Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
Murdaugh Murders, Part 12
36 Plays10 days ago
Our final episode (for now) on the Murdaugh Murders. We walk through the most recent appeal that Alex's team brought to the South Carolina Supreme Court. If he is granted a new trial, we will be back with more on this case. Until then, onto a new series next week!
Check out our YouTube Channel! Fixate Today: Grey Matters
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction & Murdaugh Murders Overview
00:00:00
Speaker
Welcome to Fixate Today Gone Tomorrow. I'm Nikki and I'm here with my Aunt Joy. We are two neurodivergent ladies who obsess about various topics. Joy is autistic and I have ADHD and we are letting our hyper fixations fly.
00:00:15
Speaker
Today we are fixating on the Murdaugh murders. Music
00:00:29
Speaker
everybody. Welcome back. Welcome back. So today we are talking about the South Carolina Supreme Court hearing for a new trial for Alex Murdaugh.
Sources & Preparation
00:00:42
Speaker
So the original Alex Murdaugh trial, I think was in 2023. So it's been a couple of years. But this appeal has been kind of in process for much of that.
00:00:56
Speaker
Yeah. So we talked last episode about there was an appeal for a new trial that got denied. So basically, this hearing is the appeal of that appeal.
00:01:07
Speaker
Yeah. So now we're at the South Carolina State Supreme Court hearing this one. Right. So before we go too far, first, I'm going to do sources, but then I have a couple of little things
Buster Murdaugh's Defamation Lawsuit
00:01:19
Speaker
beforehand. And then we'll get into the what happened at the hearing.
00:01:23
Speaker
Sources are Lunashark Media, Antelope Valley Press and CNN. This teeny tiny little website for news gave me a lot of good information.
00:01:35
Speaker
That's like not even in South Carolina. And I did listen to the entire appeal, the court recordings of the appeal. process yeah i'm very thankful you did two and a half hours of riveting i could not test i could not bring myself to do it so first i don't even remember when we talked about this but buster murdaugh alex son had filed a lawsuit for defamation i believe with like every entity regarding the netflix series and i think the hulu series i can't remember for sure though
00:02:11
Speaker
But this week he settled federal court actions with Warner Brothers. We don't know the settlement amount or anything like that. I did think it was interesting that the settlement was announced on the same day that the oral announcements for the appeal began.
Impact of Social Media on Murdaugh Case
00:02:26
Speaker
was interesting, yeah.
00:02:27
Speaker
So that's all for that. And then I just had a question. i was writing up notes for this. And I just wanted to see what you thought. Do you think that Alex's father and grandfather like...
00:02:40
Speaker
any of the male family members in the dynasty would have gotten away with so much back when they did if there had been social media or the inverse do you think alex would have gotten away with some of these things he did if it was back in the time of like his father and grandfather's shenanigans i think his father and grandfather would have easily gotten away with it easily without social media back in the day. yeah and But do you think today they would have gotten away with so much? With social media?
00:03:10
Speaker
Yeah. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. i don't I don't know. I know. Social media plays such a huge part in this whole case. I don't think it can be understated. Out of any case I think I've yeah come across, I think the impact, I mean, and I think ah True Sunlight specifically had dug in so far and opened up so much of this that honestly, I think without that, Alec would have gotten away with it.
00:03:38
Speaker
Would have gotten away with a lot of it. A lot of it, yeah. i don't know. Something tells me that Alec's grandfather and father are a little savvier than him, though. I kind of thought so, too. And I think that the connections within the community were a little bit, I think they were a little bit more loyal to him. so That was kind of my feeling also. And Randolph, Alex's father, I think his sons were pretty brazen with like their their privilege and what they could get away with. But Alex's sons, I feel like were next level.
00:04:10
Speaker
almost like entitled with the things that they were doing that they could get away with, especially Paul. Like, and I feel like the community kind of had enough. Yeah. I think, yes, where they're more brazen, they didn't yet. They didn't have the connections yeah that the past generations had to back that up. I mean, even right after the boat, the boating accident, the first thing even Paul knew to do was contact his grandfather.
00:04:37
Speaker
not his father, because that's where the real deep connections to the authorities yeah lied. And I think that was, they were not nearly as strong on, on the level on, on Alex generation.
00:04:51
Speaker
He hadn't built that. Yeah. He, I think he relied a little too much on the dynasty of the family in there. Yeah. I kind of thought the same thing. I do wonder if, Alex stayed like with the solicitor's office, if that would have kind of like put him in a similar position as his father and grandfather. i i think there'd been, you know, because I think the, some of the rules and norms had been changed throughout, well, you know, and throughout in the last few decades, I don't think he would have had the power like they did.
