The video on Paul's phone of, um, you and him on the farm that night.
[02:03:51] Speaker ?: And you were in catchy pants and a dress shirt. You were playing with a tree. I don't remember playing with a tree. Yeah. I guess there was a tree sounding or something that was, had fallen over or bending over and you were trying to get it to stand back, stand up.
[02:04:10] Speaker 4: Um, but I mean, the, the question in that is, when I met you that night, you were in shorts and a t-shirt. At what point in the evening did you change clothes?
[02:04:24] Speaker 7: I'm not sure. I, you know, it would have been.
[02:04:29] Speaker ?: Before dinner or after dinner?
[02:04:30] Speaker 7: No, it would have been. What time of day was that? I would have thought I had already changed.
[02:04:37] Speaker 4: Uh, there's not a time stamp on it because there's so many posts, um, but I want to say it's, it looks to be about dusk. So that would have been seven or eight o'clock.
[02:04:48] Speaker 7: I guess I changed when I got back to the house.
[02:04:55] Speaker 1: I had some very specific recollections for y'all when he testified with his new story that had never been heard until last week.
[02:05:07] Speaker 7: Did he and I, no, but Rogan Gibson told me about, um, the dog's tail and somebody saying his leg was broken.
[02:05:23] Speaker 1: Well, I'm right there, he was down at the kennels, shaking his head forward.
[02:05:29] Speaker 4: Um, you were just down there with Paul. You left, you went back to the house again. You know, I mean, Paul and I were just knocking around up at the shop, the shed, the kennels, and the, you know, just the whole property.
[02:05:49] Speaker ?: And, and that was before dinner, yes, sir. And you didn't go back down there after dinner until your return trip from visiting your mother?
[02:06:02] Speaker 4: Yes, sir. I got information that Paul was on the phone. And, Maggie was heard in the background. And you were heard in the background. And that was prior to 9 p.m.
[02:06:30] Speaker ?: I heard Rogan Gibson ask me if I was up there. And he said he thought it was me. Was it you?
[02:06:40] Speaker 7: At, at 9 o'clock? Yes, sir. No, sir. Not if my times were right. Do you think it could have been? I have no idea.
[02:06:58] Speaker 4: And Rogan's been around your family for pretty much all his life.
[02:07:02] Speaker ?: Oh, absolutely. And he recognizes your voice and you have a distinct voice.
[02:07:12] Speaker 4: Do you think anybody else that has a voice on a divorce that he may have, um, misinterpreted?
[02:07:21] Speaker 7: No, no, sir. You know, when we were talking, he had asked me that, so, you know, then he had told me that he thought I was up there. Did that surprise you? Yes, sir. Thank you.
[02:08:05] Speaker 1: We'll come back to that. But I want to talk a little bit about the crime scene. What it indicates. I want to advise everyone there will likely be sealed exhibits. I don't think the y'all know quite yet. I'll take them with your arm and share. You guys went out to the scene today. And you saw how it looks now. Take a good look at those trees and where they were back in the day of the incident. I'll put this up on the ELMO in a second. And you can see the proximity of the kennels to that residence. Back on June 7th, 2021. Get out of the ELMO, please. What's up, sir? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There's not any images in the PowerPoint that I understood, but I do have these right here. All right, Dr. Riemer, you've heard from Dr. Riemer, you've heard from Kenny Kinsey, and you've heard from the defense experts. So, can I have the computer back? Paul, first blast to the chest. Stippling, arms down, not fatal for a bug shot blast to the chest. This is where there was some dispute from the defense experts. The second injury went into the left shoulder, into the cheek, with an exit wound on the top of the head, with instantly fatal and terminal collapse. Dr. Riemer's done 5,500 autopsies. She does an independent autopsy. She actually physically examined the victim. And she was very clear that it could not have happened from the top without destroying Paul's face. And I can show the image again, I'm reluctant to, because I know y'all have seen it enough. So I'll rely on y'all to recall that his face was intact. I'll rely on y'all to recall, and this is sealed, all the evidence up top here, at the top of the door. I will rely on y'all to recall Kenny Kinsey's testimony that buckshot don't reverse course, that the kinetic energy is going in one direction. I'll rely on y'all to recall all the biological matter that you see at the top of this door. I'll rely on y'all to recall, looking at States 339, which is the wadding from the shot to kill Paul. Because if you recall, the wadding from the chest shot was found still in his chest right here. This is the wadding on the ground from the shot to his head. And one of the things that you recall from Dr. Riemer's testimony in looking at Paul's face was the abrasions around that cheek wound that came from the wadding as it entered there. You heard from Dr. Riemer that the reason for the shape on the shoulder was because it went along the shoulder and opened up that area there, but still was focused and then expanding as it entered in here. But she also testified that if it was here, that force would not have left his face intact. Manner of Death Homicide. Then you heard from Dr. Kenny Kinsey. What we described earlier, Paul was first shot in the feed room, largely agrees with her. Arms were not up. He believes the shot was a little closer and the lack of stippling could be chalked up to the black T-shirt. But also agrees, as she does, no defensive wounds. Looking at the blood spatter locations there, and he testified in great detail and testified yesterday, there was no high-velocity blood spatter on the ground at the entrance to the feed room, which would be necessary for the shot to have occurred in the manner in which the defense suggested. The spatter travels upward in an upward direction, and you can see that on the door. He spoke of the void area, and then he spoke of the blood on the ground that was around where Paul drops, and that it's a low-speed spatter. He talked about the dents in the feed room door, the pellet lodged in the door frame upper. It's only possible if it's traveling through Paul's head. Not possible if it's from a ricochet, as the defense suggested. And steel is much less malleable than lead. Dr. Kinsey said that he, I think