Opening statements in the Alex Murdaugh trial — NBC News

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: with this stand together with any exhibits which is made a part of the record or any stipulations entered into by counsel. It is especially important that you perform your duty diligently and conscientiously and in conformity with the oath that you took because ordinarily there is no way to correct an erroneous determination of facts by a jury. Just as only you can determine the facts of this case, as the presiding judge, I am the judge of the law. You must accept as correct the law as I stated to you, then deliberate and decide. I cannot tell you what the facts are. You cannot disagree with me as to what the law is, and even if you disagree, you must follow the law as I stated to you. You take the facts as you find them to be, the laws I give it to you, you deliberate, and you decide the case. Until I tell you that it's time to do so, you cannot discuss the case with anyone, including your fellow jurors. You cannot discuss the case with family, friends, or anyone else. The attorneys in the case, you cannot discuss it with them or any parties, or anyone else that might be connected with the case. Should you discover that a fellow juror is violating that oath and that order, you are to bring that to my attention. It's also vital that you do not seek information outside of the courtroom during the case. That means that you are not to search internet websites, watch television reports, news reports, any other form of social media accounts of the case, because you are sworn to decide this case based on the facts as you determine them to be, based on evidence presented in the case, as well as the law as I give it to you. Now later in the process, I will appoint one of you to serve as the foreperson of the jury. And that person will have the responsibility of serving as the spokesperson for the jury. That person will have the responsibility of presiding over the jury deliberations. And that person will have the responsibility of completing the verdict form representing the unanimous verdict of the jury. In just a moment, the Attorney General will make an opening statement in which he will explain the issues as he sees it or as the Attorney General sees it. Following that, the defense counsel will have that same opportunity. Then we'll begin with the presentation of testimony from witnesses. I look forward to working with you on this case and to keep the case moving as reasonable as we can keep it moving. But we will not rush but take the time necessary to have this case fully presented to you. We will now proceed to opening statements by the State. [00:04:09] Craig Morters: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the Court. On the evening of June 7, 2021, at the defendant's property off Moselle Road in Colleton County. His son, Paul Murdoch, is standing in a small feet room in some kennels they have 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 hangar. Hau-hau, two shots, Adam 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 kennels. But the evidence is also going to show from these things that every one of us, most of us carry around in our pocket, 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 ever. 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 Morters. 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 Gint, 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 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, you won't hesitate to act. Again, remember, the emphasis is on reasonable, and reasonable doubt. The judge mentioned the charges, and there are four of them. The first indictment. The indictment accuses Alan Murdoch, to which he's pled not guilty, but it accuses him of murdering Maggie 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, but it is the unlawful killing of another with malice of forethought. 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 of forethought. A forethought. 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 that existed for a while. That 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 of a witness's testimony or part of a witness's 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 off? Does something seem a little off? Does it fit with what you would expect? 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. 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 progressed 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? Does something seem a little off about this? 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 that there's a range across the street. And they shot it there. And there's cases ejected there as well. And they were shooting that third replacement gun 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 Murdoch. 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 loads. The two rounds in the shotgun that killed Paul. Family weapon, same ammunition. That's all the problem. We're also going to hear evidence that about a week after the murders, Mr. Al 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 evidence that there was gunshot residue on the seatbelt if a 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's 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 that's 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 what they were doing, but who they were interacting with and how they were interacting with them. 