00:05:20
Speaker
It's still different. Yeah. I also don't think I know that he, I don't think he'd have the means to make the money that they did. i mean, he was very greedy with the money. They, they were more greedy with power. Yeah. Agreed. So, i mean, I think, I think he tried to split the gap, right? Like by being an volunteer solicitor or whatever to get, get his foot in that one door, but he really wanted to make sure that he had the, you know, could really cash in on his private firm. Yeah. Yeah.
00:05:50
Speaker
Yep. I agree. Just a like as I was taking notes for this, I was like, huh, I wonder. Yeah, no, it is a really interesting thought. I mean, I'd love to go back. I mean, ah Swamp Kings, I mean, I've read it. You have not.
00:06:02
Speaker
it It goes back into a lot more about the history with his grandfather and great grandfather and grandfather. Super interesting, for you know, if you're into the history part of it. and Maybe someday we'll get to that. Yeah.
00:06:15
Speaker
Yeah. Yeah, I would be interested to go read it now. Eventually. All right. Shall we discuss the hearing? Sounds good. all right. It is today's date is the 22nd. I believe the hearing was on the 11th of February. So we're a little bit out from it, but still figured we'd talk about it. I do want to start like both sides.
Pros and Cons of a New Trial
00:06:36
Speaker
of this would benefit from a new trial. I mean, I contend almost everybody involved would benefit from a new trial. Yeah. yeah Especially with this absurd number of books that have been written, which I think is a whole nother subject unto itself by so many yeah of the participants.
00:06:55
Speaker
But I was trying to think about it. And the only people I think that would really that a trial would be difficult or harmful to would maybe be like Maggie's family having to go back through that.
00:07:11
Speaker
ah To some extent, some of the like Blanca and um the other people. especially women who worked for the family having to, you know, testify again. But even at that, there's been books written. And so it still brings attention back.
00:07:29
Speaker
I don't know. Can you think of anyone else who would not benefit? This just occurred to me. um Perhaps the friends of Mallory beach that were on the boat.
00:07:40
Speaker
I don't see anything beneficial for them and everything being reopened, but yeah, Even to some extent, the Beach family by this trial being in the media will keep their lawsuits in the media as well, which is is a good, i not not all benefits are like people being selfish or you know things like that. that's That's a good benefit. But yeah, this just literally occurred to me that I think yeah the friends who were involved in the boat crash, who are just young and trying to move on, even like you even buster i think we talked a little bit about this before but i at first said i don't think buster would benefit but he would because there's a chance for his father to be out not be out he's never gonna be out yeah yeah i mean and and i mean i don't think his father's ever gonna be out yeah but i think there's a chance for his father to be put in a better conditions and yeah
00:08:35
Speaker
No matter what, I think he loves his father. I think, you know, ironically, because then there's also like all the social media and podcasts and all that. And although they may argue that an appeal is not deserved, they all benefit too, right? Like we all do because um it is good headline in that way. Yeah. Do you think an appeal will be granted? Yeah. Yeah.
00:08:58
Speaker
I do. we Me too. I don't want there to be because I want everybody to move on. And I think the correct person is in prison for that specific crime. But we both think that there's other things happening that never came up in court.
00:09:12
Speaker
So it's like I do. And we'll get into it as we talk through what happened at the hearing. But I think it's going to be granted. I think he's closer than ever. Yeah. For one, I think he's got savvy enough attorneys that they were as the trial, the original trial was going on, setting out the the pieces to justify an appeal down the road.
00:09:32
Speaker
You know, almost every trial of this size, i mean, it's not, I shouldn't say off, many have ah get appealed. Yeah. And so it's not particularly surprising, especially with attorneys of that, of the caliber that he employed. i do think yeah when we were talking about the other people who would not benefit would, um I guess the biggest concern,
00:09:55
Speaker
contingent would be the public, right? The taxpaying public. This is going to be huge expense. yeah But yeah even when you say that, though, the elected officials that they represent, some of them would benefit, right? Yeah. So Alan Wilson, who is one of the, I forget what i forgot if he is, he's the district DA's office. I don't remember if he is the DA or, but the prosecution team, Alan Wilson is running for governor. Yeah.
00:10:24
Speaker
And another win for this case would look really good. We mentioned books. Dick Harpoulian just wrote a
Appeal Process & Juror Credibility Issues
00:10:31
Speaker
book. He was on one of my favorite podcasts. And I was like pissed that they interviewed him. But the at the end. So he's on last podcast on the left. It's one of my favorites. It's three hosts and the one who interviewed him knows the least about the case.
00:10:44
Speaker
And that was like very intentional. So he would like just kind of ask very broad, low hanging fruit questions about the case. And then at the end, they talked about it again. And he was the one who interviewed him specifically. It was like, oh, that guy's full of it. He was just like not buying anything said. But it was just funny.
