FULL VERDICT: Jury finds Alex Murdaugh guilty for murdering wife, son

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Good evening, everyone. We are bringing you live coverage of the Alec Murdoch double murder trial. We understand there is a verdict. [00:00:08] Speaker 2: That's what Judge Clifton Newman said just moments ago. Let's listen in to the Colleton County courtroom. [00:00:30] Speaker 3: Thank you. Madam Forelady, if you'll stand for me. Have you reached a verdict? [00:00:57] Speaker 1: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We have. [00:00:59] Speaker 3: Is it unanimous? Yes, sir. It is. All right. If you will pass it up to the clerk who will pass it to me. And you may be seated. [00:01:29] Speaker ?: The defendant will rise. [00:01:43] Speaker 3: Madam Clerk, you may publish the verdict starting with the back, not with the... Let's see. I'll tell you again. Starting with the back. Flipping them over one by one. [00:02:28] Speaker 4: Docket number 2022 GS-15-00592, the state of South Carolina, county of Colleton, in the Court of General Sessions, in the term of 2022, July, the state versus Richard Alexander Murdoch, defendant, indictment, indictment for murder, indictment for murder, SC code 16-3-0010, CDR code 0116. CDR code 0116. Guilty verdict. Signed by the four lady, 3223. Docket number 2022-GS-15-00593. The state of South Carolina, county of Colleton, in the Court of General Sessions, the July term of 2022. The state versus Richard Alexander Murdoch, defendant. Indictment for murder, SC code 16-3-0010. CDR code 0116. Verdict guilty. Signed by the four lady, date 3-2-23. Docket number 2022-GS-15-00595. The state of South Carolina, county of Colleton, Court of General Sessions, July term 2022. The state versus Richard Alexander Murdoch, defendant. Indictment for possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. SC code dash 16-23-0490. CDR code 0549. Verdict guilty. Signed by the foreperson of the jury, date 3-2-23. Docket number 2022-GS-15-00594. The state of South Carolina, county of Colleton, Court of General Sessions, July term 2022. The state versus Richard Alexander Murdoch, defendant. Indictment for possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. SC code 16-23-0490. CDR code 0549. Verdict guilty. Signed by the foreperson of the jury, 3-2-23. [00:05:19] Speaker 3: Thank you. Madam, for a lady and members of the jury, if that is a verdict of each and every juror, please let it be known by raising your right hands. All right, thank you. Any individual polling requested? [00:05:35] Speaker ?: We do, Your Honor. [00:05:36] Speaker 3: Madam Clerk, you'll need to individually poll the jury according to their juror numbers. [00:05:45] Speaker 4: Number 193. Was this your verdict? Yes, sir. Is it still your verdict? Yes. Juror 2-2, I'm sorry, juror 2-5-4. Is this your verdict? [00:05:57] Speaker 5: Yes. [00:05:58] Speaker 4: Is it still your verdict? [00:05:59] Speaker 5: Yes. [00:06:00] Speaker 4: Juror 3-2-6. Was this your verdict? Yes. Is it still your verdict? [00:06:06] Speaker 5: Yes. [00:06:07] Speaker 4: Juror 6, juror 5-3-0. Was this your verdict? Yes. Is this your verdict? Yes. Juror 5-4-4. Yes. Was this your verdict? Yes. Is it still your verdict? Yes. Juror 5-7-2. Was this your verdict? Yes. Is it still your verdict? Yes. Juror 5-7-8. Was this your verdict? Yes. Is it still your verdict? Yes. Juror 5-8-9. Was this your verdict? Yes. Is it still your verdict? Yes. Juror 6-3-0. Was this your verdict? Yes. Is it still your verdict? Yes. Juror 7-2-9. Was this your verdict? Yes. Is it still your verdict? Yes. Juror 8-2-6. Was this your verdict? Yes. Is it still your verdict? Yes. Juror 8-6-4. Was this your verdict? Yes. Is it still your verdict? Yes. Your Honor, the jury has been polled. [00:07:09] Speaker 3: Thank you. The jury has been polled and the verdict is a unanimous verdict. If you will bring the alternate juror out and have her have a seat in the audience, please. You can stand there or you can sit back there, whatever you prefer. Okay. Are there any post-trial motions? [00:08:00] Speaker 6: Not from the state, Your Honor. [00:08:02] Speaker 5: Your Honor, we would just renew our previously argued motions for a directed verdict. And on those grounds, we would make a motion for a mistrial and to set aside the verdict. [00:08:18] Speaker 6: By the state, response. Your Honor, based on our previous arguments, we would submit that the case properly went to the jury and the verdict was proper and would rely on those arguments. [00:08:30] Speaker 3: We've been here now 28 days, first few days of jury selection and the remainder receiving testimony, an overwhelming amount of testimony and evidence that was presented to the jury for the jury's consideration. As I indicated to the jury during the jury charge, or the charge on the law, that this was a matter solely for the jury to determine. The court found at the end of the state's case that there was sufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty if the evidence was believed by the jury. Likewise, at the end of the defense's case, when the motion was renewed, the court found that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the defendant guilty. The jury has now considered the evidence for a significant period of time, and the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, and I deny the motion. Mr. Murdoch, you now having been found guilty of two counts of murder involving your wife and your son, two counts of possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. The burden now comes upon the court to impose a sentence. Given the lateness of the hour and the victims' rights that must be taken into consideration and complied with under the Victims' Bill of Rights, and consider what I anticipate to be a number of people who might have something to say regarding sentencing, we will defer sentencing to a later date. Of course, the minimum sentence for murder is 30 years. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment as to each count. And on the weapons charge, the sentence is up to five years, which has to be concurrent if a life sentence is imposed. When would you all like to reconvene for sentencing? I would like to give everyone an adequate opportunity to prepare for it. [00:11:29] Speaker 6: The state will be ready at 9.30 in the morning, you're on. [00:11:43] Speaker 5: We can do it at 9.30 tomorrow morning also. [00:11:47] Speaker 3: All right. The defendant is remanded to the custody of the Colleton County Sheriff's Department. And he may be taken away. All right. All right. thank you on behalf of the citizens of the state of South Carolina and your fellow citizens of Colleton County. You did not volunteer for this service. You were called upon by being summoned to appear. And Providence have brought you to this moment in time and these weeks in time. I know that all of you have been here at great sacrifice, particularly the juror whose job was on the line until a miracle happened, I guess, that allowed him to be able to leave rather than -- to stay at rather than leave after two or three weeks. But I want to thank each one of you all individually and collectively. It's not often that you are called upon to sit in judgment of the actions of your fellow man, but you all responded and gave due consideration to the evidence. I will make no comment now as to the extent or the overwhelming nature of the evidence, but certainly the verdict that you've reached is supported by the evidence. So I applaud you all for as a group and as a unit and individually evaluating the evidence and coming to a proper conclusion. As you saw the law, as you saw the facts. Now that you've served for the next year, you're not eligible to serve again. Now, of course, many people never get called upon, but you're not eligible for the next year. And for two additional years, you can be exempted from service, because no person is required to serve on jury duty in this court more often than once every three years. Tomorrow morning at 9:30, we will reconvene for sentencing. You all have no role in that, because that's solely up to the judge, to me. You're welcome to come back if you want to and be a part of the audience if you'd like. I also want to thank the alternate juror who was locked away in a room by herself for these hours, who's hung in there during that period of time. I want to thank you as well. Madam Clerk, what do you have to tell your jurors? [00:16:00] Speaker 4: Thank you for your service and what the judge said as well, and I think we can release them tonight and bring them back in the morning. [00:16:12] Speaker 3: No, they're off jury duty. They can come back if they like, and you don't have to if you don't want to. Typically, I've seen jurors. [00:16:26] Speaker 2: And with that, Alec Murdoch found guilty of all charges in the murders of his wife and son by a jury of his peers in Colleton County Court tonight. Coming on the air just after seven o'clock tonight, after really only a few hours of deliberation. [00:16:41] Speaker 1: Yes, deliberations began just before four o'clock this afternoon, so after 28 days, Alec Murdoch has been found guilty for the murders of his wife, Maggie, and his son, Paul, and also a guilty verdict for a weapons charge. [00:17:00] Speaker 2: So we're looking ahead to the morning hours at 9:30, that's where everyone on the legal, both legal teams will report back to the Colleton County Courthouse, where the sentencing will take place. Judge Clifton Newman saying tonight that he really wanted to make sure the victim's bill of rights was honored. There may be some victim impact statements that are taking place in the morning, and that will factor in to the sentence that he receives. [00:17:22] Speaker 1: He's facing life in prison and Judge Newman did deny during this last session a motion by the defense, the defense motion for a mistrial. The judge denied that, saying that the evidence is overwhelming. [00:17:39] Speaker 2: We want to