Murdaugh Murder Trial: Defense closing argument (part one)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: I don't know why they call it argument. I'm not here to have an argument with you in any form or fashion. What I'm here to do today, this morning, is to review the evidence with you that you've heard in the courtroom. Over the last six weeks, in reviewing this evidence, my goal is to address questions that you may have about what you've heard. And the jury system that we have, frankly, is the greatest criminal justice system in the world because it's the only system, jury system, that a criminal defendant's fate is put in the hands of his or her peers in this country. We don't leave the decision of guilt or innocence up to governor, to the attorney general, to the prosecutors, to the presiding judge. You, ladies and gentlemen, make that decision. And as perfect as our jury system is, there's one thing that I wish it provided, an interchange during the course of the trial between us. We're all sitting there and listening to what we say, and we don't know what questions you have and what you want answered. By the same token, you know, we may have questions of you that we can't ask. Here's my opportunity to try to answer the questions that I think you have. There may be some things that I go over that you've already decided, and I'm wasting your time. And if I do that, I apologize. I truly do. But I don't. This case is so important. I don't want to leave anything out that one of you may have a question about. I think I can probably speak to everybody in this courtroom that there's one thing that we, on this side, have no question about. It's that y'all have been ideal jurors. We've been here six weeks, and each of you have come every day, on time, and you've been very attentive. And it has not gone unnoticed. And we do appreciate you for your service. We know what a sacrifice it is, being away from your home, your work, your family, your personal obligations. Maybe some of you missed vacations. But you've been here in a three-week trial, and here we are at the end of six weeks. And I want to thank you personally. I want to thank you on behalf of Mr. Harpootlian, Mr. Barber, Ms. Fox, and especially on behalf of Alec Murdoch. In his opening statement, Mr. Harpootlian explained to you that the law governing your service requires each of you to engage in an unnatural task. In every criminal case, jurors are required to begin the process by presuming the defendant innocent. In this case, you were required, under your solemn oath, as we began, to presume Alec Murdoch innocent of these charges. And frankly, as he explained, that's not natural. When you hear on the news that a crime has occurred and an arrest has been made, you feel a little bit relieved. Thank God they caught him. And frankly, I would not be surprised if some amongst you, when you read in the paper that Alec Murdoch was charged to murder his wife and son, that you thought, oh good, they got him. But those opinions, and each of you, when you filled out your questionnaire, agreed and affirmed that you would leave those at the door of the courthouse. And that you would decide this case solely on the evidence. And that's what the law requires. And when we begin, the law also requires you to presume him innocent of these charges. Now, I've been doing this a long, long time, and up until the advent of instant replay in sports, it's been very difficult to explain just how to do that to jurors. How jurors can apply this presumption of innocence. And if you're not as interested in sports, I apologize for this analogy, but the analogy is the instant replay. Whether you're a Clemson fan or a Georgia fan, that on a Saturday afternoon, there's a play called on the field, and then it's reviewed. And under the rules, the call on the field stands unless there's visual, incontrovertible evidence that the call on the field was wrong. We see that every weekend on sports. Here, the call on the field is that Alec Merlick is innocent, innocent of these charges. That's what the law requires. And that unless and until the state proves his guilt to each one of you individually, voting individually, proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then that presumption of innocence stays with him. You're not being tasked here to give your opinion in this trial. You're being tasked to apply the Constitution, the bedrock principles that protect us all from a government. Those bedrock principles are, first, you get tried by the jury of your peers. Second, that the jury of your peers begin with presuming you innocent. And third, that you will remain innocent until the government, if they can, proves to you individually in your mind that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, the judge will give you jury instructions on what that means beyond a reasonable doubt. The definition has been defined that reasonable doubt is doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate when making an important decision in their personal affairs, such as to buy a house, get married, any consequential decision. And you will be making, you will be making, when you get this case, probably later this afternoon, you will be making one of the most consequential decisions that you will have ever made in your life, I suspect. I don't know all of your backgrounds, but it will be a very consequential decision. And if the proof that the state has put before you causes you to hesitate, when you go to