three dozen times that he's observed contact wounds to the head with a shotgun, including one that happened in front of him, actually observed it. And he also said that any sort of contact wound like that would have destroyed the head and destroyed the face. And he was clear about that. He's actually seen them. And I think what you see with the defense experts is they're coming to you with absolutes to try to make you consider that there's the possibility that a crime scene can definitively establish, whether there's one or two shooters, or whether or not they're of a certain height. And that's just not how it works. And you heard that from Dr. Kinsey. That's not how it works. Not how it worked in this scene. It's a red herring, ladies and gentlemen. It's a red herring. You've seen the testimony from Kenny Kinsey. He returned to talk about these issues. You saw the demonstration over there in the doorway. That seemed realistic to you. Or as Kenny Kinsey's explanation, consistent with the evidence, consistent with his experience, consistent with Dr. Reamer's 5,500 autopsies who actually observed the victims, consistent with the blood spatter, the lack of high velocity on the floor, but the existence of high velocity on the top, and the low velocity of blood splatter on the floor. What's consistent with the evidence? Maggie. Again, no defensive wounds. The first two shots to her abdomen and her leg on a parallel path, likely in close succession. Stippling, close range, the mark on the back of her leg. Running to her baby, didn't see it coming. Bends over, maybe on her hands and knees in pain. You saw me demonstrate that with both Dr. Reamer and Kenny Kinsey. And that's when she suffers that third rifle injury. And you heard their expert come in and say, no, it had to be going this way instead of this way. Going up with that graze, hitting her breast, and into her head here. And Dr. Reamer actually performed the autopsy physically. She looked at the hole. She described the hole. She talked about the injury coming up into the head. And she showed you that. And she took issue with this idea that you can look at skin tags and that sort of thing and come to any conclusion about directionality. But what she told you is, I looked at this wound. I saw the hole as it went up into the brain. This was an entrance wound up into the head. Instantly fatal, internal collapse. The wrist wound could have been an extraneous wound or it could be associated with this. Third rifle injury. And then, of course, the fourth rifle injury to the back of the head that had the canyon in effect. Would have been instantly fatal except for the fact that this one, there has to be some clearance for that third shot to come up. Again, manner of death is homicide. So what did Dr. Kinsey say? Again, he took issue with an expert coming in and trying to tell you that he can determine the location or the height of the shooter. In this manner. He told you the cardboard, that cannot be relied upon. And while he did agree with the angle on the doghouse, he showed you how changing the aspect of the shooter could easily fit with Alec. And that it is too far and way out over its skis to try to assert that you can determine from such information that the shooter had to be 5-2. That's not what you can do. Dr. Kinsey is a crime scene analyst. How many crime scenes that he said he had done? Hundreds of homicides? Thousands of pieces of evidence? Real world stuff. That's what he comes and talks about. And you simply can't make those determinations in a real world environment to come in here and try to tell you that from that sort of thing, the shooter had to be a particular height. You just can't do it. You can't do it. I submit to you that Dr. Kinsey knows what he's talking about. And Dr. Kinsey has the years of experience in real world applications of crime scenes to make those judgments. And I also submit to you that Dr. Kinsey isn't going to get out over his skis and try to make assertions to you in absolutes. The guy with the 5-2 people refused to even concede the possibility of variables. But Dr. Kinsey knows that that's how reality works. And he's not going to get out over his skis and try to tell you something that simply cannot be supported by the evidence. And that's what the defense expert did. The shooter could easily be 6'4 or taller and fit all those bullet trajectories. Of course, one thing that the defense expert didn't consider and wouldn't even consider is all his little gray people are holding the guns down like this. No consideration of kneeling, of sitting, of being in any sort of different position. But the reality is these are fluid. And Maggie is running to her baby. She's moving. And when she gets hit, most likely when she hits her leg against that Polaris, there's biological evidence on that Polaris. And she comes forward and collapses as Alec is moving around her, firing. They had that expert come in yesterday, and I've kind of mentioned this, but I'll mention it again, who came in yesterday, the day before. Even I've lost track of time at this point. Try to get out over his skis again and testify to you that it had to be two shooters because there were two guns. And why would you not just use the blackout? Is that opinion helpful or makes sense? Knowing what you know about this case and knowing what you know about the firearms of this particular house and knowing what you know about Alec Murdoch as you look at the rest of this evidence and what he's trying to manufacture to confuse these issues. Kenny Kinsey told you that it's just as likely that it could be one shooter. And although this is not to scale, you have the feed room right here. Polaris is right here. And the cases, while they can't be relied upon a specific location, they still can be illustrating general area. And they're all in that area, moving from here to here. And they're all in that area.
[02:24:45] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:25:15] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:25:18] Speaker 7: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:25:20] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:25:22] Speaker 2: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:25:28] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:25:55] Speaker 2: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:25:58] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area.
