Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Hi, guys, we were joining
Speaker 1: you live outside the Colinton County Courthouse where people are
Speaker 1: streaming out for the lunch break. We're inching forward toward
Speaker 1: the end of the state of the Defense case, but
Speaker 1: there was a bombshell at the very beginning of the morning.
Speaker 1: Take a listen to our cut four. We believe it
Speaker 1: would be useful for the jury to see visit Moselle
Speaker 1: both the area in the area of the kennels and
Speaker 1: the house, just to get some understanding the spatial relationships.
Speaker 1: And so what we would ask is that you asked
Speaker 1: the jury if that if they want to do that,
Speaker 1: I mean, I know I wouldn't if they don't want
Speaker 1: to do it, I don't want them to do it.
Speaker 1: If they want to do it, that'd be fine with me.
Speaker 1: And it needs to be done in an x edicious way,
Speaker 1: you know, I am. The state is not asking for
Speaker 1: there to be a jury of view of the scene,
Speaker 1: and if anything, I think that there that would require
Speaker 1: additional testimony because the scene is different than it existed
Speaker 1: on the night of June seventh, twenty twenty one. Generally,
Speaker 1: jury views are at the request of a party and
Speaker 1: I'm reflecting again. I don't know that it's necessary in
Speaker 1: this particular instance. If either side wants a jury view,
Speaker 1: the court will arrange a jury view. Okay, there you
Speaker 1: have it, straight out to high profile criminal defenses. Are
Speaker 1: joining us from the Pepper Law firm, Mark Pepper, Mark,
Speaker 1: thank you for being with us. This conjures up images
Speaker 1: of the O. J. Simpson jury view of his home
Speaker 1: where my former co anchor, god Rest is old. Johnny
Speaker 1: Cochrane and his team had gone through and carefully rearranged
Speaker 1: everything in the home to make it more palatable to
Speaker 1: the jurars. What do you think about viewing Moselle now,
Speaker 1: so much time was passed the incident. Yeah, to include
Speaker 1: a lot of picture frames of the family as I recall,
Speaker 1: and the stairwell. Good analogy there, Nancy. This is pretty
Speaker 1: typical in our state here in South Carolina. Relevance simply
Speaker 1: means will help the fact finder determine what the facts are.
Speaker 1: And so typically when any side or either side or
Speaker 1: both asked the court to allow the jury to visit
Speaker 1: the scene, the judge is going to allow it, as
Speaker 1: he did this morning. I guess, on one hand, if
Speaker 1: you're the state it helps show how far away the
Speaker 1: main house is. In the theory that clearly those two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty eight steps was you hiking all the
Speaker 1: way back up that hill. On the defense, maybe they're
Speaker 1: looking at it a different way in that the close
Speaker 1: proximity of the kennel to the feed room, grabbing two
Speaker 1: separate guns, it's just not possible to have conjured all this.
Speaker 1: And then you've got the growing of the trees. Right
Speaker 1: now we're going to get a jury charge on well,
Speaker 1: shrubs and trees have grown since then. This is all
Speaker 1: about the defense trying its best to do two things.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, Nancy one has just confused the jury.
Speaker 1: Just confuse them. Let's take them on a field trip.
Speaker 1: Let's let's let them out. Let's get some credibility with them,
Speaker 1: and make sure that we continue to hammer the credibility
Speaker 1: of the state's witness. We kind of thought Dick Harputley
Speaker 1: might have something up as sleeve this week. I'm not
Speaker 1: so sure that this is the last trick, but certainly
Speaker 1: a good move by the defense. Mart Pepper, I agree
Speaker 1: with everything that you just said. Got a question, how
Speaker 1: many times have you taken a jury out to see
Speaker 1: a scene zero. Agree, it's just agreed. You know why
Speaker 1: it's fraught. It is fraught with possibilities for a mistrial.
Speaker 1: You go by one nut on the highway with a
Speaker 1: sign that says, Marnog did it, honey, it's over where
Speaker 1: you go buy a protest or however it may be
Speaker 1: staged saying the other way. Now, the state doesn't really
Speaker 1: have a lot of room to ask for a mistrial,
Speaker 1: but the defense does, so this will all be to
Speaker 1: their advantage. And what you were touching on I found
Speaker 1: very interesting, Mark Pepper, in that the scene it is
Speaker 1: not as it was the night of the shootings. Time
Speaker 1: has passed, shrubs may have been added, removed. I believe
Speaker 1: somebody else owns it now. It's completely different than the
Speaker 1: way it was the night of the shootings. And in
Speaker 1: my mind, that distorts their view of the evidence because
Speaker 1: they're seeing something that is not necessarily based in the evidence.
Speaker 1: Isn't that the whole point here, Nancy, right? I mean,
Speaker 1: what if there's a footprint picks up one that says,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, we haven't seen a picture of this footprint.
Speaker 1: We don't know whose footprint that is, right? The blood stains, oh,
Speaker 1: they said it was awful. It doesn't look bad to me.
Speaker 1: This is all an attempt to create confusion among the
Speaker 1: juror's great point as far as getting to and from Mozelle,
Speaker 1: we're talking a rural community in southwest South Carolina. I mean,
Speaker 1: you're gonna be passing more cornfields and cows than you
Speaker 1: are people. However, if the people know the field trip
Speaker 1: is coming by, don't think for one second that there
Speaker 1: won't be some type of sign or thumbs up. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is going to turn into the spectacle, the circus
Speaker 1: show that the defenses has wanted all along. And another point,
Speaker 1: great point you brought up. We've got some serious appellet
Speaker 1: issues here already. We've got the four or four be
Speaker 1: stuff that came in, right, didn't come in, but then
Speaker 1: it did come in. Now why why white white, white
Speaker 1: talk plain English. He's talking about the Well, you've got
Speaker 1: the cousin ediot evidence, which is going to be a
Speaker 1: problem because it was let in, or a problem because
Speaker 1: the defense can now flame if there's a conviction. Of course,
Speaker 1: in effective assistance of counsel. For I believe it was
Speaker 1: a griffin that opened the door. One of the defense
Speaker 1: attorneys opened the door to that. So if there's a conviction,
Speaker 1: while murdog right now is very thankful to all of
Speaker 1: his lawyers, after he sits in jail for a year
Speaker 1: or two, I can see him filing an appeal or
Speaker 1: even behavior's corpus when the time is right on ineffective
Speaker 1: assistance of counsel. If everything else fails because of that
Speaker 1: one question, what else does he have to do if
Speaker 1: he sits to life or that thing, He's going to
Speaker 1: file something and you're you only have an effective assistant counsel,
Speaker 1: which you know you told that while you go through
Speaker 1: the appellate process. That'll be the last straw I think
Speaker 1: he brings. But certainly he's going to challenge any conviction
Speaker 1: based on the legal rulings that were made that he
Speaker 1: feels prejudiced to him. I mean, look, this is a
Speaker 1: circumstantial case. We've we've seen the evidence. We haven't heard
Speaker 1: an eyewitness, we haven't heard any fingerprints or footprints, as
Speaker 1: we just heard that this testified today. This is a
Speaker 1: circumstantial case. And so can't you see the jury sitting
Speaker 1: back there going I'm not sure he did this, but man,
Speaker 1: he is a bad person based on what we've heard
Speaker 1: so let's just go ahead and convict. That is an
Speaker 1: appellet issue is ripe for appeal? Mark Pepper, when you
Speaker 1: said that the law in South Carolina is that jarars
Speaker 1: go see the scene. That is very common. But you've
Speaker 1: never done it, and you've tried a lot of cases. Now,
Speaker 1: I never tried a case without going to the scene myself. Ever, never, never, never.