00:11:03
Speaker
Yeah. I mean, no doubt. But also no doubt he's a smart attorney, too, with a lot of connections. Yeah. So, yeah. I mean, I do think there will be an appeal as much as... I know it would be controversial to say I actually we'll get into this too I actually think it's justified yeah I mean I kind of I do too I don't think a new trial would be a bad look for like the justice system as a whole i think there are things that were mishandled and and not done by the book I just don't want to like yeah yeah no I mean no one wants to see His legal team or Alec at this point have a win and getting being granted the appeal does seem like a win to some extent. Yeah. So before we get too far, we should say like regardless of what happens, he will be in prison for the rest of his life, even if it's for the financial crimes and not the murder murders, no matter what, he'll be in prison forever. But this will change his circumstances or certainly certainly.
00:12:05
Speaker
So let's talk about the actual hearing. The case was presented in two separate appeals. One was about the jury tampering and the Becky Hill of it all. And that appeal being denied by judge toll. The other appeal was citing evidentiary errors allowed into trial by judge newman so judge newman was the one who oversaw the whole trial judge toll um she was the justice who did the appeal from the first trial who becky hill came up all those things came up so she denied a trial already and this is appealing that appeal what's also interesting is i can't remember what they skipped but they skipped a step They went somehow were able to go right to the South Carolina Supreme Court. And there's like an appeal section that they just hopped over. I'm assuming people had strings to pull. and I'm guessing that's what it was. i'm I'm assuming it's such a large profile case that they said just put it right up there. It's going to end up there anyways, maybe. Probably. My argument would be if we're talking about the minutia of some of these things as a reason for a new trial, maybe we don't skip a step. Yeah.
00:13:21
Speaker
Like, maybe let's stay by the book. Yeah. but In this political climate that we have right now, when we have a president who's got lawsuits going all over the place and appeals and think of how many of those have gone virtually directly up to the Supreme Court, which has really been unprecedented in years past. yes And so we're kind of seeing that, I guess, in the lower courts now, too, I think is what this is an example of.
00:13:43
Speaker
Yeah, and I don't think that's a good thing. Not saying it's a good thing, but I do think that's what we're saying. Yeah, I know. All right, so let's talk about, we're going to start with Judge Toll's appeal denial.
00:13:56
Speaker
So we'll start there. This is her turning down the proposition of a new trial after the original trial. This was argued by Dick Harputlian.
00:14:07
Speaker
Basically, this comes down to the juror known as Juror Zee. Now, I do think this gets a little confusing because throughout this, there's two different jurors, right, that there's a lot of reference back to. In these appeals. Yes. One is will go by Jersey and then the other, and oddly enough, goes by the egg lady. So so we'll we'll start with with Jersey.
00:14:31
Speaker
Yes. So Harpoot-Leon argued that Judge Toll did not cite Jersey's testimony in her written ruling against a new trial. So Jersey wanted to testify and Judge Toll wouldn't allow that? No. Jersey did testify. Okay. And Harpootlian is arguing that Judge Toll didn't cite Jersey's testimony in her written ruling. Okay. So she testified, but not enough attention was paid to it. He's saying that her written ruling didn't take Jersey into account enough. Okay. Okay.
00:15:06
Speaker
Okay. So Jersey has had some conflicting testimony. She stated in an affidavit that she felt pressure from her fellow jurors to vote guilty. But when she testified at the appeal hearing, she testified to Judge Toll that Becky Hill, the county clerk who ah has been investigated and I believe tried for having some meddlesome remarks for the jury during the trial, Jersey said in testimony that it was Becky hill who influenced her guilty guilty vote not the jury so that's interesting because feeling pressure from the other jurors that there's nothing wrong with that it kind of comes with the territory right i mean as long as it's as long as it's like once deliberations it's time for deliberations i mean obviously if it was before when the jurors aren't allowed to speak amongst themselves. But during deliberations, that's kind of how juries yeah go, right? Like, yeah I mean, yes. And so do you think that's why she changed?
00:16:07
Speaker
Or maybe she just didn't mean, I mean, maybe she felt pressure from both. And it could even be after the fact she felt pressure from one way or another to testify slightly differently.
00:16:18
Speaker
Yeah, I don't know. I do feel like and this is like an absolute perfect world. No one should feel a pressure of any sort when deliberating. It should be a conversation. The difference is if, a you know, she as hard and as awful it could have felt.
00:16:34
Speaker
She could have stuck with not guilty if it was the fellow jurors pressuring her. It would have been incredibly difficult. It takes like a certain kind of like, i don't know, personal strength to like stand up to 11 other people. i get that.
00:16:46
Speaker
But the difference is if a court official pressured her. That's different. As far as when we're talking about the other jurors, I mean, the definition of pressure can be different from other people, right? Like it could be a discussion, but but one is trying to convince the others to come to their side, which again, you know, some could see as pressure. it depends on how you define that. And I think you brought up the with me off offline, right talked about the 12 Angry Men. The movie is like, yeah the you know, perfect example of that. Yeah, the play. But like you said, I think then we're getting into a completely different realm when we're talking about Becky Hill having any...