get back to outside our broadcast area outside of the Colleton County Courthouse tonight. We have attorney Sean Kent with us tonight. He was our political analyst for these past several days, as we've been doing special reports, breaking down the key details of this trial and of these proceedings. So, Sean, we want to know if you can hear us. And if you can, just start with your your perception or your your feelings about what the jury decided tonight. [00:18:07] Speaker 7: Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it. Quick verdicts usually mean guilty. I think the jury, the evidence was absolutely overwhelming. I just don't think they were able to get past that kennel video, that he was the last person to see his wife and child alive. I'm very shocked that it happened that quickly, though. That was a little overwhelming. [00:18:31] Speaker 1: Attorney Kent, just curious about that trip to Moselle yesterday. Jorah's going there. Do you think it played any impact on their decision tonight? [00:18:46] Speaker 7: You want to say yes, but with a verdict that quick, it's almost as if the jury had made up their mind after hearing the state's case. So I don't even want to say that it played that much in their mind. I think it might have reinforced beliefs that they've already had after hearing the state's case. I think it might just reinforce the fact that they were overwhelmingly convinced. I can't stress how much and how important it is in a six and a half week trial to have a verdict in a couple of hours. That jury was well convinced of his guilt. [00:19:17] Speaker 2: Well, and this may be the first high profile trial that many folks watching at home right now have followed this closely. So I wonder if you would also break down the judge's comments after the verdict was read. He was essentially affirming the decision they made and telling the court that he believed that there was overwhelming evidence. Is that a typical thing for a judge to do in this scenario? [00:19:42] Speaker 7: Believe it or not, I think it is. I've known Judge Newman for two decades. He is very even keeled. He will not tip his hat one way or the other. And that's to make sure the defendant gets an absolutely fair trial. But after the jury has spoken, that's a judge basically saying, I agree with this jury. I agree with the judicial system. It worked in this unique situation. And this man was guilty. So it is not fair. But it's him basically sending a nod to the jury that you did the right thing. I was watching the case that you guys were watching. And I agree with your verdict. [00:20:18] Speaker 1: We saw throughout the trial moments where Alec Murdoch teared up tonight as the verdict was read. What did you make of his demeanor? [00:20:34] Speaker 7: It's, you know, and it is different now because now we're looking at a person who has been convicted. So now that you watch how he is, he has two very capable lawyers with him. I'm quite sure they prepared him for this possibility. I'm quite sure they told him to be very measured in his responses. I will be very shocked that they allow him to speak tomorrow. Given the fact that they allowed him to speak four other times when he gave statements. But I'd be very shocked they allow him to speak tomorrow. So the emotion and the tears was necessary because he probably won't say a lot tomorrow during sentencing. [00:21:07] Speaker 2: Well, and speaking of the impact statements that we do expect to hear tomorrow, I'm wondering who that might be. It seemed like several members of the Murdoch family were in Alec's corner. So might they get up and say tomorrow, hey, you made a mistake? [00:21:24] Speaker 7: That's what I thought was weird. I'd be shocked if Judge Newman gives him anything less than life. I'd be very confused on who they allow to speak in the impact statements. What will be very interesting if they allow the victims of the financial crimes to speak because if they let them speak that could also go far towards potential appellate issues because you said it exactly right. The victims. The victims are him and Buster. They're the families who are left and they're supporting each other. [00:21:55] Speaker 1: I'm wondering also about the potential for an appeal. What are your thoughts? [00:22:04] Speaker 7: I think it's good. South Carolina is pretty clear and anybody who's watched the trial know that the defense team was very angry and agitated, if you will, for allowing in the evidence of the financial crimes. The reason they were so upset about allowing in the evidence of the financial crimes is it can definitely get the jury thinking to the point he is a bad person. And because he is a bad person, he has the propensity to commit this crime. And that is completely generally not allowable. They say they're using it for motive testimony, but motive is not an element of a crime. So I think that's a strong, strong appellate issue. And a lot of lawyers who I've talked to are interested to see that. I think the financial crimes went