Speaker 1: That's a rule one and trial advocacies you go to
Speaker 1: the scene yourself, and if you can't get to the scene,
Speaker 1: you need to quit trying cases. End of story. But
Speaker 1: it would be a cold eight and h double l
Speaker 1: that I would want my jury to go there now
Speaker 1: that I'm hiding evidence. It's just that things will have
Speaker 1: changed at the time of the incident, and you never
Speaker 1: know what may hang up a jarar. I mean, for
Speaker 1: all I know, a building has been built. I try
Speaker 1: cases in inner City Atlanta. If a building had been
Speaker 1: built or some obstruction had been created since the time
Speaker 1: of the incident, the gerards will think, well, wow, witness
Speaker 1: couldn't see that because of this shrub. So long story short,
Speaker 1: it is fraught with peril, guys, I'm hearing in my ear.
Speaker 1: I am now being joined by Kelly skin Flux Nation's
Speaker 1: senior producer has been in the courtroom with me the
Speaker 1: entire morning. Kelly, this is the end of the defense case.
Speaker 1: They may have one or two more witnesses left. Do
Speaker 1: you know if these are the final two witnesses or
Speaker 1: will there be two additional witnesses? Hi, Nancy, We are
Speaker 1: expecting at least two more witnesses from the defense, as
Speaker 1: well as that visit to Mozelle the murder scene, as
Speaker 1: we have been hearing about. But what we also heard
Speaker 1: this morning is that the defense still expects to rest
Speaker 1: its case today, So we are expecting two more witnesses.
Speaker 1: It's to be seen whether that is more of Alec
Speaker 1: Murdock's family members. We have been expecting his brothers to
Speaker 1: take the stand at least one. Kelly, Kelly, you know
Speaker 1: who I like. I don't know her personally, but I
Speaker 1: like Savannah Guide in the courtroom. She finally during the
Speaker 1: direct examination some of these witnesses stood up and said
Speaker 1: leading and she actually kept oh I love this part.
Speaker 1: I had to write it down from batim. When m
Speaker 1: hart put Lean was trying to get in, as we
Speaker 1: call it in the law, Kelly a learned treatise. That's
Speaker 1: a book. I don't know why, Martin Pepper, why do
Speaker 1: we keep calling it a learned treatise? It's a book.
Speaker 1: It seems like lawyers come up with every I know.
Speaker 1: It seems like Kelly lawyers come up with every word
Speaker 1: possible to make things more confusing. But it was a
Speaker 1: learned treatise. It was a book, and it's a really
Speaker 1: good book. It's written by an incredible expert in the
Speaker 1: criminal field. But he wanted to submit the book or
Speaker 1: portions of the book into ev Well, no, I've never
Speaker 1: seen that done. I've handled literally thousands of cases plus
Speaker 1: reported on it. I don't know how many, because it's
Speaker 1: all here safe. It's what some author that is not
Speaker 1: there in the courtroom for cross examination. It's what they say,
Speaker 1: and it may be accurate, but it is here safe,
Speaker 1: and I loved it. Kelly skin when I guess one
Speaker 1: of his helpers handed him the law on a learned
Speaker 1: treatise and he said, no, it should come in your honor,
Speaker 1: and he started reading it and the end of the
Speaker 1: sentence was shall not come into evidence and will be
Speaker 1: excluded anyway. Oh well, I'm not entering that. I bet
Speaker 1: somebody gets a chewing out at the lunch break for
Speaker 1: handing him that law. Kelly Skin, Yes, Nancy, I saw that,
Speaker 1: and we did see Savannah Good stand up and say
Speaker 1: this is hearsay. You cannot admit this into evidence. The
Speaker 1: guy who wrote the book is not here on the stand.
Speaker 1: He is not here to testify. You know, the state
Speaker 1: is questioning them fairly. Well, I think i'm cross examination.
Speaker 1: But Kelly, explain these two witnesses. It's doctor Eissat and
Speaker 1: Tim Palmback. Who are they and what is their point?
Speaker 1: Let's take the doctor first, the pathologists. Yeah, Nancy, we've
Speaker 1: seen a big back and forth in the courtroom today
Speaker 1: between witnesses. This was to be expected. The defense is
Speaker 1: trying to poke holes in the prosecution's case. Today. We
Speaker 1: heard from Tim paul Back, he is a forensic scientist,
Speaker 1: and then we also heard from I'm looking at my notes.
Speaker 1: There are many witnesses to keep track of doctor Jonathan Eisenstatt,
Speaker 1: And basically they're trying to poke holes in the prosecution's
Speaker 1: case about from which direction Maggie and Paul were shot
Speaker 1: and which shots were the fatal wounds. They're you know,
Speaker 1: last week or the week before that, we heard that
Speaker 1: the defense said this was a five two shooter. Today
Speaker 1: we're also hearing that Paul was shot in the top
Speaker 1: of the head. So I think you see a lot
Speaker 1: of confusion on the jury's face, trying to reconcile what
Speaker 1: they're hearing from the prosecution, what they're hearing from the
Speaker 1: defense time stories with Nancy Grace. Well, Kelly, that's a
Speaker 1: really good point you just brought out. I heard that,
Speaker 1: and I was wondering if the jury could connect all
Speaker 1: the dots with so much evidence pouring out. But if
Speaker 1: you caught it, and I caught it between the two
Speaker 1: of us, Kelly, certainly somebody on the jury caught it
Speaker 1: because that witness was suggesting that the shooter was taller
Speaker 1: or in an elevated position when they took aim. And
Speaker 1: that's exactly diametrically opposed to the whole defense theory. Remember
Speaker 1: the little green man and the green trajectory pass that
Speaker 1: they used to convince the jury the double shooter motif.