fill out that vote, as you're deliberating in your jury room, each of you will have a vote. And you will have the right to vote guilty or not guilty. And each of you will write it down. And if there's any reasonable cause for you to hesitate to write guilty, then the law requires you to write not guilty. This burden of proof that we have, many of you may have had experience with civil cases. And in civil cases, the burden of proof is much lower. And it's called by preponderance of the evidence. And you may have seen lawyers or judges or watched on TV as they give a visual image of Lady Justice, who's blind and blindfolded so she does not bias from one side or the other. And there's scales on Lady Justice. And those scales are the scales of justice. And in a civil case, if one party proves their case by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning ever so slightly tilt those scales in their favor, then they're entitled to the verdict. There's another heightened level of burden of proof in a civil case called by clear and convincing evidence. And the law requires things like to prove fraud or some intentional acts. You have to prove by clear and convincing evidence. And that's an intermediate level of proof. And so it's not just tilt the scales ever so slightly in the favor of the party that prevails, but you have to get sort of three-quarters of the way there. But now proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof the law recognizes. And it is, you have to tilt the scales all the way to one side in order for the state to meet their burden. Now, a little bit about the verdict. You will have an option of guilty or not guilty. My friend, Dick Harputlian, over here, he travels a lot. He's been to a lot of countries. And he frequently, he recently returned from Scotland, where he attended a jury trial in Scotland. And it tells me it's much like this, except the lawyers wear a wig, and I might benefit from something like that. But in Scotland, it runs about the same until it gets time to the verdict in the Crumlin case. And the jury in Scotland, where we derive our laws from, they are given three options. One option is guilty. Second option is not guilty. And the third option is not proven. Not proven. Now, here in America, we have combined the verdict of innocent and not proven into one of not guilty. And so when you go to render your verdict, if it's a verdict of not guilty, it's either you concluded that the defendant is innocent of the charges, or that the government has not met their burden of proof, their heavy burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, and one of the reasons that defendants are presumed innocent and the government has such a high burden is because in criminal cases, the defendant really doesn't have the ability, doesn't have the resources, doesn't have the lawful authority to execute search warrants, subpoena documents, to prove his or her innocence. And so a defendant cannot secure a crime scene, cannot lift a crime scene for fingerprints, shoewear impressions, cannot secure telephones and get electronic data in the course of an investigation. So the defendant is limited on what they can do. In this case, on June 7th, 2021, Alec Marduk called 911, and Officer Deputy Green and then followed by other deputies rolled up on the scene. And he is standing on his property. His wife and son, his wife and son, lie dead in a pool of blood each. He's within yards of him. And he just put a shotgun down. He just put a shotgun down. And what would that look like? 90 out of 100 cases when an officer rolls up, it would look like the person who had the shotgun and two dead bodies may have done it. Probably have done it. Certainly is someone who should be strongly considered. And all the officers in this case told you that. Deputy Rutland said, yeah, Alec Marduk was a suspect, but there are a lot of suspects out there. Everybody was a suspect. Fair enough. Agent Owen says, well, you know, we have a circle, investigative circle. And it starts with immediate family members, particularly if they found the deceased, the victims. So he's in the circle by virtue of calling 911. And that's fair enough. But what doesn't strike us as fair is that the next morning on June the 8th, after the gruesome murders of Maggie and Paul, this is what is issued a joint press release, Colleton County and SLAB, that says, at this time, there's no danger to the public. At this time, there's no danger to the public. We have two people who have been executed within, y'all are out there, I don't know, is it 100 yards, 200 yards from Moselle Road? They've been slaughtered. And at this time, there's no danger to the public. Does that tell you that on June 8th, law enforcement had decided it had to be Alec Marduk? It's a fair question for you to ask yourselves. It's a question that's not been fairly answered in this trial. What we know from June 7th to June 8th, Alec is a suspect and he's in the circle. And from that day forward, he is at the mercy. He is at the mercy of the ability of SLED to exclude him from that circle. They have the ability to do the forensic work. They have the ability to interview witnesses. And they have the ability to gather electronic data. And we believe that we've shown conclusively that SLED failed miserably in investigating this case. And had they done a competent job, that Alec would have been excluded from that circle a year ago, two years ago. But he would have been excluded. What did you hear from