Murdaugh murder trial: Prosecution opening statements — LiveNOW from FOX

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: We will now proceed to opening statements by the state. [00:00:04] Craig Waters: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the court. On the evening of June 7th, 2021, at the defendant's property off Moselle Road in Colleton County, his son, Paul Murdoch, was standing in a small feet room in some kennels they had on the property. About 8.50 p.m., and the defendant over there, Alec Murdoch, took a 12-shade shotgun and shot him in the shoulder, in the chest and the shoulder, with buckshot. And the evidence is going to show it was a million-to-one shot. He could have survived that, but after that, another shot went up under his head and did catastrophic damage to his brain and his head. The evidence is going to show that Paul collapsed right outside that feed room. And just moments later, just moments later, he picked up a .300 blackout, which is a type of ammunition, but an AR-style rifle. And the evidence is going to show that the family had multiple weapons throughout the property. Picked up that .300 blackout rifle and opened fire on his wife, Maggie, just feet away near some sheds that used to be a hanger. Pow, pow, pow, two shots, abdomen in the lead, and took her down. And after that, there were additional shots, including two shots, to the head that, again, did catastrophic damage and killed her instantly. The evidence is going to show that neither Paul nor Maggie had any defensive wounds. Neither one of them had any defensive wounds. As if they didn't see a threat coming from their attacker. And the evidence is also going to show that both Pat, Maggie, and Paul were shot at extremely close range. The evidence is going to show it's called stippling. It's almost like a tattoo, that when you get shot very close to a weapon, it leaves marks that the forensic pathologist can see. They were shot at close range, and they did not have defensive wounds. And the evidence is going to show that the defendant, Alec Murdoch over there, told anyone who would listen that he was never at those kilns. But the evidence is also going to show, from these things that every one of us, most of us carry around in our pockets, that he was there. And he was there just minutes before, with Maggie and Paul, just minutes before their cell phones go silent forever and never. Despite what he told people, I was never at those kennels, the cell phones are going to show otherwise. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Craig Waters. I'm with the attorney general's office, and I'll be the lead prosecutor. I introduced myself before. With me is David Fernandez, Savannah Gow, John Meadors, Don Zelenka, John Conrad, and Johnny James. A lot of lawyers. This is a big case. It's a very complicated case, and that's why there's so many people working on it. Sitting back in the row, we have David Owen, who's the lead investigator. We have Lieutenant Charles Gant, who's one of the agents, Special Agent Ryan Kelly, Special Agent Peter Rudolfski. Some of the agents that are working on the case, as well as investigator Isaac Toledo, who's working on the case as well. There's some of the witnesses that you'll hear from as we go through this case. The judge talked to you a little bit about him being the judge of the law, and he gives you the law. And I'm going to talk a little bit about some of the legal concepts before I turn back to those facts. Just remember, though, he's the judge of the law, so you take what he says, but I'm going to explain to you some of the legal issues from my perspective before we talk a little bit more about the evidence in the case. And the first thing is, right before you went to lunch, y'all all took an oath. Everybody in this courtroom who's got involvement in this case takes an oath. You know, attorneys take an oath to become an attorney. Take another oath to become a prosecutor. Judge takes another oath to become a judge. Witnesses take an oath on the stands. Law enforcement take oaths to become law enforcement. But y'all took an oath as well. And the reason why is that y'all have the most important job in this courtroom. Every one of you raised your hand and said that you would well and truly try this case. And it's the most important job here. Because like the judge said, he's the judge of the law, but y'all are the judge of the facts. Y'all are going to listen to what comes from that witness stand and judge those facts. But you also have to be mindful of that oath. That oath requires you to do that hard job, to make that decision, to call the strike when you see it. It's the same oath. It's just as important as any other oath. This might be the most important if it's important. The judge mentioned reasonable doubt. And he's exactly right. It's the state's burden