Speaker 1: And we're seeing the double sheet motif in theory rearing
Speaker 1: its ugly head yet again for the state, and this
Speaker 1: time they've got experts to back it up. You know.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Dean Corsentino, doctor Heide Deceivers, and doctor
Speaker 1: Michel Dupree. But first to you, doctor Michel Dupree. You
Speaker 1: have been listening to Isostat's testimony throughout bottom line. Where
Speaker 1: is he going? What is it the point of his testimony? Well, Nancy,
Speaker 1: I think that it's actually too again discredit part of
Speaker 1: doctor Rymer's testimony and bring up the two shooter theory.
Speaker 1: I don't think he's doing a very good job. I
Speaker 1: think there are holes in what he has said as well,
Speaker 1: one of those being he admitted that there were palette
Speaker 1: defects on the top of the door or something. I
Speaker 1: have never, in all my years of practice, ever seen
Speaker 1: palettes bounce backwards. It just doesn't make sense. Well, I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you something about doctor Jonathan Isisenstatt. He has
Speaker 1: certainly done a lot of autopsies. I was ready to
Speaker 1: write down everything wrong about his curriculum vita. But I'm
Speaker 1: telling you anybody that is a medical examiner examiner in
Speaker 1: inner City Atlanta, they have seen plenty of autopsies. He
Speaker 1: was doing between two d one hundred and two hundred,
Speaker 1: one hundred and two hundred and fifty autopsies a year. Now,
Speaker 1: I did notice that he has left and he is
Speaker 1: now doing a consulting practice and also as usual and
Speaker 1: of course we would expect nothing less Pepper. He was
Speaker 1: cross examined on how much money he's making, and he's
Speaker 1: making a lot of money, I mean thousands of dollars.
Speaker 1: Would that of course the state is going to argue
Speaker 1: that that would taint his testimony. Well, you know, I
Speaker 1: thought Samana did as good job as she could. There's
Speaker 1: really not a whole lot to challenge him on. But
Speaker 1: make sure the jury understands he's a paid expert, not
Speaker 1: by the state but by Murdoch. Over here he's a jukebox.
Speaker 1: I take it you have handled murder cases, have you not? Yes?
Speaker 1: I have. How many times have you seen a rectal
Speaker 1: thermometer stuck up a dead victim's rear end? There's really
Speaker 1: no nice way to put it. There's not and that's
Speaker 1: the answer. Zero zero. You don't. You don't put a
Speaker 1: rectal thermometer. Yeah, I mean, okay, guys, look you're here
Speaker 1: because we're trying a murder case and it's happening right
Speaker 1: behind me. And that was the testimony today. One of
Speaker 1: the first things they did, doctor Michelle Dufrey, Thank goodness
Speaker 1: I wrote down all these notes. Was jump on the
Speaker 1: state because they didn't use a rectal thermometer on the
Speaker 1: two dead bodies. Really, that's right, Because that's right, Nancy.
Speaker 1: They made they made a play at the fact that
Speaker 1: the investigators felt the armpit, and as I recall and
Speaker 1: Kelly correct me if I'm wrong, it was still warm.
Speaker 1: So if the body is still warm, I don't have
Speaker 1: to have a medical degree to tell me that the
Speaker 1: murder was recent, doctor Dupre. Now listen, you're the MD.
Speaker 1: I'm just a JD. But I can tell you I
Speaker 1: have never had a single case where a medical exander
Speaker 1: used a directal thermometer of the dead body. No, never, Nancy,
Speaker 1: You're exactly right. I have never used directal thermometer. I
Speaker 1: have used a thermometer in the liver, which is much
Speaker 1: more accurate. I have never, and has no one that
Speaker 1: I've ever known that has been trained as a forensic
Speaker 1: pathologist or medical examiner put our hand in the armpit.
Speaker 1: That is absolutely not scientific. There's no forensic basis for that. Yes,
Speaker 1: it tells you that the body is warm, but it
Speaker 1: doesn't tell you how warm. And again, there are many variables,
Speaker 1: and as you well know, the time of death is
Speaker 1: very much a variable. There are men any other factors
Speaker 1: like lever mortis, rigor mortis and all of those things. Well,
Speaker 1: can I ask you a question, doctor Dupree, and be
Speaker 1: blunt sure. I don't have you on the stand, You're
Speaker 1: not on the oath. You can say whatever you feel
Speaker 1: like saying, but don't we have them alive? And well?
Speaker 1: At about help me out, Kelly eight forty seven PM
Speaker 1: on that video and we're having them. Man, you've got
Speaker 1: it together, Kelly Ski And I'm glad you're here, Okay,
Speaker 1: eight forty nine. And you know what those two minutes
Speaker 1: I said, eight forty seven, she said, eight forty nine.
Speaker 1: They matter, They absolutely matter in this case. And then
Speaker 1: by ten o'clock when he gets back ten oh six,
Speaker 1: he costs nine one one. We can pretty much establish
Speaker 1: the time of death between eight forty nine and ten
Speaker 1: oh six. Don't you agree with that, doctor Dupree? Absolutely absolutely, Nancy.
Speaker 1: And a thermometer at that point is not going to
Speaker 1: make a difference. No, it is not. Here are having
Speaker 1: a murder go down? On June seven, it's hot as
Speaker 1: haydes in South Carolina and the bodies are still warm,
Speaker 1: and you have a timeline between eight forty nine, basically
Speaker 1: nine o'clock and ten o'clock. So we've got it narrowed
Speaker 1: down to an hour. So all this rigmarole about the
Speaker 1: rectal thermometer and oh, you know, speaking of rectal thermometers,
Speaker 1: and I've certainly never said that sentence before, but thinking
Speaker 1: of speaking of rectal thermometers. Back to you, doctor Michelle Dupree, again,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for being with us. And she's
Speaker 1: not just a pathologist, she is not just a forensic expert.
Speaker 1: She's also a former detective. When you are trying to
Speaker 1: analyze a crime scene and there is blood spatter everywhere,
Speaker 1: do you really think it's appropriate to manhandle the body,
Speaker 1: yank the pants down, and do a rectal thermometer? Take no, nacy.
Speaker 1: I do not, And again I honestly don't know anyone
Speaker 1: that has actually done that. That is not the way
Speaker 1: that we're trained. If we're going to take the temperature,
Speaker 1: if there is some need to know the specific amount
Speaker 1: of temperature, then we use a thermometer in the liver,
Speaker 1: not in the rectum. How do you get a thermometer
Speaker 1: in the liver, You push it through the skin to
Speaker 1: the liver. Okay, I had not thought of that. Guys
Speaker 1: with me an all star panel to makes sense what
Speaker 1: we know right now. All you've heard so far is
Speaker 1: we're going to Mozelle and threatening a mistrial in doing so,
Speaker 1: and you've heard a lot about rectal thermometers. Joining me
Speaker 1: is doctor Heidi Sivers, founder of Sivers Forensics. She's an
Speaker 1: expert of blood stained pattern blood patterns. What did you
Speaker 1: make of what was being said about the blood spatter evidence.