too far. [00:22:47] Speaker 2: And so tomorrow we're going to hear some victim impact statements, obviously. But what you know, what can you tell us about what the court will consider when they do determine what sentence he deserves? Obviously, he's facing life in prison. [00:23:03] Speaker 7: Knowing Judge Newman, he will listen to the prosecutor. And don't forget, he's heard this case for six and a half weeks. So he knows the case better than anybody. And he's got to dance a delicate line to make sure he doesn't say things like, I'm making a decision based upon all the lives that you have hurt with the financial issues. Because he's still not guilty technically of those financial issues. So what he's got to say is you took two lives and not that you're accused of it. You've taken two lives. This is potentially a death penalty case. And so that's what he's going to concern himself with. So, yes, he'll listen to the impact statement, maybe some family members that we haven't heard. But I'm hoping he won't necessarily listen to financial information because I think that'd be misplaced. [00:23:46] Speaker 2: And speaking of the financial, you know, part of his accusations, I mean, some of those cases have been settled when we talk about, you know, the boat crash victims. But all these financial crimes that have yet to be adjudicated, you know, what can you tell our audience about sort of the timeline for that? And now that he's been convicted of murder, what happens to those cases? [00:24:09] Speaker 7: Well, they're still out there. They're still pending. They still have to be addressed. There is still restitution owed. People still are owed money. And so what they're going to be careful about doing is you don't want those cases just to disappear. Because as we mentioned, Alec does have appeal issues. So he has appellate rights and he could win his murder case on appeal. And you don't want him to win his appellate issues on appeal. And then all of a sudden he's out on the murder cases and they threw out the financial cases. So those financial cases will still be taking place. He may choose to plead guilty to them. There's a lot of potential there. [00:24:46] Speaker 1: Attorney Kent, I'm curious about the fact that Judge Newman said to the jurors, you are welcome to come back tomorrow morning for sentencing. Is that typical in murder trials? [00:25:02] Speaker 7: It is. And I like when judges do that, when they say you can come. Because here's what would normally happen. Normally sentencing would happen right now. We're very quick. He is sentenced. The judge would sentence right then and there. And so the jury could watch. And so normally he would say, if you guys want to come out and watch what I do, come on. The reason they like to do that is because it's kind of unfair to a jury. You make them sit there for six and a half weeks and all of a sudden say, we're not going to tell you what happened. Read it in the paper. So this is Judge Newman saying, you did the system. You made our jury system work. So we want you to be a part of it and watch what happens to this guy. [00:25:37] Speaker 2: Well, and what are the jury's options sort of going forward? I know their identities were kept a secret and that was to preserve, you know, their safety and the integrity of this case. Now they presumably come forward and share their deeper thoughts about this case. Is that what they're allowed to do? [00:25:57] Speaker 7: They're their jury service is over. You cannot stop them from talking. You can't stop them from writing books. You can't stop them from getting on Netflix. Their jury service is over. They can do absolutely anything they want to do right now. [00:26:12] Speaker 1: We want to thank you for joining us this evening as a verdict has been reached and the Alec Murdoch double murder trial. We want to give you if you're just joining us a quick indication of what happened for about two and a half hours. The jury deliberated and came back with a verdict just after seven o'clock tonight. Alec Murdoch found guilty of murder bring his wife Maggie and his son Paul. [00:26:41] Speaker 2: WS AV's Andrew Davis has been in the courtroom for us for the entire 28 days of these proceedings. He is joining us now live from outside the courthouse with his thoughts tonight. Andrew. [00:26:54] Speaker 8: Well, it was an absolute surreal situation. My thought was to sit next to Sean initially as we were talking to say, well, maybe I should be out here. But instead to be in that courtroom and the hush that came over the courtroom, the moment the jury walked in, they had stone faces the entire time, not selling anything that they may have from there. Then it was a, you could hear a pin drop inside that room. I was trying to say what the answer was when the verdict came down. Shell shock is the best word that I've come up with. I don't think anybody believed, A, it would be this quick, but B, that it would be that verdict, especially in this mode. I know usually if they come