the witness stand? You heard from Chief Barry McCroy. I didn't know Chief McCroy until I got involved in this case. But his reputation is outstanding and he's a consummate professional. And he explained that when he got there, he was concerned that cars would be pulling up and there were some tire tracks that were not being protected. And that they could have evidentiary value. And then you heard from Mark Ball, who had a conversation with Chief, I mean, excuse me, Sheriff Hill, who's another fine public servant here. And he also agreed we've got to stop cars from coming in here to preserve these tire impressions. And it was not done. It was not done. Captain Chapman from the Collinville County Sheriff's Office, he testified about seeing other sets of tire tracks. As you had came in off Moselle Road, you probably saw where Deputy Green's vehicle had stopped right at the kennels. But then on the other side, where you saw that Alec was parked and pacing on some of these videos, that's where Captain Chapman had talked about seeing tire tracks. And he tried to track them. Slave was coming on. And then it was like a trail to nowhere. It was a trail to nowhere. Deputy Rutland talked about seeing hair, hair in Maggie's hands, you'll recall. You didn't hear anything about the hair in Maggie's hands from that moment forward. Was it testing? Was it set off for analysis? There was no evidence of what, if anything, happened to the hair in Maggie's hands. Was it as a result of a struggle with her assailant? Was it her own hair? I mean, we don't know the answer to that. We know they failed to take fingerprints from the feed room. And they should have. They failed to properly take footwear impressions from the feed room. Or at the apron right outside of the feed room. And I think that's, that's, I mean, I don't think that's uncontradicted. The, um, Agent Worley, who, um, doing the best she can, um, did not go there to document footwear impressions. Did not do that. You heard from our expert, Mr. Zurchie, what is required. And, I believe, Dr. Kinsey also agreed it was not done. I know Mr. Palmback did. And, and, and both, you know, I'll get to the shot angles in a little bit. But, both Dr. Kinsey and Mr. Palmback had the murderer for Paul standing on the concrete. Standing on the concrete. Whether one foot's in, one foot's out, both feet are in. But, there should have been footwear impressions. But, we'll never know. Because, it was not preserved. It was not taken. But, the thing that has baffled us, has completely baffled us, is why did they never take DNA samples off of Maggie's clothes? Her dress. Why did they never take DNA samples off Paul's clothes? They never did. They never did. And, we asked their investigators, why didn't you? Well, that's somebody else's job. That's somebody else's job. It was never done. But, you know who, who's clothing they took DNA off of extensively? [00:19:08] Speaker 2: Alec. [00:19:09] Speaker 1: And, and you, you heard, um, Agent Zapata talk about all the different, uh, grids on her shirt where DNA was, was, samples were taken. Was Alec, was Alec, assaulted on June the 7th? No, he wasn't assaulted. Was Alec, wrestling with the assailant on June the 7th? There's no evidence of that. So, why are they taking DNA evidence off Alec's clothing in June of 2021? And, there's only one reason. And, it goes back to this right here. There was only one reason. Only one reason. Is that they had decided that, unless we find somebody else, it's going to be Alec. Unless we find somebody else, it's going to be Alec. So, the, um, and I'll get, I'll get into more detail about Maggie's phone. And, and Maggie's phone was not secured properly. Maggie's phone, um, was, well, let me just go right into it. Maggie's phone was found on the side of the road, uh, in the morning, um, or early afternoon, on June the 8th. Whoever killed her threw that phone on the side of the road, without a doubt. Without a doubt. Um, Alec, from the get-go, has said, You get Maggie's phone, you get my phone, you get my own star, darling, and you will not see my car traveling down the road with Maggie's phone. Because it did not happen. It could not happen. Detective Owen, have you got any yet? No, no, we've not. We, we sent the black box from, on the, uh, on the Chevy to, to the FBI. It was a new model. Turns out the data's encrypted, and so we haven't got it yet. Well, what about General Motors? I mean, I'll, I'll do what I have to do, whatever I can do. And, um, it's a, well, you know, we're looking into it. We're looking into it. Well, what we learned during this trial is, sure, SLED sent a subpoena via a fax machine to somebody in Detroit, I believe. And whoever got it in Detroit, whether there was a number off, I have no idea what the reason was, but we do know the initial response was, we don't have anything. We don't have any on-star data that you're looking for. There's no indication that SLED followed up with a phone call. There's no indication SLED followed up with a letter. There's no indication SLED did anything other than put it in a file. Put the response in a file. And that was it. That was it, ladies and gentlemen. Until somebody, watching this trial somewhere, contacted somebody at General Motors and said, why don't you guys cooperate with the FBI and SLED on this investigation? And they're like, what are you talking about? So Friday, you know, during the, sometime in the last six weeks, lo and behold, here comes all the on-star data that you got to