[02:25:59] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:26:01] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:26:14] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:26:24] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:26:44] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:26:46] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:26:50] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:26:52] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area.
[02:26:53] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:26:55] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:27:00] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:27:14] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:27:16] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:27:18] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:27:44] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:27:46] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:27:58] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:28:22] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area.
[02:28:23] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area.
[02:28:24] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:28:26] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:28:29] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:28:34] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:28:50] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:28:52] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:28:56] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:28:59] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:29:02] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:29:14] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:29:25] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area.
[02:29:26] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:29:28] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area.
[02:29:29] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:29:32] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area.
[02:29:33] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:29:46] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:29:48] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:29:51] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:29:56] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:29:58] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area.
[02:29:59] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:30:22] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:30:26] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:30:50] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area.
[02:30:51] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:30:53] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:30:59] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:31:15] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:31:17] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area.
[02:31:18] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:31:20] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:31:30] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area.
[02:31:31] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:31:44] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:31:47] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:31:57] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:32:02] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:32:20] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area.
[02:32:21] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:32:28] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area.
[02:32:29] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:32:59] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. They're all in that area.
[02:33:15] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:33:21] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area.
[02:33:22] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:33:29] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:33:31] Speaker 1: And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area. And they're all in that area.
[02:33:35] Speaker ?: And they're all in that area.
[02:33:36] Speaker 1: The blue lights. He sat there and told you three times. I think he said his name three times. That Sheriff Smalls. The former sheriff of Hampton County. Gave him permission to put blue lights in a private vehicle. For a part-time assistant solicitor. And blue lights in a private vehicle. He told you three times. Effortlessly got up there. Pivoted. And lied to you. Because Sheriff Smalls came in here and said. Uh-uh. Of course not. That never happened. I've never heard of such a thing. This is a man who made his trade on lying. He lied about the most important fact in the case. And he sat there. And effortlessly. And easily pivoted to a new lie. When confronted with something he wasn't prepared for. And the sheriff came in here and said no. That never happened. Of course not. But he looked you all in the eyes and told you that. Looked you all in the eyes and told you that. As if. What's your problem Mr. Waters. Sheriff Smalls said it was okay. He tries to tell you that he was paranoid about having a bag of pills in his pocket. The man who had blue lights in his car. And had a badge. And had a badge. Rides around with a badge in his windshield. That's what he thinks of his power and prestige. And that's what he thinks of appropriate use of authority. Is to put it up there. That only serves him. It's only there to serve him. But he tried to also tell you that he gets paranoid. And so he's tried to lie about the most important fact. That he could offer law enforcement. When his wife and son were brutally murdered. Because he had a bag of pills in his pocket. But yet at the same breath says. Eh. I wasn't concerned about the law firm and that Ferris stuff. Eh. I'm not concerned about the Boat case. Why would he lie about that time. Unless he's manufacturing an alibi. And that's just why. It took him only 19 seconds. To call 911. Because he knew what he was going to find out there. This has all been constructed. By him. To try to confuse the situation. That lie that he told you. He tried to make it seem like he'd been trying to tell this. But he also admitted on the stand that. And as did his brother. That his own brothers heard it for the first time last week. That his own attorney was repeating the story that he was napping the whole time. And never went to the kennels on HBO. In November. Just a couple months ago.