back that quickly, it is going to be a good demo, which I'm sure Sean has told you previous before. But to hear the audience, they said there would be no cheery. There would be no statement in there. But this audience didn't even seem to smile at any point in time, which it was predominantly true crime enthusiasts who would have stayed here to try to be at this verdict. They did not smile. I think they felt just as badly for everybody in that room, including Alec, including the family. You look over Buster Murdoch was stone faced during this entire trial. Everything that went on very rarely did show any emotion here. He once again kept his hand on his face. You could see that he was broken inside and he did begin to tear up. I never saw it went all the way to a full cry at that point. His sister, Alec's sister, Lynn, was there. She immediately almost mouth agape when the verdict came down. She and her husband both had tears in their eyes while they were there. Brooklyn, Buster's sister, excuse me, Buster's girlfriend at that point, just put her head down. Alec did not move the entire time. I'm sure you guys had a better look from the cameras that were there. But from behind, it was clear that they were upset. They were shocked and they never thought it was going to come this quickly. You look at a situation where, you know, Sean was talking about the sentence and how quickly it was. The moment that that goes in my mind immediately is the moment that the bailiff put the handcuffs on him, took them from behind and put him on them. I was in Paul Murdoch's case when they didn't do that. I've been in so many situations where they said they don't want to put handcuffs on Alec in that case because they don't want to taint any jury there. But in this case, he was convicted. They put the handcuffs on him and took him out of the room. It was truly a surreal kind of moment to see that as it happened because it's been something that a lot of people didn't expect. A lot of people didn't necessarily believe whatever happened at any point in time. And it did that Alec Murdoch was convicted in this case on all four counts. It's just, yeah, I mean, Sean, I'm still in this. We all sat there as a media group. We've been here 28 days in that courtroom. And for three hours for them to walk back out and say we have a verdict, the statement came to us and said, well, they're talking about getting them dinner. And the jury came back and said, well, actually, you can wait because we might only have 10 or 15 minutes. We talked about that. Yeah. That's when the jury makes the incredible statement to me to do this. And I know you've, you know, I'm not going to try to go back too much because I'm sure you went through it, but that moment of immediately when the jury comes back and that quickly, you had a feeling what it was. Looking at those jury members walk into the courtroom, you could see the pain on their faces to have to do it. But at the same point, they knew it was the right decision too. [00:30:14] Speaker 7: And I say it's overwhelming because that is, when we were sitting here talking earlier, quick verdicts mean guilty. They just do. Sometimes there are exceptions. But in this case, I think nobody thought there was going to be a not guilty. We thought there was a chance that because of the overwhelming amount of evidence, there was a chance of a hung jury, maybe two or three jurors couldn't vote. But that is repudiation. They flat out made a decision. They said this evidence is overwhelming. We're making our decision right now. [00:30:40] Speaker 8: It really is interesting because we talked about there were no guns specific to this case. There was a lot of possible evidence and a lot of theory and a lot of the statements of you are a liar. And I think the lies played so huge into this. And that's why, as we've spoken, the prosecutors worked so hard to get those financial crimes in this case. [00:30:58] Speaker 7: And I still don't think they're necessary. It's usually the simplest answer is the most honest answer. And when juries come back quick, they came up with a simple decision. You're the last person to see these people alive and you lied about it. You know who lies at crime scenes? People are trying to cover stuff up. And they kept it that simple, I believe. I don't think it was the financial crimes. I think that made their decision easier. That Kennel video was overwhelming. [00:31:20] Speaker 8: The Kennel video I think might have been the key. You're absolutely right. You just can't get past it. I mean, five minutes to the murder and not admitting it to anybody. I think when you look at the people, Mark Ball and Ronnie Crosby to me may have been the biggest ones to come back on radio. Mark Ball and Ronnie Crosby, his law partners, came back on redirect. And immediately they reaffirmed the fact that he never told them the truth at any point. And you can see they said it out loud. And it wasn't, he stole money from us, so we're upset about this. It was, we're telling