to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a cornerstone of our country. I wouldn't have it any other way. It's a burden we welcome. It's what we want. It's a system that has been well tested and true. And we take that burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And I want to remind everyone that the emphasis is on reasonable. Okay? It's not any doubt. It is reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is often defined. And again, listen to the judge how he defines it. But reasonable doubt is a doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act. To hesitate to act. And when you hear the evidence coming from this stand about this particular case, I submit to you, you won't hesitate to act. Again, remember, the emphasis is on the reasonable and reasonable doubt. The judge mentioned the charges. And there are four of them. The first indictment accuses Alec Murdoch, to which he's pled not guilty, but it accuses him of murdering Maggie Murdoch. The second indictment accuses him of murdering Paul Murdoch. The third indictment accuses him of possessing a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, that being the murder of Maggie Murdoch. And what does that mean? What is murder? Well, the judge again is going to instruct you. It is the unlawful killing of another with malice of forefront. And what is malice? Malice is a mental state. That's ultimately going to be for y'all to determine as to what was going through Alec Murdoch's mind when he committed these crimes. What is malice? Malice has often been defined as the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse. It is the intent to inflict an injury under circumstances that the law would presume an evil intent. An evil intent. And when you look at the circumstances of the crime, when you look at what led up to this crime, the evidence is going to show that there was malice, a forethought. A forethought. Well, what does that mean? It means it has to exist that the moment you commit that crime. It doesn't have to be planned. It doesn't have to be planned for any long period of time. It just has to exist a split second before the crime is committed. But when you see this crime and you hear all the circumstances, the evidence is going to show that a forethought existed for a while. It existed for a while in the mind of Alec Murdoch. You're also going to hear about circumstantial evidence. And a lot of times people hear, oh, it's just a circumstantial case. But the law says otherwise. The law says that circumstantial evidence is just as good as direct evidence. And what's the difference between the two? Direct evidence is supposedly about a storm out here from what I'm told. Direct evidence is if it's sunny outside and a witness goes outside and it's sunny and they come in here and they get on that witness stand because they saw it raining. They sit on the stand and said, I was just outside and I saw it raining. I saw it raining. That's direct evidence. They actually saw it raining. But to give you an example of what circumstantial evidence is, is if the witness goes into a room, a room where all the curtains are drawn, and when they go into that room, it's sunny outside and everything's dry. And while they're in that room, they see it darkened behind the shades. They hear thunder. They hear the wind blowing. They hear the sound of raindrops on the roof. And then they open up the door, and it's not raining, but everything is wet. There's puddles in the driveway. There's puddles in the street. There's puddles in the yard. There's limbs down all over the ground. And then they come in here and say, yeah, it was raining. Didn't actually see it raining, but those circumstances are beyond any reasonable doubt that it was actually raining. Now, I guess it's possible that somebody could have been standing outside the window and beating a drum to sound like thunder and blowing a fan to make it seem like it was the wind and somehow got enough water to coat the entire neighborhood. But that's not a reasonable doubt. Everybody understand that distinction? That's not a reasonable doubt. Another thing, and this is crucial, what you're going to do in this particular case, is determine credibility or the believability of witnesses. So it would be your job to look at the evidence, the exhibits in the case, but also the witnesses and decide if it's truthful, if you believe it, if you can rely on it. And the judge is going to instruct you that you can believe one witness against many or many witnesses against one. You can believe all the witnesses' testimony or part of the witnesses' testimony. It's up to you. First individually and then as a product of your deliberations. And what you're required to do there is just to rely on that good old-fashioned common sense. Does it all fit together? Is it corroborated? Does it fit with what you would expect? Does it fit with what