Speaker 1: I still don't see how they're making the conclusion that
Speaker 1: there were two shooters. What do you make of the
Speaker 1: doctor savers so one. I think that it was a ploy.
Speaker 1: Just like we've been discussing about poking holes in the
Speaker 1: state's case and trying to confuse the jury. This is
Speaker 1: starting to become the personification of the classic CSI effect
Speaker 1: of one going back out to the scene. The jurors
Speaker 1: are going to expect for that scene to someone being memorialized,
Speaker 1: even though obviously it's not going to be. They are
Speaker 1: going to expect to see the things that they've been discussing. Further, really,
Speaker 1: what I've been hearing all this morning is what I
Speaker 1: call trigger words when it comes to blood stained pattern analysis,
Speaker 1: and those are words that the jury has probably heard
Speaker 1: in the media or on television shows. But honestly, some
Speaker 1: of them are being used incorrectly and somewhat flippidly, and
Speaker 1: although they can have other connotations, they're being used in
Speaker 1: the wrong manner, and in this case, that terminology makes
Speaker 1: a difference when we're looking at these And further, when
Speaker 1: he was discussing the amount out of spatter on that
Speaker 1: door as what he called blowback or what's termed backspatter,
Speaker 1: the height of that he actually, I'm not sure he
Speaker 1: realized he was doing it, but just like with that
Speaker 1: higher shot on a taller person, he actually implicated that
Speaker 1: that would have been a taller person with the amount
Speaker 1: of spatter only being at the top left hand corner
Speaker 1: of that door. Okay, you know what, I was trying
Speaker 1: to drink in everything that you just said. Can you
Speaker 1: say it one more time because I want everybody else
Speaker 1: on the panel to white in on what you just
Speaker 1: said about the blood spatter. Go ahead, sure, absolutely so.
Speaker 1: First and foremost, some of the words that are being
Speaker 1: used or what I term trigger words when it comes
Speaker 1: to bloodstained patterns and their words that are commonly seen
Speaker 1: in television shows and in the media, But in this case,
Speaker 1: and from what I've been hearing in testimony, some of
Speaker 1: them are being used flipidly, and when it comes down
Speaker 1: to it, they matter. Using them in the correct context matters.
Speaker 1: And further, the first witness that was on the stand
Speaker 1: suggested that the shooter was taller and when they were
Speaker 1: talking about they termed a blowback. But the backspatter that
Speaker 1: deposited on the door in the upper left hand corner
Speaker 1: and creating that void of the shooter, they actually, unbeknownst
Speaker 1: to them, I'm not sure they realized they did it,
Speaker 1: but they actually implicated it being a much taller shooter
Speaker 1: to block that door only with the exception of the
Speaker 1: top left hand corner of the door. Hold On, I'm
Speaker 1: writing that down, Kelly Skan. Did you hear what doctor
Speaker 1: Heidi Savers just said they did? She's right, and she
Speaker 1: articulated it so perfectly, Kelly. They implicated a much taller shooter.
Speaker 1: Could you finish the rest of that, doctor Savers? Yeah,
Speaker 1: they implicated them The blood spattered because they discussed the
Speaker 1: voided area, which avoid is simply just the absence of
Speaker 1: a continuous bloodstained pattern, so an absence of blood where
Speaker 1: we would expect there to be blood in the essence
Speaker 1: of the back spatter, which was evidence. At the top
Speaker 1: left hand corner of that door, we see that voided area,
Speaker 1: which is most likely where the shooter was standing. But
Speaker 1: because it's in such a small and very high up area,
Speaker 1: very tall area at the top left hand corner, they
Speaker 1: really seemingly implicated a much taller individual. A way I
Speaker 1: would explain it to the jury is if if Sidney
Speaker 1: was standing there and she had a giant bowl of
Speaker 1: tomato soup and threw it at me, it would hit
Speaker 1: all around me, on the wall behind me, but there
Speaker 1: would be a void that you hear doctor Severs talking
Speaker 1: about where I'm standing. That's an easy way to explain
Speaker 1: the accurate discussion that doctor high Deceivers just gave you
Speaker 1: something really important that hasn't been mentioned today. So the
Speaker 1: defense is essentially saying that Paul was shot and at
Speaker 1: the top of the head and that went out of
Speaker 1: his shoulder. The prosecution said, no way, it went through
Speaker 1: his shoulder, through the top of the head. And what
Speaker 1: we haven't heard from about today is that there is
Speaker 1: damage to the door that was above Paul's head, indicating
Speaker 1: that he was shot as the prosecution stated, going from
Speaker 1: the shoulder to his head, and not as the defense stated,
Speaker 1: where you know the gun was pushed directly onto his head,
Speaker 1: because if the gun was he was shot on the head,
Speaker 1: you wouldn't have damage on the door frame above his head.
Speaker 1: You know what. You're so right, and that is something
Speaker 1: that everyone can understand and it makes perfect sense. So
Speaker 1: what they're doing today is there somewhat telling the jury
Speaker 1: and sinuating to the jury that the shooter is tall.
Speaker 1: Murdog is about six three or so. We think. Dan
Speaker 1: Corsettino joining me, former ployee's chief, former sheriff, served on
Speaker 1: US and Security Senior Advisory Board. He's a PI at
Speaker 1: Dan Corsettino dot com. Dan, I want you to hear
Speaker 1: our sought seven. Take listen. This is Hartpootlian direct examining
Speaker 1: the pathologist. Okay, so when you look at the wound
Speaker 1: in his shoulder and his neck and of course his head,
Speaker 1: tell us where doctor Rhema got it wrong. I think
Speaker 1: she hasn't reversed. If the entrance wound is here on
Speaker 1: the left shoulder and we're saying that we're at least
Speaker 1: three to four feet away from there because we have
Speaker 1: no soot, we have no stippling on the skin. Then
Speaker 1: by the time it gets to the left side of
Speaker 1: the chin or over here at the angle of the
Speaker 1: mandible the jaw, we've lost a lot of energy. And
Speaker 1: so yes, you can get some pellets still going up
Speaker 1: into the head, but you're not going to have the
Speaker 1: top of the head completely blown off. And if you
Speaker 1: look at the photograph here, you can see he's missing
Speaker 1: the top of his skull. That would not have happened
Speaker 1: three feet or further shotgun wound coming in on the
Speaker 1: left side. Okay, hold on, Dick Corsentino, I want doctor
Speaker 1: Michelle Dupre to take a stab at that, and then
Speaker 1: I want to hear from you what you think their
Speaker 1: strategy is right now, why they're asking the questions they
Speaker 1: are asking, and what they're trying to tell the jury.