you the truth right now. And we still can't believe that he didn't do it. [00:31:54] Speaker 7: I think yesterday I made a comment to you. The strongest thing that Ronnie Crosby said and noted to that jury is, I've seen him in front of juries. I've seen him get emotionally naturally. I think he's doing it again. I thought that was really powerful stuff. It was, a three-hour verdict is like, you can tell him a little bit, that was quick. Yeah, we all are. That's very quick. I mean, the entire media corps, there were people in the media corps saying, I feel ill. [00:32:17] Speaker 8: Yeah. Because we never expected. And also, it's been so long. And it's been this moment and thought you'd have time to prepare for it. Or some sense, but for them to come back as quickly as they did, when everybody's preparing for, well, let's come back tomorrow, maybe Saturday, maybe beyond that. You know, for a three-hour verdict, where does that rank on your list of murder trials to get a verdict quite that quickly? [00:32:38] Speaker 7: It's up there as one of the quickest, because we're doing our Facebook Live, and all of a sudden, we're starting to see people running around us. I'm just like, there's a verdict. And it was just too much. For a six-and-a-half-week trial of this magnitude all over the country, it's one of the quickest. [00:32:53] Speaker 8: Absolutely. I know, Tina, Ben, you've got some more to say, too, to both of us here. We can certainly. Sure. Well, welcome to Ben and Tina, who have been helping me out, because I'm sorry I got stuck in the courtroom to do it. But to be there and to see it, I think, was so important for a lot of people. [00:33:07] Speaker 1: Well, Andrew, I do have one question. You talked about the Murdoch family and their reaction once the verdict was read. I'm wondering about Maggie Murdoch's family. Her sister, of course, took the stand during the trial. Were they in the courtroom as that verdict was read? And what was the reaction, if you were able to see? [00:33:30] Speaker 8: They did not step in this courtroom the entire time, other than Marion Proctor, who did actually take the stand. At no point in time did they take the stand here to stand next to Alec, stand with him, to stand against him. They have taken a complete hands-off sentient. Also, John Marvin Murdoch not in this courtroom today, either. He was apparently at his house or somewhere else. We understood he may have been as much of an hour away, so he wasn't here. He had been here for every single try. It was Lynn and her husband, Buster and Brooklyn, and that's it. That's all he had around him. And Alec turned to the crowd after it was done and mouthed, "I love you," to his family, which he had done previously or she had done previously to him. It's hard to explain that moment that even for the Murdoch family. I don't know if it was resignation that they knew it was coming because I don't know if they ever did. But the fact that they sat there and couldn't say anything at all. [00:34:24] Speaker 7: His lawyers would have had to prepare him. You know, when you're doing these trials, you prepare him. And I guarantee you they said something to him when the verdict came in. I think they said, "Look, family, no emotions. This ain't good." So I think they were prepared, but it's hitting him right now in that cold cell. It's hitting him right now. Not that he's going to do life in prison, because I think he knew that was coming anyway with the financial crimes. But he's doing life in prison for killing his wife and son and everybody knows it. Yeah. [00:34:48] Speaker 8: Ben-Tina, I know you have a question. Give me one second, though. My question on that one would be, and I've now forgotten it somewhere, but it's in my brain. Ben-Tina, you asked your question. I'll come back because I had something for Sean. I'm still a little bit lost from all this going on because it came so quickly and to be in the middle of it all. [00:35:02] Speaker 2: Well, we're wondering about, you know, so he's going to get sentenced for this tomorrow. And then the financial crimes are in the months ahead. If he were to be found not guilty of the murder, but still guilty of the financial crimes, would he be in a lesser security prison or because of the magnitude of it? Like would he, you know, that's a white collar crime, I guess, a so-called white collar crime, the financial crime. So would that be in like a minimum security prison? And now he's facing a much tougher road to this, you know, incarceration. [00:35:34] Speaker 7: That's a great point. It would depend on the classification that our Department of Corrections gives him. But life is life. South Carolina is very interesting. When you're sentenced to life, it's not that you do 20 years or 30 years. It's called pine box life, meaning you leave the Department of Corrections in a pine box. So if he was sentenced to life on his financial crimes, he's leaving the Department of Corrections in a pine box. Same thing with these murder charges, which