you expect how real people would act? Does it seem real or does something seem a little wrong? Does something seem a little wrong? You're going to see video statements of Alec Murdoch. You're going to see body-worn camera of him at the scene when law enforcement arrives. And hear what he says. And hear what he says about that night. You're going to hear three recorded statements on video that he gave with law enforcement. And you're going to hear how things progress about what he says and what he says he did that night. Watch those closely. Watch his expressions. Listen to what he's saying. Listen to what he's not saying. Use that common sense. Does this seem right? Or does something seem a little off? Something seem a little off? I mentioned that Maggie was killed with a .300 blackout rifle. An AR-style rifle that chambered in .300 blackout ammunition. And you're going to hear evidence that back in Christmas of 2016, Alec Murdoch over there bought two .300 blackout AR-style rifles. And then not long after that, one of them went missing from Paul's truck. And time went by. And in April of 2018, Alec Murdoch replaced that rifle and bought another one. Three total blackout rifles that they had. One of them went missing years ago. And a replacement was bought. You're going to hear evidence that Paul and his friend were using that replacement gun. They were standing right outside the side door to the gun room of the house. And they were sighting it in, firing down into a field. And the cases were ejecting. The cases are the empty shell from a bullet. And they were ejecting out into the flower bed right there. And then there's a range across the street. And they shot it there. And there's cases ejected there as well. [00:13:16] Speaker ?: And they were shooting that third replacement gun. [00:13:20] Craig Waters: Just weeks prior to the murders. Prior to June 7, 2021, when Maggie and Paul were murdered. And you're going to hear forensic evidence that the cases that were found in that flower bed and the cases that were found across the street at that range were ejected out of the same weapon that fired all the cases that were around Maggie's dead body that killed her. It was a family weapon that killed Maggie. And you're going to hear evidence that of those three blackouts that Alec Murdoch purchased when law enforcement arrives at the scene on June 7, 2021, he can only account for one of them. He can only account for one of them. And that replacement gun is nowhere to be found. You're also going to hear evidence that the type of ammunition, the exact brand, the exact model of ammunition that was used to kill Maggie, S&B, 300 blackout ammunition, and 147 grain bullets, that exact ammunition, boxes, empty boxes of that ammunition is found all over the property. The very same brand and model of ammunition that was used to kill her is found at multiple locations throughout the property. And you're also going to hear evidence, the same thing about the shotgun shells that killed Paul. That federal double-oil bug shot when fired rounds were found on the property, as well as Winchester number two turkey lobes, the two rounds in the shotgun that killed Paul. Family weapon, family weapon, same ammunition, same ammunition, that's all over the property. You're also going to hear evidence that about a week after the murders, Mr. Alec Murdoch's father had died, Mr. Randolph. And about a week after the murders, he shows up early in the morning at his parents' home, where his mother still is, in late-stage Alzheimer's, on Alameda in Hampton. It's uncharacteristic for him to show up early, uncharacteristic for him to show up and all like that. And he comes in, and he's carrying something in a blue tarp, and he takes it upstairs, and eventually law enforcement finds out about that. And they go upstairs, and they find, upstairs, they find a wadded-up, very, very large raincoat in a blue color. It could look like a tarp. And you're going to hear evidence that it was coated with gunshot residue on the inside. On the inside. You're going to hear other evidence of gunshot residue. You're going to hear that there was gunshot residue on Alameda at the scene. You're going to hear the evidence that there was gunshot residue on the seatbelt when the car he was driving. You're going to hear evidence that when law enforcement got to the scene, he had gone and gotten a shotgun, a pulse shotgun, and that Maggie's DNA was on that shotgun. You're going to hear other evidence from DNA, gunshot residue, firearms examiners. There's going to be a lot of forensic evidence in this case. And I'm not going to get into every single bit of it right now. But I will say that a key piece of forensic evidence that you're going to hear in this case is the cell phone mail. Alex, cell phone. Maggie's cell phone. Paul's cell phone. You know, this is all amazing technology that most of