Alex Murdaugh trial: Tense cross-examination by defense of SLED's Ryan Kelly — Full video

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Cross-examination. You may proceed. Lord, Your Honor. [00:00:10] Speaker 2: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning. So let's see if we can do this quickly. Is that okay with you? It is Friday. Monday is a holiday. So let's see if we can't get through this. You are a senior special agent? [00:00:32] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:00:33] Speaker 2: Okay. And your charge was investigating the so-called roadside shooting, correct? [00:00:40] Speaker 3: Correct. [00:00:41] Speaker 2: And as part of that, you, after Alec was airlifted to Savannah Hospital, correct? Yes. Okay. And did you go see him there? Yes. And did you talk to the doctors about his condition? [00:00:58] Speaker 3: We made contact with medical staff there. I don't know if I specifically spoke to a particular doctor, but we made contact with the medical staff that were providing treatment. [00:01:07] Speaker 2: So did the medical staff tell you he had a shallow sort of trough wound in the back of his head, apparently caused by a bullet? Did they tell you that? [00:01:19] Speaker 3: They did not. [00:01:20] Speaker 2: Did they tell you he had a fractured skull? [00:01:22] Speaker 3: They did not. [00:01:23] Speaker 2: Did you look at his -- did you subpoena -- have you subpoenaed his medical records? [00:01:26] Speaker 3: We have. Okay. But at the time of my arrival, the tests were ongoing and that -- those documents weren't readily available to me. [00:01:32] Speaker 2: But you've looked at him since then? Since then. So you would agree with me he had a fractured skull, a wound, a trough wound in the back of his head. [00:01:40] Speaker 3: I'd agree that's what the medical records state. Let me see if you can identify this. [00:01:46] Speaker 2: Let me see if you can identify this. [00:02:13] Speaker 3: These appear to be a portion of Mr. Murdoch's medical records. I understand. [00:02:19] Speaker 2: It's a portion. Yes, sir. But it's sort of the summarizing portion, is it not? Yes, sir, it is. Okay. I think you furnished these to us. Do you have any objections? Objection rule 801. Well, let me ask you this question. Maybe this will make it easier. Who subpoenaed and got these records? Did you sweat? Yes. [00:02:42] Speaker 3: At the time of the incident, they weren't discussing his medical condition with us. I mean, we were able to, due to HEPA, they weren't readily providing us access to his medical records or consultation with his doctors. You know, we had a general understanding based on what Mr. Murdoch told us or told deputies on the side of the road and based on what he stated on 9-1-1, that he had been shot in the head. So when we arrived and we saw a subsequent injury -- [00:03:09] Speaker 2: Just let me cut to the chase here. Did you all subpoena the medical records? Yes, we did. Are these a portion of the medical records, the business records that you received from the hospital in Savannah, the Memorial Health? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. Does that resolve that issue? Business records? Thank you. [00:03:26] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And so the right gentleman redacted any personal identifying matters. [00:03:34] Speaker 2: That's what's redacted. With redactions, not objections. They did it without objection. [00:03:37] Speaker ?: And that's number 124. [00:03:37] Speaker 2: So let me have you, if this will refresh your memory, look at page 1, what the medical staff says are his injuries. [00:03:51] Speaker ?: Yes, sir. Okay. Now, I could have you read that. [00:03:53] Speaker 2: Do you understand what it means? I'm not a doctor, I'm a slate agent, so I have a general understanding of of the terms on that. Okay. I'm not a doctor. I'm a slate agent, so I have a general understanding of the terms on that. [00:04:05] Speaker ?: Okay. Okay. Okay. Now, I could have you read that. Do you understand what it means? I'm not a doctor. [00:04:11] Speaker 2: I'm a slate agent, so I have a general understanding of the terms on that. Okay. Okay. Okay. Now, I could have you read that. Do you understand what it means? [00:04:19] Speaker 3: I'm not a doctor. I'm a slate agent, so I have a general understanding of the terms on the terms. [00:04:24] Speaker 2: Does it indicate he had a twirl wound in his head? [00:04:31] Speaker 3: I'm not trying to play coy. It just says, I mean, I could read it if it says. Okay. [00:04:38] Speaker 2: Let me publish part to you and see what you think. Left posterior parateal subdural hematoma with adjacent blood products. What do you think that means? What's a subdural hematoma? [00:04:57] Speaker 3: Obviously, it's