I'd be shocked if Clifton Newman doesn't give him a life sentence tomorrow. [00:36:00] Speaker 8: But 30 years of life on both of those charges, up to five for the weapons charges. My question for you that I was remembering now is we were just here only an hour or so ago now and watched Dick Harpootley and Jim Griffin walk through the media center. I would have to think they were completely blindsided by this. [00:36:17] Speaker 7: And so I can't imagine what they're going through. And when it was very funny, you asked me a question earlier, what is going through the prosecution of mine and what's going to the defense's mind. If you remember, I said the defense is thinking, dear God, don't let there be a verdict tonight. That's exactly what they're thinking. Because that's basically everybody's saying it shouldn't have gone to trial. [00:36:44] Speaker 8: And then the question is going to come up because I know you spoke to me about it. Joe Hull spoke to me about it already. He believes there's a lot of grounds for it. [00:36:52] Speaker 7: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. It's a very appellate lawyers are about to have a field day. The financial crimes, which I keep saying, weren't necessary. And so sometimes and why you say they're not necessary is like, why muddy up a trial with stuff that can make the case come back? [00:37:07] Speaker 8: Let me come back at you. Would they have gotten this guilty verdict without those financial crimes being introduced in this case? [00:37:12] Speaker 7: I think, remember what I told you, who lies about being at the crime scene? The person who has something, I think that kennel video, I think when they go back and you interview those juries, which they will, they will say, we couldn't get past the fact that he was the last one there. We could not get past, who else could have done it? Like all of the theories, all of these other situations, he had a six or seven minute window, as we talked about. No, I think the financial crimes helped because they painted him as a liar. [00:37:38] Speaker 8: But you needed a motive somewhere because the motive still became back to the financial crimes. That's why they put it in there to begin with. [00:37:44] Speaker 7: Did they though, or did they put that in there just to make him a liar? Because it's a dumb motive. Nobody believes that's really the motive. Agreed. This guy is a sociopath who steals from everybody. Karen from accounting is not the person who's going to make him snap. Yeah. Okay, I just don't believe that. I just think that was to show the jury that he's capable of lying about anything. They call it motive, but I've prosecuted enough cases. The only way you can get that in is for that reason. [00:38:08] Speaker 8: And then obviously the question that becomes, well, I may have more than one, but one at this point while we do this, the statement of Alec being on the stand. That was supposed to be the home run hit one way or another. Obviously it turned into something much less a strikeout if you're going to play baseball analogy. [00:38:23] Speaker 7: Well, if you remember during his testimony, he got caught in lies. And if you're going to put your client on the stand, you know, it's like you can't get caught in lies. You can't admit that I was a liar, but I'm telling the truth today and then get caught in a lie on the stand because that's the jury saying we don't trust you anymore at all. So it was a risk. It clearly didn't work, but I think because they allowed him to give so many statements before, he had to explain them. [00:38:43] Speaker 8: Yeah. Sean, we have so much more with you. We're going to bring you back tomorrow. I know for much more coverage on this. We have much more coverage coming up for you tonight on this. Alec Murdoch found guilty on all the charges, potentially facing life sentences in multiple levels, showed no emotion in the court as this came down. Three plus hours for this jury is all it took after six weeks of testimony to go ahead and convict him. This is the trial of Alec Murdoch, the end game, and it is ended until tomorrow morning. 9:30 is when the sentencing will happen. It will begin. They're expecting multiple people to come up and speak either on behalf on his behalf or for a bigger, stronger sentence. So we're going to be very interested to see how that turns out. Both sides immediately said we will be ready tomorrow morning for this to happen. Alec Murdoch taken out of court in handcuffs, convicted of murder. We'll have much more for you tonight on news three at 10:00 and 11:00. Oh, sorry. We have a question [00:39:42] Speaker 1: first for Ben Tina. Well, I think we're good now, Andrew. We want to thank you for your in-depth coverage of this murder trial. Also, we thank attorney Kent and McAuliffe as well for being with WSAV throughout the trial 28 days and we've reached the end game. That will wrap up our special report at this [00:40:02] Speaker 2: hour we're going to send you back to Jeopardy in progress.