00:17:29
Speaker
Because she is a court official. She should not be in any way sharing her opinions, yeah really like talking directly about the testimony with with the jurors. Right.
00:17:41
Speaker
So state prosecutor Craig Waters argued that... the case is specifically complex and that the outcome of the case cannot possibly hinge on this single juror's bit of testimony.
00:17:57
Speaker
It doesn't have to be. Basically, he's saying like this should be about the case, not about the system. And it is a thing that like courts can and have right opinions that are limited just to the facts of like specific cases that aren't meant to set a standard. That is a thing that's happened. I don't know.
00:18:14
Speaker
I do agree with that. I think that, you know, a judge can make an opinion that is like, yeah, on paper, it's supposed to look like this. But for this case, it slightly doesn't. And we have to acknowledge it just for this case. Yeah, I'm i'm really torn on this one. I really am. Yeah. Because, and again, and when we it being the system, I mean, really, outcome can hinge on, you know, the opinion of one juror.
00:18:40
Speaker
It's just how our court system is. Yeah. And I think the struggle is the wishy-washiness of it, that right she has said multiple things. So it's like that I i understand, like this massive case.
00:18:53
Speaker
hinges on somebody who's said multiple things and like, gosh, that's ah huge thing to throw out, i guess. It is. It is. And I get i guess on on that level, I mean, just having that one issue, if that if everything was coming down to this one issue, I think maybe it would be hard to justify an appeal but but there is more there's more to it right so let's yeah so it it sounded like the justices who were hearing this appeal had a problem with judge toll not believing that becky hill was credible enough of like an influence despite a juror saying that she was in fact influenced by her like
00:19:35
Speaker
Some of the things she said was like, keep an eye on his body language, like things like that. And it the justices kind of were saying that Judge Toll should have found that Hill was an influence because of simply this, her role in the trial. Like she was a court clerk, she was a court employee. And even one jury saying that she was influenced should have been reason to stop and consider that more credible.
00:20:03
Speaker
And I'm going to agree with that. But then comes Judge Toll found the rest of the jurors more credible than the single juror, which I think is like, I get that.
00:20:15
Speaker
But that's not the way the system works. That's not like, I don't believe that's acceptable. So it's, I can see the complexity of this of like, we've got Jersey who's saying different things.
00:20:26
Speaker
Is that going to Is that going to disregard the rest of what the jury found? And and yeah does the credit bit where should the credibility go? And it's complex.
00:20:37
Speaker
Well, and I don't know the rest of the jurors, what is their testimony about? did they ah The others didn't officially testify, though, correct? wasn't I can't remember. I think some of them did. inside they i I'm pretty sure at least some did and say they did not feel pressured. So, I mean, I think, and maybe we need to also be more specific about the definition of the word feel, you know? um i mean, what words were spoken can, I know we haven't gotten to her, but whatever, the egg lady juror, I mean, she ah quoted specific things that,
00:21:12
Speaker
Becky Hill said and you said one was like watch his body language or whatever so I do think we need to kind of get to the facts of of of yeah piece of it yeah of what what was actually said not how they felt by what was said um as part of it yeah alright so that was Jersey now let's talk to the egg lady egg lady juror so this is still part of like the the original like judge tolls appeal being denied yes yep so Harpootlian was still arguing this point So Egg Lady, she had been removed from the jury on the last day of the trial. And she's called Egg Lady because when they asked her if she had anything to like collect from, don't remember where, backstage?
00:21:56
Speaker
The jury room. From like the deliberation room? I don't know. Yeah, whatever. um She had a dozen eggs that she had bought from another jury if she wanted her eggs back. Which made for a great way to to remember her and differentiate her, I hate. Yeah, it's super helpful.
00:22:14
Speaker
So she had been caught discussing the case outside of the courtroom, and then she lied to Judge Newman about it. Harpulian argued that Judge Toll did not take the egg lady's testimony at the appeal into account in her decision. There was also a few more obscure things that, like, I don't know, there was something on the Facebook that her ex-husband may have put. She would. So there was a few more obscure things. I i don't think that those are, i don't think those are as relevant. And I think there's a lot of rumors that then got started around it. Yeah.
00:22:46
Speaker
Waters argued that Egg Lady being questioned at all in the appeal showed that that is Judge Toll taking her testimony into account. It seemed like Harpootlian was arguing because Judge Toll didn't write about Egg Lady in her ruling.
00:23:01
Speaker
There's an argument that she didn't consider the testimony. Well, as Waters, like, well, her being questioned at all is like by ver like, that's what the judge does is listens to the testimony and takes it into account when making a decision. Yeah, I mean, that's a tough one. Like, I, again, not understanding the legal system perfectly. It does seem when you write an opinion, you don't necessarily point to every aspect of of, you know, what you've considered. Yeah. Egg lady is a little bit weaker to me. i kind of lean with Waters and like her being there at all, testifying.