Speaker 1: What do you make of that? Though, as a medical
Speaker 1: examiner and pathologist, doctor Dupre, well, Nancy, I've actually had
Speaker 1: cases where the top of the head was blown off
Speaker 1: when the shotgun was three feet or so away, And again,
Speaker 1: it depends on so many things. Is what we call
Speaker 1: the choke on that shotgun, what is the length of
Speaker 1: the barrel, all of those kinds of things. But I
Speaker 1: do not believe that this was a contact well into
Speaker 1: the back of the head. The rest of the trajectory
Speaker 1: just doesn't make sense. Dian Corsentino, what is their theory.
Speaker 1: They're making a huge big deal about the double guns,
Speaker 1: that one shooter had double guns, and Dan Korcentina, you're
Speaker 1: perfect for this question. They're at the end of the
Speaker 1: testimony of the second witness. The witness was actually telling
Speaker 1: the jury that after killing one person that would have
Speaker 1: been Paul, that the shooter would have been so stunned
Speaker 1: that they couldn't shoot another person. Mackie, I couldn't believe
Speaker 1: what I was hearing because I have had multiple cases
Speaker 1: of homicide with multiple victims at the hands of one shooter.
Speaker 1: Frankly and sadly, it happens all the time. But the
Speaker 1: defense witness actually told the jury that the shooter would
Speaker 1: have been so shell shocked and so covered with matter
Speaker 1: that he could not get another gun and pull the trigger.
Speaker 1: And I have illegal tournament by that, bs. I'm sure
Speaker 1: you're familiar with that cot out. Yeah, absolutely, Nancy, And
Speaker 1: first of all, thank you. I completely disagree with the
Speaker 1: defense expert in a situation because of the fact that
Speaker 1: we've had many cases where one shooter had multiple victims,
Speaker 1: and I agree with you, and the fact that the
Speaker 1: victim or the shooter in this case would have been
Speaker 1: stunned or had a temporary thought process that was completely clouded.
Speaker 1: I don't buy that whatsoever. I think the mindset of
Speaker 1: the shooter at this point in time was clearly to
Speaker 1: shoot both individuals, and that individual clearly knew what the
Speaker 1: job was for the long term gain. And as far
Speaker 1: as trying to cloud the jury, I think that's all
Speaker 1: that the defense is trying to do in this is
Speaker 1: just to throw mud on this case, because in totality,
Speaker 1: they're going to take a look at the very basics
Speaker 1: of this case. Was their motive, was their opportunity, was
Speaker 1: their ability? And does the science match those components? And
Speaker 1: I think that it's becoming clear. What's really interesting is
Speaker 1: the maturation of the jurors. They come into this case
Speaker 1: with a blank chalkboard or an empty journal, and they
Speaker 1: start now to compartmentalize everything the prosecution and defense is saying,
Speaker 1: and they're going to reach a conclusion which I think
Speaker 1: is going to be not surprising to many. You know
Speaker 1: Mark Pepper listening to Karsentino, he lays it out so plainly.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's I don't know what I would even
Speaker 1: cross on this, because it is absurd to tell a
Speaker 1: jury or make a statement that one person would be
Speaker 1: so discombobulated and so shell shot. They can't they can't
Speaker 1: kill two people at once. It happens every day. I
Speaker 1: don't even know how many cases I've handled where they're
Speaker 1: multiple crime victims at the hands of one shooter. I
Speaker 1: get it, I get it right. But let me play
Speaker 1: Devil's advocate just a bit using some of what I've
Speaker 1: heard and analyze the last two three minutes. One is
Speaker 1: I totally agree with the expert panelists that the doctor
Speaker 1: with the blowback and the void, if you will, what
Speaker 1: they're trying to accomplish the defense is they've moved on
Speaker 1: from this low lying shooter that was a twelve year old,
Speaker 1: or what they're just saying. Look, we're going to stick
Speaker 1: to our theme that there's no possible way Alec Murdoch
Speaker 1: murdered his wife and son, as evidenced by the fact
Speaker 1: that you heard from two witnesses today. And this is
Speaker 1: them talking, not me, just making the argument, okay, that
Speaker 1: this shooter or shooters would have been covered in matter,
Speaker 1: in blood. You got the bullet that goes the pellet
Speaker 1: that goes way up. Maybe it makes sense to a juror.
Speaker 1: May not make sense to our panelists here or me
Speaker 1: are you, but it might with one juror, And it
Speaker 1: takes two to tango, but it only takes one to
Speaker 1: hang it up. And that's really what the defense is doing.
Speaker 1: They're gonna run all this back through and spit it
Speaker 1: out an enclosing say, if you believe what any of
Speaker 1: what we said, then you believe it's impossible that this
Speaker 1: man would have done this to his own flesh and blood.
Speaker 1: That's going to be their theory here. And I agree
Speaker 1: with Mark, right, go ahead. No, I was just gonna say,
Speaker 1: I agree with Mark saying they're trying to raise reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1: There's no doubt about that. So if we look at
Speaker 1: the totality of the circumstances in this, that's the question.
Speaker 1: Do they raise reasonable doubt based on everything you know?
Speaker 1: I'm curious to Dr Michelle Dupree regarding the entry and
Speaker 1: exit wounds on Paul's body. That is elementary. You can,
Speaker 1: even I, who am just a lawyer, and look at
Speaker 1: a wound and tell an entry from an exit. Could
Speaker 1: you please explain that's very plain to the naked eye. Absolutely, Nancy.
Speaker 1: And again there are many things that we look at.
Speaker 1: Typically the entrance wound is smaller than the exit wound.
Speaker 1: Not always, but in this case I think that it
Speaker 1: would be. But we also look for something called an
Speaker 1: abrasion rim. When a bullet goes into a body, it
Speaker 1: does stretch the skin, and the abrasion ring is on
Speaker 1: the side that tells us the trajectory from where the
Speaker 1: bullet came. One of the witnesses was talking about skin
Speaker 1: tags and that's basically sort of the same thing. It's
Speaker 1: going to tell us where that projectile came from and
Speaker 1: it will help us determine that trajectory. And also, when
Speaker 1: we talk about Maggie and being two shooters, do you
Speaker 1: really think that a second shooter who was just waiting
Speaker 1: there to shoot Maggie is going to shoot her in
Speaker 1: the leg and two other places before the final last
Speaker 1: two shots, the fatal shots those were number four and five.