see. And that would be great. That would be great. But for the fact that when they seized Maggie's phone, it had, they put it in airplane mode. They knew how to put it in airplane mode. Excuse me, I'm losing my voice. Let me get water. I apologize. Oh, there's pollen. Something else. They put it in airplane mode, but what you'll see, I got a photograph, is the location services were still on, meaning still pinging off GPS satellites. And the phones don't hold that much memory. They hold a lot of data, as we have learned, but they don't hold that much memory. And it writes over itself. And for GPS location services, the ping points that we see from Paul's phone on all that data, that would have been on Maggie's phone for the 7th. But for the fact that it wasn't extracted until sometime in, like, June 16th. I think that's the date, but if I'm wrong, I apologize. But it's around the middle of June. And that ping information that we see on Paul's phone, from Maggie's phone, it goes back to, like, June the 9th. Well, a lot of good that does. A lot of good that does. But we don't have it. We would have had it, had they extracted it earlier. And then Agent Dove says, we didn't have an updated, upgraded software that would read it. It took us a while to get it. I don't know why it took them a while to get it. There's really no explanation about that. But you heard about Faraday bags. Put it in a Faraday bag so it's not pinging against satellites, not overriding. They didn't do that. And it's lost. Had they done it, I hope we wouldn't be here. I hope, because I know it would say, because we have enough evidence in the record and we have to go around our elbow to get to our thumb to get there. But there is sufficient evidence in the record that shows Alec Murdoch, not driving down the road, Moselle Road, with Maggie's phone in the car, and tossed it at whatever time. He went by in 908. I don't know what time they think it was tossed. But that would have gotten him out of the circle. I would hope, but probably not, because they've been so focused on him. Now, as I mentioned, Alec asked multiple times. I think the testimony was five times. Agent Owen, Agent Owen, you know, if you get this data, it will show it wasn't there. And, you know, we didn't learn why they didn't get it off Alec's phone until very recently. Because on June, you'll remember on June 10th, he gave Sled his phone. Yeah, you can copy it. Please copy it. Because it will show, it will show that I wasn't driving. Now, my phone was not with Maggie's phone at any point in time, going down the road, and I did what I said I did. Well, they did extract it. But what we've learned, the extraction was a superficial extraction. Not because Alec requested it. That's just what they did. It said a logical surface extraction. So they didn't go in and pull out any GPS pinging data, like you see on Paul's phone. They didn't get it off Alec's. Now, if Alec had not made those requests to Owen, and they are disputing that, there's one thing you can be 100% sure of, is they would have called Detective Owen up here on the witness stand during their rebuttal case to say, no, he lied. He didn't ask that of me. I mean, they got Sheriff Smalls in here to say, I didn't give him permission to put a blue light in his car. They came and challenged whether he had authority from the sheriff or maybe a deputy sheriff to put a blue light in his car. But they didn't contradict anything you said about, I've been asking, I've been asking, I've been asking for this data that would get me out of the circle. And now we know why it took so long to get the stuff from, get the stuff from his car. It's because General Motors, I mean, it's because the FBI wouldn't go to General Motors on this event data. But they were, the FBI was up there and they bought a Suburban, they're riding it around, and they're reverse engineering all these systems to try to come up reports. And then they come in here and tell you, well, it's not complete, some of it's inaccurate, but this is what we got. And during the middle of all that, that's when, lo and behold, we get on started. Thankfully, we did. Thankfully, we did. So then we roll into Labor Day weekend of 2021, where Alex, long-time drug problem, his financial issues, misconduct, were exposed. And that made him an easy, easy, easy target for a slave. And I hate to say this, but the evidence is crystal clear. From that moment, he started fabricating evidence against Allen. Mr. Griffin, that's an awful, awful charge. Don't all lawyers accuse law enforcement of fabricating evidence. I can tell you, this guy right here was a federal prosecutor, was a state prosecutor, and some of my best friends are in law enforcement. And I don't make that claim lightly. Here, what you have heard is they came up with a report that says Alex Tischer had high-velocity blood spatter on him. High-velocity blood spatter. What's that? That means you're within feet of a shooting. And they didn't just say any shooting. It said, in their report, it says, as a result of Paul's murder. High-velocity blood spatter on his shirt as a result of Paul's murder. That was number one. Let's stick with number one. Why do I say that it's fabricated? Well, you heard Agent Zapata said, we did hematrace confirmatory blood tests on that shirt. That means there were two types of tests. There's a presumptive test, which is what they use a product called LCV that makes it turn purple, where it might be blood. But it turns purple on other