00:23:35
Speaker
That's like what a judge does. Just listens, takes it to into account. Yeah, I think Egg Lady does have some good points, though. Oh, she probably, possibly does. um i think in terms of this, in terms of, like, this argument...
00:23:51
Speaker
And I think this goes with like the whole, I mean, I don't think anyone would deny that the defense is just like, what is it? Throwing all the noodles against the wall and seeing what sticks. So, I mean, like definitely that that is a big part of it. Yeah. Seeing what sticks. Yeah. And that's just kind of a side note about the egg lady. was listening to the True Sunlight podcast and they'd said that during the trial, they had gotten some like just random tips or DMs or things like that. That the egg lady was somehow connected to someone connected to the Murdaugh's.
00:24:26
Speaker
Which everybody is in that county. but Yeah, was going to say, oh you can see this both ways, right? Yeah, I think, yeah And I even watched an interview with her. And even whilst they were going through dire, like, she's like, it was crazy because everyone they were interviewing was like, this person was kin to this person. or yeah And I went out and visited the town. Like, it's a small town where people have lived forever.
00:24:51
Speaker
That's not surprising to me. Yeah. And I think it's something that was definitely... a battle that they had to work through. I, I just can't imagine that that didn't happen more often now there. And I wish I would like to go back and figure out who this person is that they claimed, but you did say that John Marvin, right.
00:25:14
Speaker
In John Marvin's testimony, he did include ah references to this, Yeah, I guess there was like, I should probably go back and watch it, but he had some like weird behaviors, like too strong of word probably, but like he mentioned somebody that like didn't really relate to the line of questioning or like there was a name mentioned and the implication was like that by John Marvin mentioning the name of this person or like moving somehow it was a signal to egg lady to like vote this way.
00:25:48
Speaker
i don't know. all right. Yeah. So, I mean, that gets super conspiratorial and I am going to go back and see if I can. going to go back and try to watch his his testimony because now I'm just curious. Yeah. Right. So that wasn't part of the appeal. That or that wasn't part of the hearing. That's just like some extra things I learned. Yeah. I'm like, then I get into this again isn't part of the appeal, but it would not surprise me. It would to put it past the defense that.
00:26:14
Speaker
to have some back channel connections with egg lady yeah and as backup so that her testimony about these things could help if they needed and and a reason for an appeal yeah and one i mean there's a great there is an interview out there with her and and part of it as we go through we're going to hear more of the um the defense's arguments, the other points to the arguments for an appeal. But what she says in that interview just lines up word for word with what we go on to hear as the additional arguments, yeah which I'm not saying are bad arguments. They are, i think, valid arguments, but it just was like so on point that it made me feel like maybe those words were coming through. Maybe she was getting fed some information.
00:27:05
Speaker
Yeah. Yeah. But hence, don't want to get ahead of ourselves. Right. All right. So that's the first appeal, I suppose. That's the appeal of the appeal. So the next kind of, it was presented as like two appeals in one.
00:27:20
Speaker
and So I guess the second part. So as far as the first part goes, what do you think? Like if that was it? Mm-hmm. I have a harder time with Jersey, but there is precedent of cases that are this big, decisions and rulings being made that serve only this case, not the system as a whole.
Financial Crimes & Their Influence on the Trial
00:27:41
Speaker
That's compelling to me.
00:27:42
Speaker
i do think there I would be more compelled to listen to to believe Jersey if she hadn't said multiple things. That's where I struggle. yeah um My guess is Judge Toll took the totality of the juror jury instead of one juror and found the totality of the jury more credible than the one juror. So I don't know.
00:28:02
Speaker
It's questionable, but I don't think it's... I think if it were just that, it wouldn't have wouldn't go to an appeal. I probably agree. um Yeah. And I do, but I do feel like a lot of the Becky Hill stuff has some credibility of the argument. Yeah. I mean, it just caused upheaval that it shouldn't be present in a trial.
00:28:20
Speaker
Right. All right. On to the next ah next point. All right. This part was argued by the other defense attorney, Jim Griffin. And it was about evidentiary errors made by Judge Newman in the murder trial. So I'm just going to kind of walk through the different arguments that they made. And I put them out as bullet points. so I think they're kind of in order. So first, ah Griffin argued that the financial crimes testimony shouldn't have been allowed at all.
00:28:50
Speaker
Waters responded that all the financial crimes testimony was relevant to motive, but in kind of related, well, definitely related to that was the argument that too much testimony was given. And the specific um part that Griffin pointed out was that Tony Satterfield was used just to make Alex look bad.