Speaker 1: That doesn't make sense either. You want your first shot
Speaker 1: to be the kill shot. You know what, You're right,
Speaker 1: and that is exactly what's being advanced in the courtroom. Guys,
Speaker 1: we were telling you about Paul's injuries and how that
Speaker 1: is being used by the experts on the stand. Take
Speaker 1: a listen to our cut five. Now, this depicts Maggie's
Speaker 1: body on the autopsy table, and when we're doing our
Speaker 1: measurements on a body, that's how we're looking at the
Speaker 1: body lying on her back or on the person's back
Speaker 1: on the autopsy table. Here is that wound with the
Speaker 1: left ear and the left chin, and here's her left breast,
Speaker 1: and then right above this wound, here we have that
Speaker 1: semicircle which is consistent with the earring. So this is
Speaker 1: the shot you would disagree with doctor Reemer about, Yes,
Speaker 1: this is the only shot I disagree. She stated that
Speaker 1: it was going upwards. Who would have entered the breast
Speaker 1: and then gone up right? When we look closer at
Speaker 1: the breast and we look close, are at the right
Speaker 1: the left side of the chin, skin tags are pointing upwards,
Speaker 1: showing that that's where the bullet came from. It just
Speaker 1: seems very odd that when you have one going this way,
Speaker 1: you have to be in a very bizarre position to
Speaker 1: be able to get it to go up. But from
Speaker 1: the scientific standpoint, it's it's how the wound looks, okay.
Speaker 1: And as far as what they're doing in the courtroom,
Speaker 1: Mark Pepper, it's always a good thing to get your
Speaker 1: witness off. The witness stand and down in the well
Speaker 1: in front of the jury. That's right, that's right. You
Speaker 1: want to make them personal, somebody they can relate to.
Speaker 1: You get lost in the sauce when you just hear yes,
Speaker 1: no questions from somebody sitting ten twelve feet away. Anytime
Speaker 1: you can pull a witness off, anytime you can hand
Speaker 1: them a pointer or an easel or an exhibit that
Speaker 1: they can stand in front of the jury, that's their show.
Speaker 1: I mean, the jury then makes eye contact with this
Speaker 1: witness and judges their credibility versus forgetting what the heck
Speaker 1: they said because it was the day before or the
Speaker 1: day before that. They're gonna remember that testimony tonight. They're
Speaker 1: gonna remember the testimony of anybody that stands two feet
Speaker 1: in front of them. This is a very tiny courthouse
Speaker 1: in Walterboro, South Carolina. Everybody's on top of each other
Speaker 1: and so when you get a chance to bring a
Speaker 1: witness down and look these jurors in the eyes, likely
Speaker 1: to leave an impact. It is exactly why both the
Speaker 1: state in the defense continuously bring your witnesses down. Great point, Nancy, Yah, yeah,
Speaker 1: go ahead please Okay. So, Also, when we're talking about
Speaker 1: Maggie's wound to the head, you heard it described as
Speaker 1: a keyhole injury, and that is something that is a
Speaker 1: very definitive forensic pathology description. And it's an entrance in
Speaker 1: exit in a skull that typically has babbling, which again
Speaker 1: we heard talked about, and that clearly tells us which
Speaker 1: is the entrance in, which is the exit side of
Speaker 1: that wound. It's basically a tangential in and out almost
Speaker 1: and that is what was described by doctor remark. Guys. Also,
Speaker 1: the witnesses are testifying through a certain lens, the lens
Speaker 1: of high dollar payments to the witnesses. Now does that
Speaker 1: make them less believable in the eyes of the gerars?
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I can tell you this, a
Speaker 1: state's witness is on a salary. They don't get a
Speaker 1: bonus or a raise if they go testify in a case.
Speaker 1: As compared to the tens of thousands of dollars. These
Speaker 1: witnesses are being paid. Take a listen to our cut nine.
Speaker 1: Doctor Reemer performed autopsy here, and she performed an independent autopsy.
Speaker 1: She didn't. Did she perform an autopsy of either of
Speaker 1: the victims in this case? I did not. And you
Speaker 1: reled on. I think you testified that dotor Remer's report,
Speaker 1: X rays, crime scene photos and autopsy photos in determining
Speaker 1: your opinion. That's correct. And you were higher right, Yes,
Speaker 1: I was, And you were here on Friday, weren't you.
Speaker 1: I was, So that would mean you've made over ten
Speaker 1: thousand dollars in evaluating or taking part in this case
Speaker 1: at the end of the day. That's correct too, doctor Heideceivers,
Speaker 1: Doctor Sivers. Of course, independent experts are going to be paid.
Speaker 1: And that's neither here nor there, except you know, if
Speaker 1: they were not going to say with the defense and
Speaker 1: wanted them to say, they would not be called as
Speaker 1: an expert. But what do you make of the testimony
Speaker 1: regarding blood stains, Regarding the stains on the door, the
Speaker 1: blood spatter. A lot was made toward the end of
Speaker 1: the testimony of the second witness about a bloody footprint
Speaker 1: and the witness, who is Tim Paul Bock tried to
Speaker 1: suggest to the Garars that it was the killer's footprint
Speaker 1: or the killer's plural footprint toil long Cross. Savannah Good said,
Speaker 1: they didn't give you the report that that's Paul's footprint,
Speaker 1: and he said, no, I didn't say that that had hurt. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that was a rough blow for him certainly. Well, first,
Speaker 1: just like I was saying a little bit earlier with
Speaker 1: those trigger words, is what I call it. So first
Speaker 1: and foremost, with the door, he had mentioned that it
Speaker 1: had downward what he called trajectory, but we use the
Speaker 1: term directionality, so that it had downward directionality, suggesting that
Speaker 1: it had that little bit of a fountain effect as
Speaker 1: it came up over the shooter's shoulder and deposited downward.
Speaker 1: But from the photos I've seen what I think he's
Speaker 1: terming as that is actually what we would call more
Speaker 1: of a gravity flow stain. When you're dealing with something
Speaker 1: of that proportion, when it comes with velocity as well
Speaker 1: as the amount out of biological material being pushed back
Speaker 1: right or the backspatter back towards the shooter, it's going
Speaker 1: to be too much for the surface tension to just
Speaker 1: stick right on that door, so it's going to start
Speaker 1: to flow downwards. And I think he's using that as
Speaker 1: what he's calling trajectory or directionality, and that has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with the way it was deposited. It has
Speaker 1: everything to do with the weight of that biological material,
Speaker 1: whether it be blood or brain matter, sliding down that
Speaker 1: door as a result of gravity. So that's first and
Speaker 1: foremost that I noticed, because there is directionality of those
Speaker 1: stains going upward with what you would expect from a
Speaker 1: shot going up from the shoulder through the head up
Speaker 1: towards the door, which if you notice, follows the path
Speaker 1: of those indentations in the door and the small pellets
Speaker 1: in the door frame. Right, it's all going to fall.