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, it's 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 that 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 Edistow 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 at Moselle. She didn't want to be at the lodge where it was hot and buggy. She liked being in Edistow. 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 and that house being cared for by a caretaker. You're going to hear from that caretaker. [00:24:11] Speaker 1: Mr. Waters, yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? We'll be at ease for just a moment. Yes, sir, Your Honor. [00:24:41] Speaker ?: Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. [00:26:44] Craig Morters: Have you paused for a moment? [00:26:45] Speaker ?: Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? [00:27:08] Speaker 1: Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? [00:27:10] Craig Morters: Yes, sir. [00:27:11] Speaker ?: Have you paused for a moment? Yes, sir. Have you paused for a moment? [00:27:14] Craig Morters: All right, we were talking about the three Campbell properties. Moselle has the main house and the kennels/sheds. The main house has a driveway, but the kennels also have a driveway. And 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 the other stuff, the beach house. But that, on June 7th, 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 Alec 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 Alec used his own cell phone. And it would be unusual for him to be anywhere without his cell phone. At 8:44, in 55 seconds, Paul recorded a video. He was down at 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, in 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 Alec's voice. He told anyone who would listen that he was never there. At 8:44, in 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, in one second, Paul's phone locks forever. He never reads 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, in 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, in 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 hospital. 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. [00:32:42] Speaker ?: And he texts Maggie that he's going, "Be right back. [00:32:43] Craig Morters: 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 Albedo, 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 outline. He comes. [00:33:39] Speaker ?: He gets there to Albedo. 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. [00:33:43] Craig Morters: 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. It will be up to you to decide whether or not he's trying to create an alibi. And he gets back to Albedo. [00:33:51] Speaker ?: And he gets back to Moselle at 10:01. [00:33:51] Craig Morters: And he calls 911. [00:33:52] Speaker ?: And he gets back to Moselle at 10:01. [00:33:53] Craig Morters: And he calls 911. And he calls 911 at 10:06. And he calls 911 at 10:06. And he calls 911. [00:33:57] Speaker ?: And he calls 911. And he calls 911 at 10:06. [00:33:57] Craig Morters: And he calls 911. [00:33:58] Speaker ?: And he calls 911 at 10:06. And he calls 911. [00:34:00] Craig Morters: And he calls 911. more phone calls on the way back, calling friends, calling people who will answer, but he'll be up to you to decide whether he's trying to create an alibi. 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 that 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. That's what he did. You're going to see 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 would 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. 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. There's a lot of factors to this case. But life, 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 something. It's really something. Once we get to the end of that journey. 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. And that they died as a result. Beyond any reasonable death. Thank you. [00:37:29] Speaker 1: For the defense. Please report your honor. Yes, sir. [00:37:44] Speaker 3: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my name is Dick Harpuglian. I think I introduce myself to you all and our attorneys, the three other attorneys, Jim Griffin, Philip Barber, Margaret Fox. It is our honor to represent Alec Murdoch. Or Murdoch, depending on how you pronounce it. I say it's our honor because I submit to you what you've heard from the Attorney General as facts are not. Are not. They're his theories. They're his conjecture. Now stand up. This is Alec Murdoch. And Alec was the loving father of Paul and the loving husband of Maggie. You're not going to hear a single witness say that their relationship, Maggie and Alec's relationship, were anything other than loving. You're going to hear about how they went to a baseball game the weekend before. You're going to hear about their relationship. You're going to see texts and emails indicating a loving relationship. Paul, the apple of his eye. You're going to see a video somewhere between 7:30 and 8:00, the night of the murders. Paul and Alec riding around looking at some trees they planted. It's a Snapchat that Paul sent to other people because the trees were not planted very well. They were cantilevering over. They're laughing. They're having a good time. That would be about an