agents as well, including bleach, you heard. You also heard that the shirt came out of the bag wet and smelled like detergent. Anyway, they spray it. It turns purple in places. So they think, well, that must be blood. Next thing they do at the SLED lab is they do a confirmatory test to see if it's blood. Zero for 74, not blood, not blood. That didn't stop SLED from going out and pursuing, with vengeance, this report. They didn't give the no-blood test result to the guy in Oklahoma. And when it surfaced, when it surfaced, they had a problem on their hands. And they were pushing it. Up until this trial, man, and you heard the testimony from the stand, that they went from Mr. Bloody Shirt leading up to this trial to Mr. Clean during this trial. And they asked him, and they raised issues during the trial with Blanca, where were his clothes? No one's asking about the man's clothes that he had on the Snapchat video back in, you know, at 7 o'clock with his son until November or so, I think is what she said. The issue of changing clothes, it was late to the dance because when they went to, as you heard, when they went to the County Grand Jury to get an indictment that you're going to be deliberating on, they told that Grand Jury they had an expert report that says high-velocity blood spout. And I asked Agent Owen, I said, when you went to the Grand Jury and when God gave you the report, how did you not know, chief investigator, how did you not know that there's this hematrase test that says there's no blood? Well, I didn't get the email. And I say it in somewhat jest, but, you know, did the dog eat his email? I mean, how does a lead investigator in the case not get the lab report that says there's no blood on the shirt? Now, ultimately, it was produced to us, and we were raised with Cain about it, and said, how can you say this on one hand and that on the other hand? And here we are with a Mr. Clean theory that he washed off after brutally murdering Maggie and Paul. He takes a hose and washes himself off and gets in a golf cart, butt naked, I guess, and drives to the house. So that's the blood spatter fabrication. The other is this blue raincoat with GSR, and do you remember that testimony? Shelly Smith, who worked for Ms. Libby and Mr. Randolph, had told SLED after September, after Alec's problems had been exposed, after she had a conversation with an Allendale police officer following an accident investigation, in which she was in an accident, that on the morning, she said in here, as she told you, on Wednesday after Mr. Randolph's funeral, and that turns out to be, I think, June 16th, that Alec shows up at the house at Almeda at like 6.30 in the morning, knocking, trying to get in, and he has a blue tarp. And in this blue tarp, she lets him in, he goes upstairs with this blue tarp. He comes back downstairs, he lays this blue tarp out on Ms. Libby's retirement rocking chair in the living room, and then he leaves. And then she leaves to go to her day job. And when she left, I believe TARP was laying out on Ms. Libby's rocking chair. I mean, that was her testimony. And so, SLED gets that, gets a search warrant, goes to Almeda, and they seize a blue rain jacket. They seize a blue rain jacket. And when they do, they take that blue rain jacket, and they show it to just about every family member. Let me get it right quick. So they can think of, and it's, it's Defendants 87, Doug, if you can pull it up. But they show this blue rain jacket to as many family members as they can get in contact with. And the rain jacket is, and no one recognizes it. No one sees it. No one says Alex ever wore it. No one said Paul's ever wore it. No one said Buster's ever wore it. No one said Maggie's ever wore it. Have not seen this blue rain jacket. Have not seen this blue rain jacket. One more thing about this blue rain jacket. When they did the search at Almeda, when they did the search at Almeda, John Marvin was there. And, and John Marvin asked him, what, did you find anything? And he said, well, we found a blue rain jacket back on the property. Back on the property. Back on the property. And he said, well, you know, my dad drives a buggy around, and maybe it fell off the back of his buggy. Clearly, John Marvin was understanding that it was back on the property, and then they asked him to come look at the blue rain jacket, and he was told it was found in the closet. He was told it was found in the closet. And he said, that didn't sound right. And they never clarified it. Now here's a picture. I'm not even going to put it up, but I'm going to, 411 is a picture of this closet. And you can see the blue rain jacket that's just sort of folded up and stuffed down here at the bottom right. That's the blue rain jacket. And apparently right before this trial, they showed Shelly Smith this picture and says, does that look like the blue tarp you saw? She said, well, yeah, sure it looks like it. They never showed her this. They never showed her this. And she said, this. Well, I'll take this. I'll tell you it's 87. It was on the screen. She'd never seen that. Never seen this. But they did GSR testing on this. And it says, whoo, that's hot. It's hot. A lot of GSR. And then there's this issue of misrepresenting what are the type ammunition found in the shotguns at the residence at Moselle. Was murdered with a first shot was a buckshot. Went to his chest. He was turned this way. Went in here. And then out under his arm. And that was buckshot. The second shot was into the head, either. Depending