[02:36:58] Speaker ?: A lot of people lie. A lot of people lie. A lot of people lie. A lot of people lie. A lot of people lie. A lot of people lie. A lot of people lie. A lot of people lie. A lot of people lie.
[02:37:02] Speaker 1: A lot of people lie. A lot of people lie.
[02:37:04] Speaker ?: A lot of people lie. A lot of people lie.
[02:37:06] Speaker 1: A lot of people lie. A lot of people lie.
[02:37:08] Speaker ?: A lot of people lie. A lot of people lie.
[02:37:10] Speaker 1: A lot of people lie. When it's really important. A lot of people lie.
[02:37:13] Speaker ?: A lot of people lie.
[02:37:14] Speaker 1: something like this, this brutal murder, those people are going to come clean. They're about a bag of pills. But why do people lie? People lie because they knew they did something wrong. That's why I lied, ladies and gentlemen. And just like always, when confronted with new evidence that he no longer can deny, he backtracks, he pivots, and he tells a new story from that stand and looks you all in the eye. And then when new evidence comes up on cross, he backtracks and he pivots, and he tells another new lie. And I'm sure if he could get up there again, he'd be telling, well, let me rephrase that. He said so many witnesses are lying on him. They're all lying on him. But the one thing we know as a constant is that he lied to them. Mark Tinsley's lying. Jeannie Seconder's lying. Shelly Smith is lying. Blanca's lying. Everybody's lying on the master liar. You heard him answer the questions about whether or not he killed his wife and son. You heard me ask him if he was a family annihilator. When he answers those questions, did you see him do this? Did you see him do that on those videos, too, when asked questions where now we know he was lying? Is that the most classic tell ever? I'll leave that to you to decide. One thing I will agree with him, that he said up there, oh, what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive. How appropriate, coming from that man.
[02:39:24] Speaker ?: How appropriate, coming from that man.
[02:39:24] Speaker 1: How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man.
[02:39:26] Speaker ?: How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man. How appropriate, coming from that man.
[02:39:56] Speaker 1: This man was trying to sell you. On an idea. That he was at the kennels. That he jetted back. That he went inside so quickly. And quickly dozed off in the shortest nap in the history of the south. And then he got in his car. Just seconds after the supposed vigilantes. These vigilantes that apparently are 5'2". That knew somehow that Paul and Maggie would be both at Moselle on the evening of June 7th. Between 844 and 902. That also knew that they would be alone at this time. They knew that Alec would not be at these kennels. And they also knew the property well enough to get to the kennels. They also assumed that they would find ammunition and guns there. So they didn't bring those. And they traveled the same route as Alec after his short 22nd nap. And knew that he would be visiting his mother at Alameda during that time. Those are the circumstances that you have to accept. The 5'2" vigilantes that arrived somehow in that tiny time period between 849 and 902. And that's given him every benefit of the doubt as to the story he told you. Sprinkled with a bunch of new lies as well. That somehow they arrived during that time. The dogs never heard them or ran to them. Somebody put the dogs up. Put the dogs up in the wrong kennels. Somebody rolled up the hose. And these vigilantes were just lucky enough to find these family weapons there. Which he's clear on the other side of it that he says we're never there. He's so clear. "Oh, we never had the blackout. We never rode around with the blackout." No one knew who he was. No one knew who this man was. No one knew who this man was. He'd avoided accountability his whole life. He had relied on his family name. He had a powerful family. He carried a badge and used that authority. He lived a wealthy life. But now, finally, he was facing complete ruin. His father, who he idolized, who I worked with on occasion, was dying. His son was facing charges for the boat case. He was facing a civil action that not only could potentially ruin him, but exposed the reality of what he'd been doing for years. He had an opiate addiction. The entire illusion of his life was about to be altered. He couldn't live for that. He's the kind of person for which shame is an extraordinary provocation. Shame is an extraordinary provocation. His ego couldn't stand that. And he became a family annihilator. And I was thinking And I was thinking that And there's a lot of people who get the last word in this courtroom are y'all. And a lot of witnesses have testified over the last six weeks. But there's a couple that never get to testify that are important. And that's common sense and human nature. And there's two more that don't get to testify. We couldn't bring you any eyewitnesses because they were murdered. But common sense and human nature can speak on