hour before the Attorney General says he slaughtered them. When I say he slaughtered them when they were slaughtered, and no question, Paul Murdoch was shot twice with buckshot, 12-gauge buckshot, once in the chest. And by the way, that shot would indicate it was in the chest and came out under his arm like somebody that might have been holding up their hands. So when he says no defensive wounds, he perhaps is being held at shotgun. I mean, I can make the same sort of speculation that the Attorney General can because that's all he's doing is speculating. What we do know is 12-gauge, fairly close range, shot to the chest. He must have been turned because it comes out under his arm. There's wadding, if you're familiar with the shotgun, under his arm. The second shot ended up, and there's going to be some question about the direction of that shot, but ended up entering his skull cavity, and the gases from that shot literally exploded his head, like a watermelon hit with a sledgehammer. All that was left was the front of his face. Everything else was gone. His brain exploded out of his head, hit the ceiling in the shed, and dropped to his feet. Horrendous, horrible, butchering. So, to find Murdoch guilty of murdering his son, you're going to have to accept that within an hour of having an extraordinarily bonding, you can see it in the Snapchat, that he executes him in a brutal fashion. Not believable. Not believable. Not believable. Now, Maggie is shot running with no defensive wounds because she's shot running, and after she falls to the ground and has one bullet that has hit her and probably traveled up and hit her brain, she's on the ground, and whoever the perpetrator was walked up, took that AR and put one in the back of her head. Executed. [00:42:33] Speaker ?: Executed. [00:42:35] Speaker 3: Executed. Why? This is going to be interesting. Because we don't know why. He doesn't know why. He's got theories of this and theories of that. But why? Number one. Number two. What was it in that hour between when he's yucking it up with Paul? And let me say this to you. His record. He was interviewed. He comes home and finds. There's no question about this. They've got telemetry from his car. He left the house at 9:06. Returns at 10:01 after seeing his mother who has dementia. Now remember, that day his father, who is dying, is taken to the hospital. Mom's home alone with the housekeeper. Perfectly reasonable for him to want to go see her. And later than usual. Because his father's not there. He's in the hospital. He dies two days later. His father dies two days later. So the question is, if he leaves at 9:06, and he's back at 10:01, he literally, I mean, and he can account, the cars and the cell phone records account for where he was between 9:06 and 10:01. Now the cell phone records, and you're going to hear this from their own experts, are incomplete. They're incomplete. And by the way, how do they find Maggie's phone? Maggie's phone was thrown out on the side of the road about a quarter of a mile away from, a little bit more, maybe a half a mile, from the Moselle property. Thrown out on the side of the road. They found it by using Find My iPhone. And the way they did that, they had to open it or have access. Who gave them the code to open the phone? Al Murdoch. And it's not destroyed, it's just thrown on the side of the phone. What you're also going to see is that Al Murdoch was calling that phone at 9:06. As he leaves the house, he did call her twice and texted her. And we also know that at 9:06, as he cranks his car, as the cell phone records show that, as the telemetry data shows the cell phone linking up with the car, that phone is being thrown on the side of the road almost a half a mile away. Now that is Houdini, that is magic, that is inexplicable. Now, I was making notes of what the Attorney General was talking about. But let me tell you what is more believable. The night he comes home and finds his wife and son butchered, and when I say butchered, you're going to see these photographs. I see them now, after having seen them for the last four or five months, it still shocks me. It still is tough to look at. It still bothers me. And he comes home and finds his son laying in his own blood, with his brain laying at his feet, shot to hell. He walks over, he checks to see if there's any life there. Although, I mean, seeing his brain laying outside his body, he knows there's nothing there. He goes over and tries to get a pulse out of Maggie. No pulse there. Calls 911. I want you to hear that 911 take. It is a man, hysterical, in grief, trying to figure out what's going on. And he tells the 911 operator that he's concerned, and he drives back up to the house. And by the way, you can't see -- I've been out there -- you can't see the shed where -- you might see the top of the shed. There are pine trees between the front porch or the porch on the house and the dog pants. And it's not a third of a mile, maybe by the way the crow flies, but it takes a little bit longer to drive down there. And this is not unusual for them to communicate by cell phone or text, even when they're all on the same property. It's 1,100 acres. Big property. They hunted it. So what I'm trying to say to you is that the Attorney General has given you his view. And again, you can't see the shed. And I'm going to ask the judge at some point during