Speaker 1: I've another I've got another expert here. She's saying, T
Speaker 1: shirt expert, apparently, what's your Kathy Lee? Okay, okay, don't
Speaker 1: trust your soul to know Backwood Southern lawyer. Okay. There
Speaker 1: are now T shirts just saying and it's all over
Speaker 1: the world, now, thank you. I just have thank you
Speaker 1: crime stories with Nancy Grace, So apparently there are Murdock
Speaker 1: T shirts now. Just wanted everybody to know that they're
Speaker 1: all around the courthouse, And to you, Mark Pepper, that's
Speaker 1: exactly what I'm talking about about a mistrial when the
Speaker 1: jury leaves the bubble of the courtroom, increasing the chance
Speaker 1: without a doubt. I think we're gonna have a mistrial
Speaker 1: here anyway, because I don't think there's gonna be a
Speaker 1: unanimous verdict. But if there is, we're running the risk
Speaker 1: of mistrial appeals, you name it. And putting them on
Speaker 1: a bus for a field trip. I mean we're gonna
Speaker 1: do a bag lunch too, And I mean we curfew
Speaker 1: is they're gonna be allowed to talk to each other,
Speaker 1: because obviously that's not allowed. There's another mistrial. We're going
Speaker 1: down a slippery slope here. I agree. And when Mark
Speaker 1: Pepper says, hey, guys, he's a high profile defense attorney
Speaker 1: joining us out of this jurisdiction the Pepper Law Firm.
Speaker 1: When he says the Gerards can't talk to each other,
Speaker 1: what we mean by that is they can't talk about
Speaker 1: the case with each other. They can say, Hi, what
Speaker 1: did you do this weekend? What time? How far away
Speaker 1: do you live? What do you have a family? They
Speaker 1: can talk about that, but how long is that going
Speaker 1: to last how long until somebody says, what is murnog
Speaker 1: eating at the defense table? What is that cracking sound?
Speaker 1: You know they're gonna talk about the case and then
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a mistrial. Guys, I want to get
Speaker 1: off of the T shirt and off of the candy
Speaker 1: cracking at the defense table. I want you to take
Speaker 1: a listen to our cut ten And this is more
Speaker 1: about the blood spatter. Why is it important? Because today,
Speaker 1: with their own witness their own witnesses, the defense is
Speaker 1: seemingly suggesting that they themselves were all wrong about the
Speaker 1: short shooter. Actually, the shooter is tall and on. Wasn't
Speaker 1: the top of a pause call missing? Yes it was?
Speaker 1: And Paul's face it wasn't blown off, was it? It
Speaker 1: was not? His brains weren't splatter all over the floor.
Speaker 1: His brain left his head and ended up being on
Speaker 1: the floor. There were some smaller pieces and other areas,
Speaker 1: and then a large piece in one area. Does that
Speaker 1: brain look macerated or splattered everywhere? No, but that brain
Speaker 1: has been extruded from the head. But when you zoom
Speaker 1: in on it, you can tell that there's injury to
Speaker 1: the brain. But the brain, yes, I agree, it's not macerated.
Speaker 1: That blood spatter on top of the door that looks
Speaker 1: like blood spatter at the top of the door, yes,
Speaker 1: and no bloods patter out there on the sidewalk from
Speaker 1: his brain being blown out from his head and his
Speaker 1: face being left intact right right though the brain would
Speaker 1: come out the top of the head. And the bloods
Speaker 1: patterns on the top of the door, right, that's blowback,
Speaker 1: that's from here, the pressure pushing a powards you know,
Speaker 1: Kelly's skin. They keep mentioning that the shooter would have
Speaker 1: to be covered in bodily fluid blowback blood. Well, that
Speaker 1: just backs in, that rear ends into the state's theory
Speaker 1: that Murdoch then went in and took a shower and
Speaker 1: changed clothes. It does beg the question of did Murdoco
Speaker 1: take a shower after shooting Maggie and Paul. We still
Speaker 1: do not know that it's unconfirmed, but that seems like
Speaker 1: the picture that the prosecution is trying to paint with
Speaker 1: testimony thus far. And it also seems like the defenses
Speaker 1: shooting themselves in the foot in a sense. With these
Speaker 1: witnesses today who have conceded on the stand that yes,
Speaker 1: the shooter could have been taller than Maggie and Paul.
Speaker 1: So it's in direct contradiction to what we were hearing
Speaker 1: from them last week that the shooter is two inches tall. Well, Kelly,
Speaker 1: Court me if I'm wrong, But hasn't there been testimony
Speaker 1: that Murdock was wearing one outfit in the afternoon, one
Speaker 1: outfit when the cops got there and there was a
Speaker 1: pool of water by the shower in the Moselle property
Speaker 1: bathroom and there was a damp towel and his shirt
Speaker 1: that he was wearing that afternoon has never been recovered.
Speaker 1: That to me, if it looks like a duck and
Speaker 1: it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck,
Speaker 1: it is a duck. He took a shower. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: have heard a lot about the outfit changes. We've heard
Speaker 1: a lot about what clothes was he wearing that night.
Speaker 1: Keeps close in his car, he keeps clothes at various
Speaker 1: different people's homes. Where are the clothes that he was
Speaker 1: wearing that night is a big, big, big question. So
Speaker 1: I mean to me, day Courseutina, I don't know about you,
Speaker 1: be blunt, but that fits head in hand with the
Speaker 1: fact that we believe that he went in and took
Speaker 1: a shower at some point. Yeah, I believe that there's
Speaker 1: a you know, circumstantial evidence to believe that he went
Speaker 1: in took a shower. I also believe that this was
Speaker 1: a planned event and that it fits the pattern in
Speaker 1: its totality of all the other information that the prosecution
Speaker 1: is trying to bring out, and it starts with his
Speaker 1: own financial insolvency and it evolves from there. The only
Speaker 1: thing Mark Pepper is but the timeline so tight between
Speaker 1: that video for a friend Rogan Gibson and immediately leaving
Speaker 1: for his mother's house, that doesn't give him time for
Speaker 1: a shower right there. But we know he changed clothes,
Speaker 1: and we know those clothes that Surett has never been recovered,
Speaker 1: along with the murder weapons go ahead, Mark, murder weapons
Speaker 1: certainly has not been recovered. But there's still two witnesses left, Nancy,
Speaker 1: and I'm not so sure that ce foam green shirt
Speaker 1: that we've seen on the tree snapchat is still missing.
Speaker 1: And I'm told that there may be one more trick
Speaker 1: up Dick's sleeve to show the lack of the investigation
Speaker 1: done by SLED. That's theme one, right two. Theme two
Speaker 1: is timeline. To your point, if today's testimony did anything
Speaker 1: for the defense to there to help them, it's to
Speaker 1: tighten the timeline up to where the state has already
Speaker 1: put it. You've got an eight fifty six excuse me,
Speaker 1: eight forty six snapchat phones go dead, and I believe
Speaker 1: eight forty nine if I'm not mistaken, and then we
Speaker 1: know the cell phone starts at ten O six. Between
Speaker 1: ten O two and ten O six, we got two
Speaker 1: hundred forty eight steps. I don't know that the jury
Speaker 1: is going to think that there's enough time for him
Speaker 1: to have made it all the way back up to Moselle, showered,
Speaker 1: disposed of the clothes, disposed of the weapons, and still
Speaker 1: be on his way to his parents' house. The defense
Speaker 1: better hope that the jury doesn't think that, because if
Speaker 1: they do, coupled with the financial four be stuff we
Speaker 1: talked about earlier, then I think the defendant is in trouble. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any way he could have taken
Speaker 1: the shower right there, go ahead, doctor Duprie. So, Nancy,
Speaker 1: I think that it's much more likely that he may
Speaker 1: have taken a shower earlier that night, as evidence by
Speaker 1: the clothes on the floor and the pool of water.