a bleeding on the subdural part of his head. So it would be a brain bleed? [00:05:03] Speaker 2: Absolutely. [00:05:04] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:05:05] Speaker 2: Okay. It says, linear left posterior parateal bone fracture. That would be a fractured skull? Yes. Okay. Scalp laceration overlying the left parateal bone. That would be that furrow I'm talking about, right? [00:05:26] Speaker 3: If that's what you infer it to. I'm not a doctor. I mean, furrow is, you know, I can only testify what it states on the page. [00:05:34] Speaker 2: And attending radiologists reviewed all the images and agrees with the interpretation. So radiologists looked and saw brain bleed, saw a subdural hematoma, saw a fractured skull, and saw issue or saw make findings consistent with a bullet wound to the head. Did they not? [00:05:54] Speaker 3: The medical professionals reviewed his charts and his tests. They came to that opinion. We refer to them as it relates to their findings. I'm sorry. Refer to them what? We refer to them as it relates to their findings. If that's what they determined happened, we refer to them. Okay. So he had real injuries? There was a laceration on the back of his head that was consistent with a gunshot wound. [00:06:15] Speaker 2: Fractured skull, subdural, brain bleed, right? [00:06:19] Speaker 3: If that's what the records say, then yes. [00:06:21] Speaker 2: Have you ever told anybody that, specifically, Maggie's sister and her husband, that Alec had been shot in the head? I mean, I can play it for you. You recorded it. [00:06:38] Speaker 3: Oh, absolutely. I mean, I'm not denying that I've done it. I don't remember off the top of my head. [00:06:42] Speaker 2: I just want to make sure you've told somebody that Alec got shot in the head. Yes, I've never questioned that Alec's been shot in the head. Okay, I'm just trying to. Okay. I'm having a difficult time here communicating this morning. I understand it. The simple question was, was he shot in the head? And I'm not sure until just now you said, yes, he was shot in the head. [00:06:58] Speaker 3: I apologize. Yes, he was shot in the head. [00:07:00] Speaker 2: So we agree on that. He's shot in the head. Yes. Okay. And he was in intensive care for a while, and then he was let out relatively quickly. Isn't that right? [00:07:09] Speaker 3: Yes, I believe he was released on the 7th. [00:07:12] Speaker 2: Okay. Now I'd like to show you Defense Exhibit 125 and 127. [00:07:25] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:07:26] Speaker 2: Let me show these to you so you can identify them. Are these photographs consistent with what you saw, Alec Murdaugh, at the hospital? No. [00:07:49] Speaker 3: This first photograph was photographed by Hampton County EMS. Okay. So prior to my arrival, this was taken. When I arrived in Savannah, Alec was not in this condition. [00:08:01] Speaker 2: But he would represent that these. [00:08:04] Speaker 3: This image is something that I saw at the hospital. I didn't see this. Okay. [00:08:10] Speaker 2: So this was taken by who? Hampton County? [00:08:15] Speaker 3: I don't know who took the photo, but it was included with the Hampton County EMS records that we obtained. [00:08:21] Speaker 2: Okay. So did I offer these? No objection, you're not. [00:08:28] Speaker 4: Okay. [00:08:29] Speaker 2: So let's look at -- do I have to go to the Elmo or do you have these? We have these. Okay, so this is the photo you indicate some other law enforcement agency took before he went to -- that's at the side of the road, or is that -- or do you know? [00:09:21] Speaker 3: This photo was included in the records from Hampton County EMS that we obtained at the time that he provided the recorded statement inside the ambulance where he gave the detailed description of what happened to him. [00:09:32] Speaker 2: Which we've listened to. [00:09:33] Speaker 3: Yes, yesterday. So at some point, his wound was treated and he was placed in a cervical collar outside my presence. I wasn't present when he was transported. I didn't meet with Mr. Murdoch until I went to Savannah. [00:09:46] Speaker 2: Okay. Put the next picture on. And who took this picture? [00:09:56] Speaker 3: This picture was -- I did not take any pictures. So I believe it may have been -- it was Agent Rebecca Gregg who was accompanying me to Savannah. [00:10:04] Speaker 2: And is that an accurate depiction of what his skull looked like at the hospital? Correct. And do you notice blood there? Yes. Okay. Go ahead and kill the animal, please. Now, as I understand it, after he was released from the hospital, he went to detox in Atlanta. That's what y'all told us, yes. Sorry? [00:10:26] Speaker 3: That's what y'all -- that's what you told me. [00:10:28] Speaker 2: Okay. And