this trial to ask you, the jury, to be able to go to the scene so you can see it. You can understand the proportions. You can understand the details. Because the facts are what matter here. The facts. Let me give you another fact. You're going to hear their witnesses explain the catastrophic injuries to Paul. His head literally exploded. And whoever shot him with that shotgun was probably no more than three feet away. Maybe closer. Maybe a little further away. You -- his head exploded. He would be covered in blood from head to foot. Head to foot. In blood. They seized his clothes that night. Sled did. And they -- well, first of all, you're going to see in the videos from the officers that arrived that night. There's no blood on him. They didn't find any blood on him. Sled's testing indicated 12 different places on his shirt and pants. No human blood detected. [00:48:27] Speaker ?: Period. [00:48:30] Speaker 3: Okay? You'll see pictures. A white t-shirt. No blood on it. Those are facts. Those aren't theories. Those are facts. Another fact. That is, I think, the reason we're here today. When you hear those questions on the videotapes on the night. Now, he's found his wife and son brutally butchered. You can hear on the 911 tape. He is hysterical. He comes in and out. [00:49:09] Speaker ?: It's consistent. [00:49:10] Speaker 3: If any of you have ever -- you've got to use your human -- your experience is part of this deliberation process. If you've ever suffered a catastrophic loss of a friend or a family member. [00:49:17] Speaker ?: It's numbing. The minute you find out -- if you see them dead, it's numbing. You go into shock. [00:49:17] Speaker 3: So anything he said that night is in the context of just an hour or two before finding his wife and son butchered. He drove back up to the house while he was on 911 saying, I've got to get a gun that whoever did this might be out there. And he gets a gun. What's fascinating about that is he gets a 12-gauge shotgun and he grabs some shells. These people hunt a lot. They have guns everywhere. He grabs some shells. He puts a 16-gauge -- I mean a 12-gauge -- grabs a 12-gauge shotgun, put a 12-gauge buckshot in, and then he put a 16-gauge buckshot in. That's how shook up he was. A guy hunted all his life and he put a shell in that he couldn't fire a 16-gauge from a 12-gauge. It makes no sense. He was traumatized. GSR? Their own expert, as SLED said, the amount of particles of GSR are consistent with him going up and picking that shotgun up. They want to talk about GSR? Again, if you fired a shotgun twice and a rifle six times, you'd be covered in GSR. Those are the facts. That's not his theory. The facts. Now let's talk a little bit about these ARs. Again, you're going to hear testimony. A lot of guns. They had a gun room. I live in Calton County. I live in downtown Columbia. Ain't no gun rooms in downtown Columbia. But apparently, if you live on 1,100 acres and you hunt deer, and you hunt whatever they were planting those sunflowers for, quail, again, a big one, you have a lot of guns. The truth is, in 2017, and you'll hear the testimony, that Alec bought two blackouts. One for Paul and one for Buster, his other son who's sitting out in the audience. And Paul had once his stolen. He bought another one for Paul. Now, Paul was very irresponsible with guns, cars. He'd leave guns around. He'd leave guns in cars. He'd left guns down at the dog pens. In the feed room. Now, I can't tell you whether he was shot with his own weapon or not, or his mom was shot with his own weapon or not. But I can tell you that they weren't shot by animals. They don't have the guns. There's no way to tell, conclusively, without having the weapons, what weapons those were fired by. And we'll be talking a little bit with the sweat experts about that. The sort of overarching issue here is, why murder on June 7th, 2021, why is it September of 2022 before they charge him? And I'll tell you what happened that night. And this is a problem. He's being, he's questioned, and the questioning is pretty aggressive. [00:52:45] Speaker ?: You'll hear it. [00:52:46] Speaker 3: They're, he traumatized. They suspect him, he, they show up, he's got a shotgun. They suspect him. And the next morning, two people found Butcher, and here in Colleton County, Moselle Road. The police announced, don't worry. There's no danger to y'all. There's nobody out there that could pose a danger to you. Because, you see, they decided that night, he did it. Without forensics, without cell phones, without any of that. And they've been pounding that square peg in the round hole for the last, well, since, you know, since June of 2021. Resulting in charges in September of '22. And so, if he felt, and he did, and you'll hear it, the accusatory fashion he's being interviewed in, he may not have dealt all the facts. But, but by the way, whether he'd been down to the dog pens that night or not, really doesn't matter. Really doesn't matter. Because you're going to see cell phone activity that would be, let me put it to you this way. Paul's phone, 8:50. Maggie's phone, later than that, 8:54, clearly. It's still being used. At 9:06, he's up at the house, getting in the car, cranking it up, to drive over and see his mom. He says, a few hundred yards away, it's a little bit further than that. The point of the matter is, he would have had to have executed