us carry around in our pockets. It really allows us to do a lot of things and to get a lot done. But this cell phone keeps track of who we're talking to, who we're calling, who we're texting whenever we access apps. And every time you do that, there's a record kept in this phone unless it's deleted somehow. And if you're using certain apps, you can even get GPS information where you were when you did that and stored on these phones. You're going to hear evidence about that. You're going to hear evidence that when you make a call and it pings off the cell towers, that location information can be gathered from that as well. And so it allows an investigation to take this and piece together what someone was doing on a particular day. And not only had what they were doing, but who they were interacting with and how they were interacting with. And this is going to be a crucial evidence for you to consider. You're going to hear that particularly Alec and Paul, but also Maggie, were prolific cell phone users. To the point where Paul's friends even had a nickname for them about his cell phone usage. Before I talk more about that, there's three family properties I need to talk about. The first one I've mentioned is Moselle. Moselle in Colleton County. It's called Moselle. It's off Moselle Road, but everybody refers to it as Moselle. And that property is a large, this is a lot of acres. There's a main house on it, and there's a driveway that goes to that main house. But it used to be an airstrip, and there's an airstrip that goes down. And then down the way, just less than a third of a mile away, just a three-minute walk, four-minute walk, 45-second drive, is the kennels and the shed. It used to be a hangar where Paul and Maggie were murdered. So the main house is just less than a third of a mile away. You can see the kennels from the main house. You can see the main house from the kennels. The family also had a house in Hedistone at the beach. And the evidence is going to show that that is where Maggie preferred to stay, particularly in the summer months. She liked the beach. She was not a hunter. She didn't want to be in Moselle. She didn't want to be at the lodge where it was hot and buggy. She liked being in Hedistone. And then you're also, I've already mentioned, the house in Almeda, which is where his parents home. On June 7, 2021, you're going to hear evidence that his father went into the hospital and the prognosis was not good. And in fact, he died a few days later and his mother was in late stage Alzheimer's in that house being cared for by a caretaker. You're going to hear from that caretaker. [00:20:05] Speaker 1: Okay, so opening statements are still underway in South Carolina in the Alex Murdoch murder trial. We're going to let you listen in here and continue hearing out the prosecutor as these opening statements continue. Let's listen in. [00:20:26] Craig Waters: We also have a driveway. The evidence is going to show that that was actually as commonly used as the main driveway. In fact, the mailbox is by the kennel driveway. Driving right past those kennels where Paul and Maggie were murdered. I told you that you're going to hear evidence that Maggie did not like being in Moselle as much as she liked Hedistone, the Beach House. But that, on June 7, 2021, she came back to Moselle. And the evidence is going to show that she arrived about 8.15. And the evidence is going to show that from the cell phones that Paul was there at the house, at the main house. And Alex Murdoch himself says that they ate dinner. And the autopsy is going to reflect both Paul and Maggie having similar stomach contents, indicating that they recently shared a meal together. About 8.30, about 15 minutes after they arrived, Paul's phone starts moving towards the kennels. You're going to hear evidence again that the defendant said he was never at those kennels, that he was napping after they ate. And he was at the main house and never went there. You're also going to hear evidence about how much Paul used his own cell phone. And it would be unusual for him to be anywhere without his cell phone. At 8.44 and 55 seconds, Paul recorded a video. He was down in the kennels because he had been talking to a friend of his. And you're going to hear from this friend because his friend's dog was in the kennels and they thought there was something wrong with the tail. And Paul was recording a video of it to send to his friend. 