we called you from a facility in Atlanta to give the statement we saw earlier, correct? [00:10:34] Speaker 3: You called me from a telephone. I don't know exactly what your location -- I wasn't there with you, so I don't know where you called me from. [00:10:40] Speaker 2: You're telling me SLED can't tell where a phone is? [00:10:44] Speaker 1: Mr. Harpulian -- [00:10:45] Speaker 2: I mean, if you're going to tell me that SLED can't tell us where a phone is -- Just a moment. [00:10:48] Speaker 1: Publish a question. [00:10:49] Speaker 3: You must give him an opportunity to answer. I apologize. Mr. Harpulian, you called me -- I don't know what number you called me from. [00:10:56] Speaker 2: My cell phone. [00:10:57] Speaker 3: Okay. So you called me from your cell phone. I have that number, so it identified as yours. Right. But I don't know where you're at. You told me that you were calling from Atlanta. I took you at your word, but I can't testify to where you were calling me from because I don't know. [00:11:11] Speaker 2: Did you ever subpoena his detox records? [00:11:14] Speaker 3: We made an attempt, but we had issues with them honoring an out-of-state subpoena. [00:11:21] Speaker 2: Well, I mean, you can go to a court in Georgia and make them honor it, or we could have given you consent. Did you ask us for consent? [00:11:27] Speaker 3: No consent was given. [00:11:28] Speaker 2: No consent was asked for. Right. [00:11:31] Speaker 3: No consent was asked. No consent was given, so. [00:11:34] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:11:35] Speaker 2: But we represented on that call that he was in a detox facility before when we called you to set up the call in Atlanta, and he was now -- and I think we've said on the recording that the doctors indicate he's coherent, he's been through the detox, which is a pretty tough process, and he was willing to talk to you once he was competent to do so. Isn't that correct? [00:11:58] Speaker 3: That's the information you relayed to me, yes. [00:12:00] Speaker 2: Okay. Is there any reason to doubt that? No, sir. Okay. And so while he -- as soon as he came out of the initial stages of detox -- you don't know this, but we went down -- we called you. [00:12:15] Speaker 1: That's hard but you can't testify. [00:12:16] Speaker 2: Who called who initially to set that call up? [00:12:22] Speaker 3: I called you on the day of September 7th to reach out to let you know that we had had some developments in the case, and I told you that we wanted to speak to Alex. Okay. You told us that he was in rehab or was in route to rehab, and we would try to make some arrangements. We had initially discussed agents traveling to wherever -- whatever facility Mr. Murdock was in to meet with him in an attempt to get a statement. That meeting did not materialize. That meeting did not materialize. On the afternoon of the 13th, you called me from your cell phone to set up a telephone interview. Given the complexity of the case and the fluid movements of the investigation, we wanted to agree to that so we could get some type of -- at that point, Mr. Murdock had -- obviously, the story that he told us was not true and we wanted to take that as an opportunity to try to make some sense out of the investigation, given that you and Mr. Griffith were there saying he was ready to tell us really what happened. [00:13:24] Speaker 2: So he, through his attorneys, reached out to you to give this recorded statement we saw? [00:13:30] Speaker 3: On the 13th, you called me, yes. Right. [00:13:34] Speaker 2: And secondly, he admitted that he had stolen money, right? Yes. He admitted drug use. Yes. And he admitted that he'd lied, correct? Yes. Okay. And as a result of that statement, he was charged with insurance fraud, conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, and filing a false police report. Is that correct? [00:14:17] Speaker 3: Yes, he was. [00:14:18] Speaker 2: And by that time, he had moved from the detox facility in Atlanta to a rehab facility in Orlando, correct? [00:14:25] Speaker 3: Correct. [00:14:26] Speaker 2: And you asked that he surrender himself, and he did that, did he not? Yes, he did. He had his son, Buster, drive him from Orlando to Hampton County, and I believe you all met him and, by prearrangement, him and Buster at his mother's house. [00:14:49] Speaker 3: The agreement was for us to meet you and Mr. Griffith with Mr. Murdoch, that no stops be taken from Orlando to Hampton. We encountered Mr. Murdoch and Buster pulling into the driveway of the Almeda property. So, outside of our agreement. So, Mr. Murdoch was taken into custody as soon as he arrived at Almeda. [00:15:11] Speaker 2: Well, so perhaps if we weren't going to Orlando, stopping to get his lawyers before he surrendered