00:29:11
Speaker
I think there's a lot to pick apart here. Yeah. I want to hear what you think about. So, ah well, the first thing is i'm I'm thinking back to the egg lady interview that I just watched.
00:29:21
Speaker
And this is where she lays out her her perspective on this. And it lines up exactly with what they're saying here. Yeah. I mean, her perspective is that, yes, there was too much. It was while they said it was to um get at the motive for the murders, All that testimony was clearly to put Alec in a bad light. So so that's exactly what she said, which going to say I don't know. it pointed to character, not... that I'm sorry. Yes, you say that much better. No, I'm just making sure I understood. Yes. So when we get into all the financial testimony, to some extent, it it was about motive. But when we get into specifically like...
00:30:05
Speaker
Tony Satterfield and there was a lot of of that that was maybe went too far beyond just the motive but to pull at the heartstrings of the jury to just see him as a bad Man, ah or a heartless, you know.
00:30:23
Speaker
Right. So I think one of the things Waters said was bringing up Tony Satterfield's brother paints a picture of things Alex was doing that he didn't want people to know about to like kind of another level.
00:30:36
Speaker
It would look terrible for him to be caught defrauding a disabled man. So that was Waters' argument. was not that it pointed to, like, painting him in a bad light, but it showed a pattern of him taking advantage of people he didn't want people to know he was taking advantage of. Then I would argue, but what does that have to do with being a murderer, the person who murders your wife and child? I think, and this is just, like, I'm just saying what I think, ah what i but what I'm interpreting, not that I agree or disagree. Yeah.
00:31:07
Speaker
If Maggie found out or if if somebody involved in that found out that not only was he defrauding people but he was taking advantage of the people who needed the finances like this who need it like that would be humiliating for him.
00:31:22
Speaker
and I mean, I just think it's a stretch here. I do, Ty. Yeah. I think it's a stretch. I think as far as motive – well, I think – what did they say? This was 12 days of testimony also. Yeah. And, I mean, it's always questionable when you're bringing in – mean, there are rules about not focusing – or not bringing in um other defendants, other there's other criminal acts. Yeah. unless it does speak to motive which is why these were allowed but was was it too far yeah did it go too far and then that also makes you meet think and i and i don't know how how this is to determined but could during the the trial itself was there a point at which judge newman should have reeled that back in um and yeah And I don't know if that's possible. I don't know how that would work. yeah um Because I do. It was a thing of like something was spoken that quote opens the door for the next testimony. Right.
00:32:20
Speaker
And like, is it up to the judge to close the door or is it like, okay, you open the door. This is what's happening now. I think, you know, I don't know. I think once the door, I mean, I don't, I think the judge can allow the door to be, oh I mean, I don't think he'd close the door, but I think he could put limitations it.
00:32:36
Speaker
But no, I mean, that's very confusing. Yeah. But I do think, I mean, I see the argument that it went too far. And I do see the argument that that did. I mean, it was impactful, I believe, to the jury. Oh, yeah. It was impactful to me, like, listening to, painting him in the light of just being a bad, bad guy. um and then you think more, okay, if this person is that heartless, and, you know, beyond just being a thief, you can picture him being more dangerous and willing to you know Right. take What else could he, what else could he, capable of yeah. What else could he convince himself is okay to do? But again, I find it very interesting that Egg Lady makes this exact argument when she's being interviewed. so
00:33:23
Speaker
All right. Well, the next argument Griffin presented was that the deputy from Charleston shouldn't have been allowed to testify about Maggie's phone. So this is specifically a deputy who was like trying to see if the phone orientation would change or if the phone would light up when it was being thrown, thus like pinging.
00:33:47
Speaker
because it was activated somehow. So what he did was he literally like chucked a phone across the room. And that was the evidence presented. Griffin argued that this wasn't a scientific argument. It was a physical test.
00:33:59
Speaker
This got kind of squashed pretty quick because one of the justices was basically like, the defense had ample opportunity to cross-examine him. And if they didn't, kind of put the kibosh on that net then i don't know what to tell you yeah yeah this one's stretching it this one feels to me like uh let's just say like one piece of angel hair pasta yeah throw one against the wall like give it a shot but yeah yeah the justice was literally like you had your bite at that apple we're moving on yeah yeah this one i mean okay give it a shot but this one seems like very much a stretch for me yeah
00:34:37
Speaker
Next, Griffin argued that the family's guns should not have been submitted into evidence because none of them were the murder weapons. I don't know in that one. I mean, don I don't. Yeah, I don't either. Yeah, I have no idea.
00:34:48
Speaker
I mean, seems like somewhat of a legitimate argument, but I but don't know. I don't think it.