8.44 and 55 seconds. And on that video, and you'll see that video, and you'll hear from witnesses that identified Paul's voice, Maggie's voice, and Alex's voice. He told anyone who would listen, he was never there. At 8.44 and 55 seconds, there's a video. The evidence will show that he was there. He was at the murder scene with the two victims. And more than that, just over three minutes later, 8.49 and one second, Paul's phone locks forever. He never reads another text. He never sends another text. He doesn't answer calls. Three minutes after that video has the defendant at the murder scene with the two victims. Paul's phone goes silent forever. And in fact, another communication comes in to the very friend that he was talking to, the dog, at 8.49 and 35 seconds, just 35 seconds later, and he doesn't answer it. He never answers another thing forever. And on top of that, Maggie's phone locks at 8.49 and 31 seconds, around that same time. And she never answers another text, never sends another text, never makes another phone call, never receives another phone call. Three minutes, ladies and gentlemen, three minutes, after a video shows he's at the scene with the victims, and he told everybody he was never there. Credibility, ladies and gentlemen, credibility. So what happens after that? Well, you'll hear evidence that Alex's phone was conspicuously, he didn't have a lot of activity from about 8.09 p.m. until 9.02 p.m. And if he was at the kennels, which the evidence will show, why is his phone not with him? Why is it not showing activity? But you will hear that at 9.02, all of a sudden his phone does start to pick up activity. At 9.02, he calls, he starts moving. At 9.04, he calls Maggie's phone. Doesn't answer, of course. Doesn't answer. He calls his father, Randolph, who's in the house, but doesn't appear there's an answer there. He calls Maggie again at 9.06. Remember, he's just a third of a mile away. You can see it. At 9.06, she doesn't answer. At 9.06, he turns on his car, the Suburban, and he texts Maggie that he's going, be right back. I'm going to go check on Mom. And he doesn't drive down to the kennels, even though that's where the mailbox is. That's a common place to be, even though you can see it. He's called his wife two times and texted her, and she hasn't responded. But he doesn't just drive down there and say, hey, I'm heading. You guys want to go? What's up? What's up? Right there. You can see it. He then drives to Almeda, where his mom is suffering from Alzheimer's, and the caretaker is there. And he starts calling people. He's talking to people. It will be up to you to decide whether or not he's trying to manufacture an airline. He comes, he gets there to Almeda. You'll hear evidence about whether or not that was usual. You'll hear evidence about how he was acting when he got there. And he's only there for 20 minutes, because he's back underway at 9.44. And he makes more phone calls on the way back, calling friends, calling people who will answer. [00:27:08] Speaker ?: It will be up to you to decide whether or not he's trying to create an alibi. [00:27:13] Craig Waters: And he gets back to Moselle at 1001, and he calls 911 at 1006. Listen to that 911 call. Listen to what he says. Listen to what explanations he may offer. You're going to hear that 911 call, but you're also going to see the body-worn camera of the officers who arrived at the scene. The video camera they wear, so it records what they're doing. And you're going to see what he did to Maggie and Paul. It's going to be gruesome. There's no other way around. It's what he did. You're going to see the crime scene photographs. You're going to see the traumatic injuries that were suffered. You're going to hear from a pathologist, a doctor who will examine the injuries. It's going to be gruesome. No other way around. On that 911 call, and on the body-worn cameras, pay attention to what he says. Look at how he's acting. But he says, within a few minutes of each one of those, he says, this is about the boat case. This is about the boat case. And you're going to hear some of what was going on in Alex Murdoch's life leading up to that day. Stuff that happened that very day. Stuff that was leading up. A perfect storm that was gathering. Much like the storms that are coming outside today. Listen for that evidence. Listen to that gathering storm that all came to a head on June 7th, 2021. The day the evidence will show he killed Maggie and Paul. This has been a long, exhaustive investigation. And it's going to be a fairly long trial. Because it's complicated. It's a journey. There's a lot of aspects to this case. [00:29:42] Speaker ?: There's a lot of factors to this case. [00:29:45] Craig Waters: But like a lot of things that are complicated, you start to put them all together, piece them together like a puzzle. All of a sudden, the picture emerges and it's really simple. It's really simple. Once we get to the end of that journey and you have a chance to deliberate, the evidence is going to be such that you're going to reach the inescapable conclusion that Alec murdered Maggie and Paul, that he was the storm, that the storm was coming for them. And the storm arrived on June 7th, 2021, just like the storms that are heading here right now, that they died as a result beyond any reasonable death. Thank you.