behalf of Maggie and Paul. And you look at this in its totality. Common sense and human nature can speak for them. And they deserve a voice. Everything he did was meant to try to frustrate the forensics. As a lawyer and a prosecutor with the two guns and the manufacturing alibi. And not taking his phone down to the scene. Deleting call logs. Making short phone calls. Bringing up the boat case. Moving Maggie's phone. Changing clothes. Looking at Paul's phone. Calling Rogan. Or trying to call Rogan. One man controlled this crime scene initially. And that was out. And that was out. But there were some things he couldn't control. And we brought those to you. A couple things that the defendant said that I agree with. He said. Whoever did this had anger in his heart. Whoever did this planned it for a long time. That he hurt the ones who were closest to him. It may be hard to fathom, ladies and gentlemen. And when you put all these circumstances together. And really understand who he was. And the entirety of his life. And the pressures. That he was facing. From what he had been doing. For so long. You can understand it. There was one mistake though. He didn't expect. And this is why he was worried about Paul's phone. This is why he's trying to get in touch with Rogan. And it was that kennel video. That came up late in the investigation. One of the things I asked him. And we've talked about this. And the last question I had to him. And the first question I had to him. Was what is the most important part of your testimony here today? And he wouldn't even concede that. But he at least conceded that the most important thing. Was to look you in the eye. And try to explain to you. Why after his entire history. You should believe him. When he says okay. I was down in the kennels. For one brief minute. But I had nothing to do with this. We went through that long cross. In which he identified. All these factors. From his partner saying. Having an attorney. You need to have an attorney present. To his distrust of SLED. To Dave Owen. Asked him about his relationship.
[02:49:24] Speaker ?: And asked him.
[02:49:25] Speaker 1: At what point did you decide to lie? And he finally agreed. Okay. It was in this interview. It was that moment. In the June 8th interview. It was during that interview.
[02:49:36] Speaker ?: But in his 911 call. Ladies and gentlemen. At 10:06. When he was asked. When he last saw them. He said. An hour and a half. And then changed it. To approximately two hours.
[02:49:45] Speaker 1: Consistent with what he would later say. He said. An hour and a half. And then changed it. To approximately two hours.
[02:49:50] Speaker ?: Consistent with what he would later say.
[02:49:51] Speaker 1: When he was asked when he last saw them, he said an hour and a half and then changed it to approximately two hours. Consistent with what he would later say. Before any of those factors that he sat there and ran through with y'all is the reason for his decision even ever existed. And if that's not enough, ladies and gentlemen, you saw, and I played it for him, Daniel Green's body cam, where he was asked the same question. And he said that it was one and a half hours plus 45 minutes. And all those factors that he identified to you as to why he supposedly lied, he was lying to you, ladies and gentlemen, when he made those up. He was lying to you when he made those up. Just like he's lied to everyone close to him. And he's good at it. He's good at it. Is that up?
[02:51:41] Speaker 3: It was earlier tonight. I don't know the exact time, but I left. I was probably gone an hour and a half from my mom's, and I saw them about 45 minutes before that.
[02:51:55] Speaker ?: Okay.
[02:51:55] Speaker 3: I rode around with Paul.
[02:52:03] Speaker 1: Thank you. The means, the opportunity, and ample evidence of guilty conduct and guilty conscience. All four factors are present. And Maggie and Paul deserve a voice. They need a voice because they can no longer speak. And this has been a tough job. But the system depends on people who take that oath as jurors and are willing to honor that oath and make that tough decision. To vindicate these victims. To vindicate Maggie and Paul who are cut down in the prime of their lives. This is a sealed exhibit. This is what he did. This is what he did. Right here. 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. On behalf of the state of South Carolina, I ask you to return a verdict of guilty against the defendant, Richard Alexander Murdoch, for the murder of his wife, Maggie, and his son, Paul, and for his possession of firearms during the commission of those malicious offenses. And thank you all for your attention during this law. Thank you all for your attention during this law. Thank you all for your attention during this law. Thank you all for your attention during this law.
[02:55:51] Speaker 2: All right, ladies and gentlemen, that will be it for this day. We'll resume at 9:30 tomorrow morning. If you go to the jury room and you'll be dismissed in just a few minutes from the jury room and we'll see.