himself would have been a violation of our agreement? [00:15:20] Speaker 3: No, our agreement was that Mr. Murdoch was to go from Orlando directly to your custody. Buster, I don't fault Buster. I don't think that he was doing anything that he thought was wrong. He was just listening to instructions. But, you know, we were supposed to meet him with you, and he showed up at his mom's house. So, he was placed under arrest at his mom's house. [00:15:40] Speaker 2: Well, we showed up at mom's house as you all were taking him away, right? After he was arrested, yes. Right. But, I mean, we were there minutes after you arrested him, right? [00:15:47] Speaker 3: Well, yes, because they called you. So, and I think I might have called you to tell you that we were arresting him as well. Right. [00:15:53] Speaker 2: He went to a bond hearing. Yes, he did. And he was granted bond. Yes. And one of the conditions of the bond allowed him to go back to Orlando to rehab, right? Yes. And he went back to Orlando to rehab. Yes. Until he was indicted on the financial fraud charges. Yes. Yes. And his cooperation, when I say cooperation, the statements he made, and I understand you were only investigating the roadside shooting, right? Correct. So, you weren't investigating the murder. You weren't investigating, I mean, I'm talking about Maggie and Paul's murders. You weren't investigating the financial crimes. Only the roadside shooting, correct? [00:16:43] Speaker 3: Are you referring, during my interviews, the three interviews with Mr. Murdoch? [00:16:47] Speaker ?: I'm sorry? [00:16:48] Speaker 3: Are you referring to, in the three interviews with Mr. Murdoch, the first two interviews were conducted with him being considered the victim of a violent crime. Right. And then, in the third interview, you know, you set parameters as to, as his attorney, as to what information we would discuss on the call. [00:17:04] Speaker 2: No, no, no. I'm not, but he did, when you asked questions about his bank accounts, he cooperated fully with you, right? [00:17:11] Speaker 3: After some give and take, I think, between you and I, he disclosed information, yes. [00:17:16] Speaker 2: Right. And he admitted to you he'd stolen money? [00:17:19] Speaker 3: Yeah, he confirmed that he had stolen money, because at that point, we had been told by other parties he had stolen money, and, you know, on the 7th, we recovered enterprise banking slips. So, we knew, we had documentation he had stolen money. He just confirmed it with his -- [00:17:36] Speaker 2: Did you know whether he knew he was just coming out of detox? I mean, certainly, many, many defendants would have never talked to you, correct? [00:17:45] Speaker 1: The objection is sustained. [00:17:48] Speaker 3: Did he have to talk to you? Some of the best confessions I've ever gotten were from a defense attorney. So, he spoke to me -- Not this defense attorney. Okay. He still confessed on the call, so -- [00:18:01] Speaker 2: I mean, there are defense attorneys and defense attorneys, right? Okay. So, let me say this. As a result of some of the information you got, did you give that statement that he gave you? Did he give that to -- who was investigating the financial crimes? [00:18:18] Speaker 3: That was a joint operation out of our office. There were several agents that were involved in that. [00:18:22] Speaker 2: But no agent in charge like Mr. Owens? [00:18:24] Speaker 3: There was an agent, David Williams, Special Agent David Williams, myself, Special Agent Matt Wright. We've all had part in the financial investigations. [00:18:34] Speaker 2: Okay. And as a result of his cooperation, partially, and what you already knew, you're aware that he was indicted on 90 indictments of financial fraud which could result in life without parole for him. [00:18:46] Speaker 3: Do you not? He was found -- [00:18:48] Speaker 2: If you'd answer yes or no and then explain your answer. Was he indicted on 90 charges of financial fraud and for which he faces life without parole? Is that correct? Just yes or no? The objection is sustained. I'm sorry, what was the objection? [00:19:05] Speaker 1: There was an objection and I sustained the objection. [00:19:08] Speaker 2: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I don't understand the grounds for the objection. [00:19:11] Speaker ?: Yes, sir. [00:19:12] Speaker 4: 401, Your Honor. [00:19:14] Speaker 2: I'm sorry, I understand what 401 is. I don't know why we'll apply to this. [00:19:21] Speaker 1: The objection is sustained. [00:19:26] Speaker 2: The information you got was voluntary about the financial piece of this was voluntary by the court. [00:19:33] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:19:33] Speaker 2: Do you have any questions? Do you have any questions on him? No