both of them, got back up to the house, got the bloody clothes off. And by the way, they seized his clothes from that night. They'd never searched his house for any other clothes that we know of. Although that night, he gave permission and they got a search warrant. [00:54:54] Speaker ?: Go to my house. [00:54:55] Speaker 3: Go look through everything. Where are the bloody clothes? Where are the bloody clothes? And of course, I would tell you that they've woven this story together because they want everything to be consistent. What's important about that is the judge, and by the way, there's no eyewitness. There's no forensics tying him to the murder. When I say forensics, fingerprints, blood, whatever, tying him to shooting anybody that night. The cell phone records would indicate he would have had less than 10 minutes to kill him. Get up to the house, get in the car and crank it up and be covered in blood. Now, if they think he was beginning to establish an alibi, there's no evidence of that. The evidence is consistent with him seeing them earlier at the dog pen. And by the way, that audio they have of him and Maggie, they were talking about one of the dogs killing a chicken. And they were debating whether it was a guinea hen or a chicken. No animosity. Very normal discussion. Paul's very happy. And we know that Paul, after that, is texting back and forth to the girl about going to the movies. Nobody's down there threatening him. Daddy's not pulling out a shotgun and killing him. For, you know, 10 minutes after that, he's texting this girl. So, big question, one shooter or two? Two guns, shotgun and an AR. And by the way, Maggie has no defensive wounds because she's running. What's she running from? [00:56:41] Speaker ?: And could you shoot? [00:56:41] Speaker 3: Typically, she would be, she had a little shed right probably 150 feet from the feed room on the other side of the wall. Perhaps she heard the shotgun blast and came around and saw somebody or two people and whoever it was opened up. Was there enough time to kill Paul and then find the AR and then ambush Maggie? Much more likely there were two people, but again, we don't have to prove anything. Let me sort of share the framework in which you should examine this. You have agreed to follow the law. And here's the law. Here is the law. He didn't do it. He is presumed innocent. As you sit there right now, as you sit there right now, when you look at him, you have to believe he is innocent. He didn't do it. Let me tell you, that's so difficult to do. I get it. And the way, maybe the best way to explain it is this. This morning or yesterday, nobody really reads newspapers anymore, but if you're reading the newspaper, looking at the internet, and you read the police had arrested somebody for some heinous crime. The natural inclination of everybody, all of y'all, is to say, thank God they caught him or her. Thank God that person is in custody. And you did something that's so natural. We all do it. You presumed the police had arrested the person that committed the crime. You presumed him or her guilty. That is the natural thing to do. [00:58:51] Speaker ?: And you know what? [00:58:52] Speaker 3: It's fine for you to do. Any other day except today. Because you took an oath to follow the law. And the law is, he is innocent. He's presumed innocent. That is your presumption. Your mental framework is, he didn't do it. They've got to prove it to me beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, what's even more difficult, this isn't a contest, this isn't a game, this isn't who wins and who loses. This is about justice. You know, Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the justices of the Supreme Court, once said, "Jury duty is the highest duty a citizen can perform for their country in peacetime." Because you are protecting us from them, from the state, from the government. That's the foundation of our Constitution. Is that the individual has the right to be presumed innocent. Has the right to a jury trial. Has a right to have his peers, his or her peers, inciting the judgment of them. That's you. And the framework is, you presume him innocent. And you cannot convict him until the state proves to you beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. A reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt which would cause an ordinary person to hesitate to act in the more important decisions in their life. Now, what makes this even more complicated is there's no direct evidence. There's no eyewitness. There's no camera. There's no fingerprints. There's no forensics tying him to the crime. None. None. Without any fear of contradiction whatsoever. None. And what the judge is going to tell you is, to the extent the state relies on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be consistent with each other and when taken together point conclusively to the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. If these circumstances merely portray the defendant's behavior as suspicious, the proof has failed. Now, this smoke they've created is about suspicion. I mean, if you show up at the scene and you've got the wife especially dead and the guy's got a shotgun, you know, it's pretty logical for the cops to jump to a conclusion. He did it. And the problem is that as they came to that conclusion, they have pounded that square peg in