Court Etiquette & Defense Strategies
00:34:53
Speaker
me i don't know that it would have mattered one way or another um i could see that it maybe went could be a character thing if you were concerned about the amount of guns somebody owned but i feel like in that area of south carolina nobody cares how many aunts he go they owned you know mean like that i guess you could say is it relevant don't yeah i don't know i don't think that on its own would i don't think that would stand on its own as reason for an appeal right but maybe you know
00:35:20
Speaker
Cumulatively, it's one point. Yeah. Next, the analysis of cartridges outside of the gun room should not have been submitted into evidence. I'm going to go same thing on that. i don't... Yeah, i don't know.
00:35:31
Speaker
Because I don't actually remember what the relevance of it was. Like, if they were cartridges that matched the cartridges found... like Was it something to do with, like, shooting range?
00:35:42
Speaker
I thought, like, where they were practicing on the shooting range, and then you could, like, the bullets analysis showed that it was from those specific blackout gun. I don't remember exactly. Which now that think about, I'm like, not exactly sure how. Oh, maybe, maybe. I guess then did they tie that back to the bullets that were found at the scene of the crime? I don't, yeah. I can't remember. I would say, don't know. I have no idea. Yeah. Say 50-50. Yeah. It's like, I don't, I would say any cartridges found in the vicinity, even the property of a crime scene should be investigated. I don't know if they should have been submitted into evidence, but that's because I can't remember anything.
00:36:26
Speaker
Yeah. yeah Yeah. All right. The ah final, I guess, part of it that was presented was that the state should not have questioned Alec on the stand about lying about being in the kennels because it infringed on his Fifth Amendment right of self-incrimination.
00:36:44
Speaker
I think this is a long shot, too. OK, so here again, no lawyer. i guess my initial thought goes to wait, shouldn't that have been something that the defense dealt with?
00:36:55
Speaker
Yeah. In court. Yeah. And doesn't, I mean, don't you have to kind of, if something impacts your fifth amendment rights, but don't you have to kind of plead the fifth amendment? Yeah. and I mean, I think so. I don't know. I think so.
00:37:08
Speaker
And I think this is like very so of like, if he was asked about lying, maybe, oh okay. Maybe it was a, he should have pleaded the fifth amendment about lying on the stand about perjury. Is that what it is? Maybe not so much. Like if I say I was at the kennels, I'm incriminating myself. Yeah. well, that just incriminates you. I'm guessing it's probably about perjury that, cause he was questioned about lying on this, about it. ah that Yeah. That's a little complicated to, yeah, that's a little hard to follow. So maybe it's that, I don't know. That's not reason to throw out the, to get a new trial. Oh, I did miss one. The last thing was like, they just said the cell phone data was unreliable. And again, that should have been little little vague there. yeah And that should have been dealt with.
00:37:54
Speaker
You had the chance to do that. So I talk a little bit about True Sunlight had some like just analysis of what happened. So having said that, we're a bit slanted if it's coming from True Sunlight. So I will say that. But true in addition to True Sunlight, multiple outlets said that one of the justices referred to Alex by his first name and pronounced it appropriately, which we all know is incredibly challenging. I pronounce it a different way every time I say it.
00:38:23
Speaker
True Sunlight had some attorneys who were watching or like in the courtroom, just like as viewers, reach out and be like, it's unusual for a justice in the Supreme Court level to refer to somebody other than like Mr. Murdaugh or the defendant. Like it's very um casual for the setting. Yeah, no, I mean, I can see that. I can also see how people...
00:38:47
Speaker
could slip up and especially in a case like this where it's been in the headlines and talked yeah about for so long like this weird part of you almost feels like you know I like and honestly they very well maybe do I mean these people who have been in the same circle so yes well I do think that that is unprofessional yeah I mean I also do think people are human and sometimes just slip up Yeah.
00:39:13
Speaker
But they said ah their interpretation was kind of like that this particular justice who did the slip up was the one who was like the hardest on waters. Like he continued to like, but why were the financial crimes included?
00:39:27
Speaker
um You know, he would ask like, why did the... court need to hear about Tony Satterfield's brother. and And he's not wrong. He says this something like sympathy to the victims of the crime is not related to motive. But at one point he he raised his voice, like seeming pretty frustrated with Waters in his argument. I mean, I don't doubt that. I mean, and I also don't doubt that an attorney, I mean, a judge there's can be biased.
00:39:56
Speaker
um not They're not supposed to be. They shouldn't be. Yeah. But there's no way. I mean, we see it all the time, right? So, I mean, and maybe he, yeah, or maybe he did have more like a personal relationship of, don't know,
00:40:09
Speaker
With Alec or with his attorneys or he just could be more biased. um Again, I'm not sure that affects the appeal. I mean, I think it's a bad thing, but I'm not sure how that directly impacts whether or not their appeal should be allowed. Yeah. but The general consensus was basically that the justices challenged Waters a lot more than Harpootlian and Griffin.