one threatened him? [00:19:36] Speaker 3: No one coerced him? He has two lawyers sitting there, right? To the best of my knowledge, no one threatened him. I was not present with Mr. Murdock at the time of giving his statement. I wasn't -- it was over the telephone. Based on what you've told us, no one threatened him. We had a gun to his head. [00:19:48] Speaker 2: I wasn't in the room. [00:19:49] Speaker 3: If you did, I can't speak to it. Thank you. Thank you. [00:19:52] Speaker ?: Thank you. Appreciate it. [00:19:52] Speaker 3: Thank you. [00:19:53] Speaker 2: And every direct. Briefly, Your Honor, may it please the court. [00:19:56] Speaker ?: When you interviewed the defendant, Alec Murdock, on September 4th, that was in the hospital. Is that right? [00:20:04] Speaker 1: Yes, it was. Did he agree to speak to you? [00:20:06] Speaker 4: Yes, he did. Did he respond appropriately to you? I've already dealt with this matter, and if we're going to go into this, we'd like a Jackson v. Dino hearing as to his confidence to talk to him in the hospital. Mr. He specifically cross-examined him on the injuries in the hospital. He specifically cross-examined him on the injuries in the hospital that he had suffered, and I'm just following up with the agent about the circumstances, generally, of his interaction with Mr. [00:20:43] Speaker 1: General, we'll have you go to the jury room for a break. Please do not discuss the case. Please. [00:21:17] Speaker ?: All right. Everyone, be seated, please. [00:21:19] Speaker 1: What's the nature of the objection again, Mr. Harputlian? Your Honor, there's several bases. [00:21:34] Speaker 2: One, that was a leading question, but if you get past that. Secondly, we had an agreement, which he complied with on direct examination, to have him say what happened there in summary fashion and not go into a quoting piece. Even though we believe, and if you look at these medical records, he's showing positive for barbiturates and opioids, many of which were administered by the hospital. We believe the doctors will say he was not competent to give any sort of voluntary statement. And he was not advised with Miranda warnings, he wasn't in any way, we obviously wasn't in custody. But we believe that we're entitled to a hearing on competence to give a statement, if he's going to go further on this. And to do so, we're going to need the doctors from Savannah here to testify what his condition was. So perhaps we should adjourn this and come back on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week to finish it. [00:22:36] Speaker 4: Mr. Robert, the sum total of my questions was specifically in response to the cross-examination. I was not going to ask him to go back to the -- to relate -- what he related to Agent Kelly, which, again, they had already agreed for us to do in summary fashion. It was simply going to be questions that he was not in custody. He was voluntarily agreed to talk, and his questions were subject matter appropriate, and he appeared to understand the questions. That was going to be the extent of it, and it was in direct response to their putting in the records, and discussing the injuries that he -- that are reflected in those records. That was the extent of my questioning, not to reiterate the summary to which, frankly, they had already agreed to allowing us to, which we did yesterday. [00:23:16] Speaker 2: If that's all he's going to ask, I withdraw my objection. [00:23:19] Speaker 1: All right, very good. Let's bring the jury in. Stand and get a stretch. Yes, yes, sir. [00:23:26] Speaker 2: That's what we're agreeing, if that's always going to ask. But if that question leads to another question, leads to another question. [00:23:33] Speaker 1: I'll stand for a few minutes, more minutes. [00:23:37] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The objection is withdrawn. You may proceed. Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the Court. Thank you. The objection is withdrawn. You may proceed. Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the Court. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the Court. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the Court. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the Court. All right. Going back to the question that I asked, when you interviewed -- and I'm just -- and I'm just asking these particular questions. When you interviewed -- and I'm just asking these particular questions. When you interviewed -- and I'm just asking these particular questions. When you interviewed the defendant on September 4th, that was the one who I asked. [00:24:55] Speaker 1: And I was going to ask you, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. [00:24:57] Speaker ?: May it please the Court. All right. [00:24:59] Speaker 1: Going back to the question that I asked, when you interviewed -- and I'm just asking these [00:25:05] Speaker ?: particular questions. [00:25:06] Speaker 4: When you interviewed the defendant on September 4th, that was the one who I asked. [00:25:11] Speaker ?: That was the day of the roadside shooting, correct? Correct. [00:25:13] Speaker 4: Did he voluntarily agree to talk to you? Yes. Was he in custody in any way? He was not in custody. Did he respond appropriately to your questions? He responded appropriately and consistently to the answers to my questions that were given on the, you know, 911 and on the -- to Hamptake County. All right. Thank you. All right. Going back to the question that I asked, when you interviewed -- and I'm just asking these [00:25:31] Speaker 3: particular questions. When you interviewed the defendant on September 4th, that was the day of the roadside shooting, correct? Correct. Did he voluntarily agree to talk to you? Yes. Was he in custody in any way? He was not in custody. Did he respond appropriately to the subject matter of those questions? Yes. When you interviewed him on September 6th, he was still in the hospital. [00:25:42] Speaker 4: Is that correct? Yes. And at that time, did he voluntarily agree to talk to you? Yes. Was he in custody at any point? He was not. Did he respond appropriately to your questions? He did. Did he appear to understand your questions? [00:25:51] Speaker 3: He understood the questions and, again, gave consistent responses to the interviews from September 4th, from the 911 call, and from the video from the ambulance. [00:26:12] Speaker 4: All right. And his answers related appropriately to the subject matter of your questions? [00:26:16] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:26:17] Speaker ?: On the side of the room. All right. [00:26:19] Speaker 4: You were asked a little bit about the circumstances of the telephone interview on September 13th, 2021, correct? Yes. And did you want to do a telephone interview or did you want to speak to him in person? [00:26:34] Speaker 3: No. Our initial inquiry was to go to where he was at. We did not know his location. They took him out of state. Our intention was to go meet with them wherever they had him to conduct that interview. When those plans did not materialize, time was of the essence when they called us and agreed to have the telephone interview. We made an investigative decision to agree to that and conduct the interview over the phone. [00:27:01] Speaker 4: That time period between September 6th and 7th, when all the developments you testified to yesterday and the side of the road took place and September 13th was Sled just sitting around doing nothing or real actively attempting to further question the defendant. [00:27:17] Speaker 3: We were absolutely actively in working the active investigation. We were actively attempting to make contact to have that interview and make that take place. [00:27:27] Speaker 4: And it was not until September 13th that the defense agreed but only through a telephone interview. Is that correct? [00:27:32] Speaker 3: He contacted, Mr. Harpullian called me on the 13th and he said, Hey, we have a short amount of time. We can do this. Can you, can we make it happen? So we had to make it happen and within about 30 minutes notice. So, uh, Agent Alvayalde and I, uh, got to a place where we can conduct the interview and the interview occurred. [00:27:52] Speaker 4: And when y'all had that phone interview that, uh, the jury heard yesterday, at the beginning, they put limitations on the subject matter of what could be discussed. Yes. [00:28:02] Speaker 3: They advised that they would only discuss the side of the road shooting that Moselle did the Moselle incident and the financial crimes were off limits. [00:28:08] Speaker 4: Ultimately, some financial information was discussed. Is that correct? That is correct. But Moselle never was. Is that right? Correct. Uh, you were asked about, uh, ultimately when he was taken into custody. Is that correct? [00:28:21] Speaker 3: Yes. Do you remember roughly what date that was? I don't have the booking paperwork. I don't remember what specific date. I took him into custody twice, so I don't know what date. And that was after he had finished that rehab stint. Is that correct to your understanding? Uh, yes. We took him in custody once in, uh, on the Almeda property. We also took him in custody a second time when we went to Orlando to extradite. [00:28:42] Speaker 4: But what you were just asked about by Mr. Harpootlian, when he, uh, returned to South Carolina, that was the first time ever that he had been taken into custody. Is that correct? Yes. And that was for charges related to the side of the road. [00:28:55] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:28:56] Speaker ?: Thank you, Senator. Uh, special agent Kelly. Nothing further. Thank you. [00:29:00] Speaker 4: Questions that second time you took him into custody. [00:29:13] Speaker 2: Do you know when that was? I don't have the exact date in front of me. I apologize. If I told you October 16th with that of 2021, would that seem appropriate? I believe it was. [00:29:28] Speaker ?: It was. [00:29:28] Speaker 3: I believe it was in the month of October 2020. [00:29:30] Speaker 2: Okay. And tell this jury how long has he been out of jail since October 16th of 2021? I mean, did he make bond? I don't believe so. No. Okay, so he's been in jail since October 16th. [00:29:48] Speaker 1: Injection is sustained. [00:29:52] Speaker 2: Well, what opportunity has he had since October 16th of 2021 to manipulate witnesses, to manipulate evidence, to manipulate anything in this case? What opportunity? Go ahead. [00:30:05] Speaker 1: There's an objection. I'm sorry. What's his objection? [00:30:09] Speaker 2: Objection 401, Your Honor. [00:30:11] Speaker 1: No response. [00:30:12] Speaker 2: Well, Your Honor, no question he's been in jail since October 16th. Your Honor. [00:30:19] Speaker 1: Your legal response to the objection. I don't understand. The 401 is the objection, relevance, and your response. [00:30:25] Speaker 2: My response is that they have him, they're trying to portray him as this manipulative person. [00:30:31] Speaker 4: Your Honor. [00:30:32] Speaker 2: And he's not got the ability to manipulate anything after October 16th. The objection is sustained. [00:30:38] Speaker ?: That's not relevant. Yes, sir. [00:30:40] Speaker 2: In an open argument to the jury. I'm sorry, Your Honor. [00:30:42] Speaker ?: Yes, sir. [00:30:43] Speaker 2: Now, did you tell anyone in his family the reason you wanted to see him while he was in rehab was to show him a picture of a truck? [00:30:59] Speaker 3: The conversations about the picture of the truck. We obtained the picture of the truck on and around. [00:31:07] Speaker 2: Excuse me. If you would just answer yes or no, and then you can explain your answer. We're going to go down this trail, and if you say no, then I'm done. If you say yes, then I'm going to ask you when you did it. And we don't have to go through this back and forth in the next ten minutes. Did you tell anybody in his family you wanted to see him in rehab just to show him a picture among other things, just to show him a picture of a truck? [00:31:29] Speaker 3: I believe that was one of the items we wanted to discuss with Mr. Murdoch. [00:31:33] Speaker 2: Okay. And so you were giving the impression that at that point you still believed him, and you just wanted to show him a picture of a truck? [00:31:41] Speaker 4: For how long, Your Honor. [00:31:43] Speaker 2: Relevance? Really? [00:31:45] Speaker 1: Let me hear that question again. [00:31:49] Speaker 2: You indicated to a member of his family you knew was communicating with him that all you wanted to do was show him a picture of a truck. To the forum, Your Honor. [00:32:01] Speaker 1: It's cross-examination. [00:32:04] Speaker 2: Thank you. Did you -- Can I ask the question? What's the response? [00:32:09] Speaker 3: I asked the question. [00:32:10] Speaker ?: Can you repeat the question, please? [00:32:11] Speaker 3: I'm sorry. I just -- [00:32:17] Speaker 2: Special -- are you a Senior Special Agent? Yes, sir, I am. Senior Special Agent Kelly, did you communicate to a member of Mr. Murdoch's family, Randy Murdoch, that all you wanted to do was show him a picture of a truck? That was paramount to you, and that's what you communicated to Mr. Murdoch. Objection 401, Your Honor. [00:32:43] Speaker 3: Objection is overruled. The question you just asked me is that, and I responded to, that was one of the things. That was not the only thing. You know, we knew the identity of Curtis Smith. We knew the truck that Mr. Smith -- [00:32:55] Speaker 2: I didn't ask you what else you knew. I asked you -- The witness will be allowed to complete his answer here. Okay. [00:33:02] Speaker 3: You may continue your response. We wanted to meet with Mr. Murdoch to show him images of the truck. We wanted to show him -- to see -- at this point, we suspected he was not telling the truth, and we wanted to see if he would continue to not tell -- to continue to lie to us about not knowing the existence of Curtis or the truck, or if he would, you know, show some type of clarity and -- [00:33:23] Speaker 2: So -- and this goes to sort of the same issue. When you wanted to see him -- Where do you think exhibits I just introduced? Okay. When you wanted to see him and you contacted me, I indicated he was in detox, right? [00:33:40] Speaker 4: Objections are sustained. [00:33:42] Speaker 