the round hole. And you're going to hear about it. They've ignored some witnesses. I mean, for instance, that blue tarp showed up at the blue tarp. That witness who said he showed up at the blue tarp was shown a blue rain jacket that he talked about. He said, that's not it. That's not what he brought here that morning. I mean, I talked to her. She said, no, no, no. It was a blue tarp. [01:01:55] Speaker ?: And what was that? [01:01:55] Craig Morters: I have an objective in justifying, Your Honor. Judgment is sustained. [01:02:00] Speaker 3: I would indicate. [01:02:01] Speaker 1: What are you describing as well, Your Honor? Judgment is sustained. Emergency. [01:02:06] Speaker 3: I'm telling you that the testimony you're going to hear is inconsistent with what the Attorney General is represented to you. Based on interviews done by people other than me. So, what I'm telling you is this. That as you sit here and listen, every time there's a witness that takes that witness stand that the state's put up there. You see, you judge the credibility whether to believe a witness or not believe a witness. Whether to believe one witness against many, many against one. You're going to have to evaluate the testimony you hear from this witness stand with a critical eye. Critical eye. I mean, if you've got uncontested scientific evidence, you accept it. I've got no problem with that. These cell phone records he keeps talking about, I would say you are not necessarily accurate to the extent they rely on. I will also tell you that there's going to be a bunch of people that have been promised something or threatened with something that may take the witness stand and say something. But I tell you what they're not going to say. They're not going to say they saw him kill him. They're not going to say that they were involved in it. They're not going to say anything that would give you a comfort level in their testimony. Now, all of you have indicated that you will follow the law. And I say this one last time. [01:03:44] Speaker ?: he didn't do it. He didn't do it. He didn't kill Butcher, his son and wife. [01:03:45] Speaker 3: And you need to put from your mind any suggestion that he did. [01:03:59] Speaker ?: You've been picked because you said you could be fair. You were picked because you said you could follow the law. [01:04:00] Speaker 3: You were picked because Alec Murdoch believes that you can be fair. Now, if during this process over the next however long we're here, I say something or do something, which most certainly based on my career I will do, that irritates you or angers you. Sometimes I'm a little rough. Don't hold that against Alec. Hold it against me. If I say something, it offends you in some way. Don't hold that against Alec. Hold it against me. Remember, as you sit there right now, in your mind, he didn't do it. He is innocent. He would require a verdict of not guilty from you. That's the law. That's your oath. Thank you. [01:05:21] Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to send you to the jury room for a break while I discuss scheduling with everyone. Please do not discuss the case. As I mentioned to you earlier, you're not allowed to discuss the case at all until you've heard the entire case and you've heard the instructions of law. So please go to the jury room. [01:05:51] Speaker ?: Thank you. For scheduling. Do you have a witness you want to call today? Your Honor, I think as we have talked to your law clerk about, I'm going to call the jury room. I'm going to call the jury room. I'm going to call the jury room. I'm going to call the jury room. I'm going to call the jury room. Thank you. I'm going to call the jury room. I'm going to call the jury room. I'm going to call the jury room. I'm going to call the jury room. I'm going to call the jury room. I'm going to call the jury room. I'm going to call the jury room. I'm going to call the jury room. I'm going to call the jury room. I'm going to call the jury room. I'm going to call the jury room. Thank you. [01:06:41] Speaker 1: For scheduling, do you have a witness you want to call today? [01:06:45] Craig Morters: Your Honor, I think as we have talked to your law clerk, we do have a witness. Unfortunately, that witness, the main point of that witness would be the body-worn camera as he is a first responder that arrived at the scene. And unfortunately, the audio does not appear to be working, so I'm informed, despite efforts of courtroom staff and even RIT folks to try to get it going. I've been also told that the company that installed this for the court is not here, and they've been able to do this. So unfortunately, given the lateness of the hour, which I don't think we can finish them anyway because the video in and of itself is fairly long. [01:07:23] Speaker 1: The one is at 9:30 tomorrow morning and they still haven't done whatever you just said? [01:07:28] Craig Morters: I will personally come up with a solution to present evidence to this jury, but I think [01:07:37] Speaker ?: that's the case. Thank you. I will be right back. I will be right back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [01:08:07] Speaker 1: Excuse them to 9:30 if they're ready to come in. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. A few minutes waiting for the jury to get ready to come in. [01:09:36] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.