on what expert and what pathologist. It's either this way or this way. But into the head. And that was steel duck shot. I learned that you can't shoot ducks with anything but steel pellets because they don't want lead in the water. So you've got to have steel pellets. And then Agent Owen testified, admitted, begrudgingly, that he had testified to the grand jury that there were four weapons found up on the property in the gun room. Twelve gauges that were loaded. Or, I'm not saying twelve gauges, I'm sorry. Four shotguns that were loaded with buckshot and birdshot. There's four other ones. So, that matches. Well, guess what? Totally not true. That was totally not true. And he admitted on the stand it was not true. He admitted to telling Alec during the interview and he said, well, I can do trickery. I can do, and we're going to see that shortly. But he, and then I said, well, you're trying to trick the grand jury. No, I didn't say that. Well, we walked through it and he did say it. And he didn't remember it. And you'll remember the testimony. And I said, well, people make mistakes, don't you? Yeah, that was a mistake. And it's okay to make mistakes, right? Yeah. And you can make mistakes about time. Well, that's the most common thing people make mistakes about. It's not all right for Alec Murdoch, who's in the center of the circle, who's not all right for him to make mistakes about time. It is not all right, according to the same investigator who says it's okay, happens all the time. But here we go, and then Eureka. Eureka. They finally get into Paul's phone in April of 2022, and they see Alec. Well, they don't see Alec. They see Cash the dog, and they see Paul's feet walking around, and they hear voices in the background. One of them sounds like Alec. And off they go. They go off and get an indictment from the Cullinan County Grand Jury, relying upon a high-velocity blood spatter, relying upon four guns having the same load, and relying upon a rain jacket that's got GSR on it, and Alec lying about being down at the kennels. Now, we know, after we've been here six weeks, of those four things... [00:40:40] Speaker 3: It's new voice privacy contacts have been updated. To continue, review the updated items on your screen. I am so sorry. [00:40:50] Speaker 1: No, that was turned on. I will turn it off. What we know is three out of those four things that were presented to the Cullinan County Grand Jury that you're going to be deliberating on for the indictments at return aren't true. No blood spatter. No GSR rain jacket that's ever been connected to Alec whatsoever. And there's no loaded gun. So we're left with the lie. We are left with the lie. Alec lied about being down at the kennels in Almeida. And why did he lie? And that is certainly a fair question. And that's... And frankly, I probably wouldn't be sitting over there right now if he had not lied. But he did lie. And he told you he lied. And he told you why he lied. He said he lied because... I mean, I'll tell you, he lied because that's what addicts do. Addicts lie. He lied because he had a closet full of skeletons. That he didn't want any more, any more scrutiny on him. Which is the most ironic thing in the world because, depending on which day of the week, their theory is that he slaughtered his wife and son to distract from an impending financial investigation. But he puts himself in the middle of a murder investigation. And he puts himself in the spotlight of a media firestorm. That's their motive evidence. And we'll get to that. But he lied. He lied because of his drug paranoia kicked in. And he was clearly in the throes of addiction. He lied for all those reasons. But what he didn't lie, what he didn't lie for is because he was covering up the fact that he killed Maggie and Paul. That is not the reason he did it. Doug, will you play the dog kennel video, please? I'm going to play the dog kennel video. Please listen to the boys. Get back. [00:43:26] Speaker ?: Wait, Cash. Hey. [00:43:28] Speaker 3: Hey. He's out of here. Come here. [00:43:31] Speaker ?: Come here. Come here. Come here. Come here. Come here. Come here. Come here. [00:43:37] Speaker 3: Come here. [00:43:38] Speaker ?: Hey, he's got a murder now. [00:43:40] Speaker 3: What's that, bro? Come on. [00:43:43] Speaker ?: There's a chicken. There's a chicken. [00:43:49] Speaker 3: Come here. Come here. Come here. Come here. [00:43:52] Speaker ?: Quick. Quick. [00:43:57] Speaker 1: Four minutes later. The state would have you believe that Alec Murdoch up and blew his son's brains out of his head and murders his wife. After having that conversation about Bubba having a chicken or a guinea, four minutes later, their case wants you to believe that this is a family down at the dog kennels doing what families do. They're checking on the dog, they're checking on a dog, the tail, Bubba's out running around, and they're saying, Bubba, got a chicken. Now, why would Alec not want law enforcement to hear that? I mean, there's nothing on that tape, there's nothing on that tape that indicates there's any strife, any conflict, any anger, any planning, anybody being afraid, anybody running, anybody scurrying. Nothing. Maggie, Paul, and Alec down at the kennel. That's it. And their timeline is based on the fact that this automated thing kind of messed me up, but the point I was going to open this up and say, you know, under their theory, if your phone's not moving for some period of time, you're dead right then. You could be run over