00:40:32
Speaker
But part of that could be a way of getting clear information on record, that it wasn't necessarily challenging him more, but kind of pushing for like, say more, like your therapist, say more, instead of leaning specifically one way or another, just to get the information like, okay, solidified before making a decision. I don't know So overall, I think we both agree that probably an appeal will happen. Or not an appeal will happen. a a new trial will happen.
00:41:01
Speaker
I don't think I, controversial virtual as it is, i ah actually think it probably is justified. Yeah. A lot of lot of issues here that I don't, I mean, again, a lot of stuff that I think is whatever.
Implications of a New Trial & True Sunlight's Role
00:41:15
Speaker
Maybe not garbage, but I think to me, the main things go down to becky hill just in what she may have said as a an official clerk at the court.
00:41:27
Speaker
And I, all this book writing thing seemed like nuts to me. And, but I don't, I don't I mean, I guess it's not, but, and then, but I do think there's a strong argument to be made about the amount of testimony. And that was admitted for the financial crimes. Yeah.
00:41:49
Speaker
then I get a little even more controversial opinionated about, I think that Crate and Waters relied a lot on what True Sunlight, True Sunlight uncovered and and a ton of information. Yeah.
00:42:05
Speaker
This never would have happened without them and without their research and what they did. and it's totally commendable. And their podcast, they can do whatever they want. They're not the law. What I think happened though is Crate and Waters utilized maybe a little bit too much of their research and their perspective in putting together his case.
00:42:25
Speaker
And they were heavily focused on the financial crimes, which are really important and significant and do say a lot about Alex's character.
00:42:36
Speaker
But maybe the focus on them was not, this was not the right time and is not a part of the case. So, um, which I mean, I think opens, up you know, our society now and podcasts and all these independent researchers and, and there's nothing wrong with it, but we do need to make sure that our litigators are not, you and I can use that as where our sources, but, I think,
00:43:01
Speaker
You know, our litigators need to make sure that they're not being biased by that. ah Right. Right. Like using what's been uncovered and then verifying it independently. Right. I mean, I just think that, yes, verify. But all I mean, this the nature of their entire argument became sort of the basis of his entire argument.
00:43:21
Speaker
We kind of went like directly with what they'd always been saying. Yeah. Devil's advocate though is what if that's simply true? Like what if, you know what i mean? Like what if what waters uncovered or, or, you know, what true sunlight presented is just what it is. Well, and I don't think it's not, I mean, I, i'm I guess I'm not saying what they, i think everything they said, I mean,
00:43:46
Speaker
I'm not going to go as far as saying everything that I said. I think information's true. But embedded in that is their theory of motive and such. And i think that's where, and then I guess, yeah, that could just be the true motive. I i felt like his argument was a little too aligned with that specific motive. Now, also, like I personally think the motive was somewhat different. So that definitely plays a role. But I don't feel like the prosecution explored enough different other motives that were possible. Yeah. So I guess in the end, I think there will be a new trial.
00:44:23
Speaker
Yes. Agreed. I agree with that. Yeah. hate to say it, but I don't particularly think it's wrong.
Conclusion & Future Topics
00:44:29
Speaker
I do think there was things that were incorrect um or not followed through with, followed up on, you um that could have been impacting the actual case and that have been discovered since.
00:44:41
Speaker
And I don't think Alex is be exonerated. i do think we may find out that there's a chance that it was second degree murder versus first. um It wasn't as premeditated as we have thought or that there were other co-conspirators.
00:44:56
Speaker
Which I don't think is i out of question at all. and And that is important. I mean, then. I was just going to say, like, that's not necessarily a bad thing. No. To discover. That's right. That's, I mean, why this process isn't in place. So.
00:45:10
Speaker
Yeah. Well. We'll keep watching. know I'm kind of, yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm very much but sucked back then into this. And I, I'm glad that we, let you know, we've been hearing about the appeals and I kind of understood it in the back of my mind, but, but this has been a good, it was good to kind of really yeah dig into him and understand the appeal process. Also just understanding like the court process.
00:45:34
Speaker
i mean, this is a good case where you can get a better idea of how the court processing. Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, that's it for Murdoch for now. Yes. I do love that. I was like, we'll just do a quick thing. We'll tack it on at the end about the appeal. And then I started writing and I was like, Joy, we have a whole episode.
00:45:50
Speaker
No, and but it was a good episode. I mean, I had, yeah, I yeah i think it was a good episode. Yeah, it was very interesting. So think next time we're starting our new series about the Kennedys, unless something else big happens with the Murdaus, who knows? But that's the plan. That's our plan. All right.
00:46:08
Speaker
And you will know next week. Yeah, right. Exactly. We do say a lot of things and then change it without just a yeah let'll see alerting anybody. but Hence why it's our podcast. And it's about our fixations. Precisely.
00:46:25
Speaker
All right, everybody. Well, thank you for joining us again. And we will see you next week. Bye.
00:46:41
Speaker
Bye.