2: Objections are sustained. So, were you aware that he was in detox in Atlanta? [00:33:48] Speaker 3: I was aware that he was out of state, and based on the information you told me, and I took you at your word, that he was seeking treatment in an out-of-state facility. Okay. [00:33:57] Speaker 2: And did I indicate to you, or did anybody indicate to you, in detox, you need an uninterrupted period to get off the drugs? That's -- I believe that is what you explained to me. Okay. And that he wouldn't be competent to communicate until he'd been -- there's some hospital, right? He would not be competent to speak with you until the doctor said he was competent, right? [00:34:26] Speaker 3: On the morning of -- on the September 4th incident, he consumed opioids that morning. He was not detoxing or coming off those drugs. He did not appear to be under the influence of any narcotics. When we met with him in the hospital, he was on his cell phone. He was walking. He was talking. He was coherent. He was the victim of a crime, the only witness that we were aware of for that crime. So, we obtained a statement from him so he could tell us what happened. [00:34:53] Speaker 2: You would concede even shot in the head. I don't want to plow old ground. But he had a head wound, fractured skull. [00:34:58] Speaker 4: So, that's an answer, to be honest. Injection sustained. [00:35:02] Speaker 2: Okay. Did you ask a doctor if he was competent to speak with you? [00:35:08] Speaker 3: Again, those medical records, the doctors would not -- No, that's not what I'm asking you. [00:35:11] Speaker 2: I'm asking you if you talked to a doctor and said, "Is he competent to talk to us?" Did you do that? Mr. Hart-Poolian -- [00:35:17] Speaker 3: Would you just say yes or no? [00:35:18] Speaker 2: We can move on. [00:35:19] Speaker 4: I would like to ask the witness to allow it to answer the question and object to the form. [00:35:26] Speaker 1: Let me answer the question, yes or no. Could you repeat the question? [00:35:29] Speaker 2: Did you speak to one of his physicians or any medical personnel and ask them if he was competent to speak with you in the hospital? I did not. Okay. Now, let's look at part of the records during evidence. And there was drug testing done on this day, correct? [00:35:45] Speaker 3: Again, they did not discuss with me his medical records. Mr. Hart-Poolian, they didn't talk to me about his medical records. [00:35:51] Speaker 2: And you didn't ask them, did you? [00:35:53] Speaker 3: There's -- [00:35:54] Speaker 2: He is -- [00:35:55] Speaker 3: Did you ask them? The testing that was -- Did you ask them? We did not ask to discuss specific aspects of Mr. Murdoch's medical condition. We had to subpoena the records with a court order to have access to them. [00:36:08] Speaker ?: So -- [00:36:09] Speaker 3: They will not discuss openly his medical records with us. [00:36:13] Speaker 2: Did you ask a doctor -- that's repetitive. But if you had asked a doctor, they would have told you, according to these records, that he was positive for barbiturates and positive for opioids. Would they not? [00:36:24] Speaker 3: They would have told us they -- Justice sustained. [00:36:30] Speaker 2: Were you -- according to the records that are in evidence, were you aware that he was on opioids and he had a positive test for opioids and benzos? [00:36:38] Speaker 3: Once we have subpoenaed -- [00:36:39] Speaker 2: Would you please answer the yes or no? Once we got the record -- [00:36:42] Speaker 3: Would you answer yes or no? [00:36:44] Speaker 4: Your Honor, I would object to him badgering the witness. The witness is entitled to answer the question. [00:36:48] Speaker 1: You may respond as you see fit. [00:36:49] Speaker 3: Go ahead. At the time of September 4th, we did not ask the medical doctors or the medical professionals any information about his condition because they would not discuss it with us. So if I had asked, they would not have discussed it. So we did not ask. When we obtained the medical records through court order, we were able to review them and learn, after the fact, the diagnosis. [00:37:15] Speaker 2: Would you still -- if you had the medical records, would you still have gone forward with questioning, knowing he had opioids and benzodiazepines in his blood system? [00:37:23] Speaker 3: At that point, he was a victim of a crime. He was the only witness to a shooting that we were currently investigating. I would have asked those questions, and when I found that they were consistent with the two other statements he had already given, it would have allowed us to move forward with the investigation. [00:37:40] Speaker 2: I beg the court's indulgence. Thank you. [00:37:54] Speaker 1: You may step down. [00:37:55] Speaker ?: Thank you, Honor.