in the traffic two hours later, but if you're not answering a text two minutes after you receive it, you're dead at that point. And that's their case. That is their case on time of death, is phone stop moving, you're dead. You've heard testimony from a lot of witnesses, I would say practically every witness who took this in, who actually knew Alec and Maggie and Paul and Buster, testified under oath how much Alec adorned Maggie. That was, she was his all. Some people described Paul as Alec's best friend, his relationship with them was awesome. I mean, that was unanimous. Unanimous. I want to just play briefly a clip from Blanca testimony about Alec's relationship with Maggie. [00:47:01] Speaker 4: You've also, I think in multiple interviews with Swad and other folks, described, I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. [00:47:14] Speaker ?: I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. [00:47:52] Speaker 1: I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. [00:47:54] Speaker ?: I think the words were, Maggie. [00:47:55] Speaker 4: I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. I think the words were, Maggie. [00:48:03] Speaker ?: I think the words were, Maggie. [00:48:04] Speaker 2: Maggie. He adored her. He loved her. He adored her. [00:48:09] Speaker 4: Worshipped her. I mean, just treated her as somebody he adored, correct? [00:48:16] Speaker 2: Exactly. Yes, sir. [00:48:18] Speaker 1: Now, this was her testimony from the witness stand. And then, in every trial, there's just, you hope, you find, you know, some very authentic witness, part of the fabric of America that comes in this courtroom. And we had it in this case. And it's Dale Davis. And I want you to remember what Dale testified about, Alec's relationship with his family. We played Dale Davis's. [00:48:51] Speaker 2: Me? When you use the phrase lovey-dovey about Alec and Maggie, what does that mean? It means they love each other. Well, in your presence, I mean, you described them as being lovey-dovey, didn't you? [00:49:05] Speaker 3: Yes. [00:49:06] Speaker 2: And tell Jerry what you meant by that. [00:49:08] Speaker 3: Oh, every time I always said, you know, I've never seen that man even raise his voice to his wife or kids. So, or his wife, I've never seen him, even none of them, argue. But he always, anything she wanted or the boys wanted, he would try to get it. [00:49:26] Speaker 2: And how would you, what was your observation about the relationship with Paul? [00:49:33] Speaker 3: They like to hunt the fish together. I mean, they always, they drink beer together. Okay. Okay. Um. [00:49:41] Speaker 1: That was Dale Davis. Which, which brings us to the question, why? Why, why, why would Alec Murlich on June 7th execute his son, Paul, and his wife, Maggie, who he adored and loved? Why? The state's theory is that he, that it was a storm a-coming. Clouds are arising. And that his financial house of cards is about to collapse. And he's about to be exposed. And because of that, he does what every rational person would do. Go kill your wife and son. That is their theory of motive. That is their theory of motive. That it, oh, and it worked too, by the way. Because he killed his wife and son, guess what? Jeannie's secondary quit asking questions for a few weeks. Oh, and the boating case, ooh, that won't be worth anything now that his wife and son have been murdered because he's sympathetic. Have you heard such? Have you heard such? One thing Mr. Waters and I agree on is the best thing about jurors is you bring your common sense in here. And you use your common sense. And that's what it's all about. That's what your collective wisdom. And just collectively think, individually think, what kind of sense does that make? Alex, his financial house is a wreck. He's stealing money from clients. He's got to produce a financial statement, maybe, and a hearing coming up. And his dad goes back in the hospital that day. His dad goes back in the hospital that day and hopefully he dies a few days later. Okay. So I get a call. Jeannie comes in. My dad's going to the hospital. Paul's coming home. That'd be a good time to kill Paul, wouldn't it? That is their theory of the case. And if you don't accept that beyond a reasonable doubt, ladies and gentlemen, I submit the verdict has to be not guilty. Because there's no reason for him to do it. No reason whatsoever. Now, you've heard a lot of testimony about these financial crimes, misdeeds. And he told you he did it. He told you he did it to support a very expensive drug habit. And none of that's an excuse. But he is an addict. And addiction is real. And addicts lie. Addicts cheat. Addicts steal to keep getting their drug. Now, the evidence was permitted in this case for you to hear solely to consider, did he murder his wife and son because he had this storm of coming that he was going to be exposed? Is that why he murdered? That's what they said. That's why he murdered. And that's why you're allowed to consider it. Now, Judge Newman and his jury instructions will tell you that's all you can consider it for. You can't consider it by saying, man, I never knew he could do that. So if he could do that, he must be able to do the most heinous crimes in the world. Kill his wife and son, execute them style. That's a no-no use of that evidence. The only permissible use of the evidence is, is that sufficient provocation motive for him to kill his wife and son? Is it sufficient motive, not provocation? And the evidence of the case is that there was no impending financial doom on June 7th. June 7th was a day which, frankly, was no different than any other day in the frenetic lifestyle of Alec Murdoch. He had so many balls in the air. And he even, I forgot his paralegal's name, and I apologize to her, I think Christy, she said he would come in like a Tasmanian devil. I mean, he was frenetic. And they, they were owned to this $792,000 fee in the Ferris case. And they were asking questions at Chris Wilson's office. The, but the reason they were concerned, they weren't concerned that he was stealing money. They were concerned that he was sheltering money, trying to hide it from, from the, being disclosed in the boating litigation, which he was a defendant. And they didn't want any part of that. And, and that situation with the boating, I mean, excuse me, with the Ferris fee. He, as Ms. Sekinger, Jean Sekinger said, that was a one-off. That was completely on its own, different type conduct than all the other stuff that you, you heard about. That was a one-off. And, and what happened on June 7th? She says, I'm in his office, and he gets a phone call that his dad's put back in the hospital. And, and she thinks that he told her it was terminal. He may have, I don't know, you know. But his dad is put back in the hospital. He wasn't terminal that day, but the next day he got the terminal diagnosis. The, in any event, she takes off her CFO hat and puts on her model bear hat and hugs him and a friend hat. And, and, and, you know, their theory is he slaughters Maggie and Paul to buy time from her investigation. That is it. That is their theory. That is their theory. And it's totally fabricated. They've got no evidence of that. There's no evidence that Maggie was on to his financial misdeeds. There's no evidence that she was about to blow the whistle on him. There's no evidence that she, that he had a $20 million life insurance policy on her. And that if he, if he murdered her, that, that he could, he could get out a financial bond. None of that. None of that. And I asked Ms. Secretary, how, how long of a delay did that buy out? Well, a month maybe? A month? A month? A month? A month? That's their theory. That's what their case is built upon. And then this motions hearing is, there's a motions hearing scheduled for Thursday. It had previously been scheduled two other times. And it was continued at the last minute on the other occasions, because two of the lawyers had cancer and we were receiving treatments. But it wasn't sure it was going to be continued previously. Did he go murder anybody, you know, to get out from under those prior hearings? No. It had nothing to do with it. And, you know, so they, they brought the plaintiff's lawyer in. He's, he's an excellent lawyer. And he's, you know, like any plaintiff's lawyer. He's saying, I'm going to clean his clock. I'm going to take everything he's got. That's what they all say. So then we had to bring the defense lawyer in to say, that was a negligent parenting case. And it wasn't worth the papers written on. I mean, folks, that's what, that's what we are in a murder case. And that's what we're having to deal with because that is their theory of motive. But even if it's, even if the financial day of reckoning was impending, if it was right there, Alec would not have killed the people he loved the most in the world. There's no evidence that he would do that. We do have evidence of what he would do and did do. And if you'll pull up Defense Exhibit 125, which is in evidence. September 2nd, 3rd, 4th, I forget the date. This is the Labor Day weekend. He gets his drug dealer, Curtis Eddie Smith, to shoot him in the head. So he couldn't go on. Because it was all going to come crashing down. And he had a big life insurance policy. So when Alec is at financial collapse, he doesn't go kill somebody else. He tries to end it himself. This is a natural response. You don't want anybody to do it. But this, people kill themselves from being exposed. They don't kill their wife they adore. Son, the apple of his eye. As some people have said. That's not, that's not. That is, I don't have the adjective for that. That is so outlandish. I don't, I don't have a word for it. Totally illogical, irrational and insane. Those are words I wrote down. For someone to kill their loved ones when their criminal conduct is being exposed. So yesterday we heard a lot from Mr. Waters. And I've been in Mr. Waters' position. As I explained, I was a federal prosecutor for a number of years. I've been a state prosecutor part time mostly. And I've done his job. It's a very rewarding job. And I hold him and I hold his office in very high esteem. But they're just sometimes folks just get caught up in a case. They get a desire to win. They get so intoxicated by the attention that's brought on by the case. That it, you know, they start sort of a win at all cost approach. And I'm going to go through some things that Mr. Waters stated to you that just aren't facts. And aren't supported by the facts and the evidence that you heard. And before I do that, I want to give you a cautionary statement. We lawyers aren't witnesses. I didn't take an oath to stand up here and talk to you. I have ethical obligations about what I can say and limitations under the rules. But I'm not a witness. I'm here to talk to you about the evidence. And the same applies to Mr. Waters. You decide what the evidence is. You decide. And... Further, we're going to take a short break for about 10 minutes.