Speaker 1: But don't forget the hose was unraveled and there was
Speaker 1: water there. What was to prevent him from showering off
Speaker 1: right there at the scene, having closed in his car,
Speaker 1: ready to dispose of when he did go to his
Speaker 1: mother's house. You know what, you're so right, Dodge Michelle
Speaker 1: d Kelly's skin. We completely discounted what she just said
Speaker 1: about the water hose, and one of the first things
Speaker 1: that was noticed is the pools of water in the kennel.
Speaker 1: So that's exactly I mean, there's no way he can
Speaker 1: fit a shower in after the shooting get in the car.
Speaker 1: We know what time he got in the car started
Speaker 1: driving because it's on his navigation system from his suburban.
Speaker 1: There's not time for a shower there. She's right, The
Speaker 1: shower was earlier in the day go ahead, and pools
Speaker 1: of water that weren't tested, so we don't know what
Speaker 1: exactly was in that pool pool of water. Was alex
Speaker 1: DNA in that pool of water and something else? As
Speaker 1: we never heard from any of the any of Alec
Speaker 1: Murdoch's mother's caretakers. I'd be curious to know what's his
Speaker 1: hair when he showed up that night, because we've heard
Speaker 1: today from the defensive witnesses that Alec would have a
Speaker 1: bunch of spatter in his thick hair. So if he
Speaker 1: did shower off using the hose at the kennels, was
Speaker 1: his hair wet when he showed off at his mom's house.
Speaker 1: I'd like to know. That's a really good question. Go ahead, Nancy.
Speaker 1: This is Dan and I just have a comment. This
Speaker 1: case is extremely complicated in many ways, and I think
Speaker 1: one of the things leading to potential mistrial is the
Speaker 1: fact that will the jury be able to simplify this
Speaker 1: case and extract the science to put it into some
Speaker 1: believable judgment that they can make toward guilt or innocence.
Speaker 1: And certainly I can't speak for jurors. I don't know
Speaker 1: the jury i Q. I don't know where they come from.
Speaker 1: But I will say that when you get the little
Speaker 1: things such as in the feeding room, if you will,
Speaker 1: in the defense expert is bringing out that the partial
Speaker 1: footprints in the blood and around the feed room there
Speaker 1: should have been spray enhancements. If I'm sitting on a jury,
Speaker 1: I'm starting to ask questions about that. Why weren't the
Speaker 1: little things done in this guys, I want you to
Speaker 1: hear a little bit more of the testimony now in
Speaker 1: this juncture you hear a witness actually agreeing with the
Speaker 1: state experts in our cut twelve. So, I frankly think
Speaker 1: he was startled by that shot. White shoulder was the door.
Speaker 1: I mean, if he knew somebody was coming and or
Speaker 1: saw somebody coming, he would be facing the door or
Speaker 1: attorney trying to run, which he wouldn't have anywhere to go.
Speaker 1: But he was essentially facing this way and the doors
Speaker 1: this way. I don't think he even perceived it until
Speaker 1: he was shot the first time. And you asked the question,
Speaker 1: did I see any defensive injuries or any indication of
Speaker 1: defensive actions on hammer in the feed room? The answers no,
Speaker 1: What type of defensive indications have you seen in the
Speaker 1: past that would indicate that there was a struggle of
Speaker 1: some sort. Well, I think obviously your hands always kind
Speaker 1: of come up, and his hands would be going up
Speaker 1: in the direction of the shooter and the weapon. His
Speaker 1: hands coming up means that he likely they could have
Speaker 1: been injured. Certainly there could be gunshot residue distribution on them.
Speaker 1: Could that be the main difference so Kelly's can. I
Speaker 1: think it's agreed all around that Paul never saw what
Speaker 1: was coming. I don't think Paul or Maggie ever saw
Speaker 1: what was coming that night now, and that also suggests
Speaker 1: that if it were to be Murdoch, that he could
Speaker 1: get up close to them and their proximity in that
Speaker 1: small area of the feed room and they would not
Speaker 1: know what was about to happen, as opposed to an
Speaker 1: intruder that they had never seen before, someone coming up
Speaker 1: on them that would make them run. Kelly, what did
Speaker 1: you notice about the girars? How did they appear to you? Sure? So?
Speaker 1: On that note too, we also know from Alec Murdoch's
Speaker 1: own testimony that he says no one else was there
Speaker 1: that night that shouldn't have been, and the dogs were
Speaker 1: not acting like there was a stranger around just five
Speaker 1: minutes before Maggie and Paul's phones went silent forever. I
Speaker 1: saw some very interesting body language from the jury today.
Speaker 1: They saw a lot of graphic autopsy photos, and a
Speaker 1: lot of them had various different reactions. One juror literally
Speaker 1: pulled a blanket up over her forehead. Others were looking
Speaker 1: down somewhere wincing, and others were like very intently looking
Speaker 1: at the screen in front of them. There were very
Speaker 1: very graphic images. And I think something else that should
Speaker 1: be noted today too, is that when Dick Harpulian said
Speaker 1: he wanted the jury to go to Moselle, he wanted
Speaker 1: the jury to vote on that. The judge said, that's
Speaker 1: pretty unheard of. And also having the jury vote on
Speaker 1: whether or not to go to Moselle opens the jury
Speaker 1: up to have conversations about the case before deliberations actually start,
Speaker 1: therefore possibly leading to a mistrial. You know, to you,
Speaker 1: Mark Pepper, have you ever seen a defense attorney intentially
Speaker 1: insert reversible error into a case, such as suggesting the
Speaker 1: jarars conduct a vote as to whether they go to Moselle.
Speaker 1: That would absolutely shrigger discussion about the case, which is
Speaker 1: not allowed prior to deliberations. Right. I've never seen them
Speaker 1: insert purposely a reason for a mistrial, but I have
Speaker 1: seen them lay the traps for a mistrial, just as
Speaker 1: Dick did today and has done in some other arguments
Speaker 1: where they actually wanted some testimony in but they fought
Speaker 1: a motion to suppress that testimony to force the state
Speaker 1: to bring it up and then whether or not it
Speaker 1: opens the door. What Dick was doing this morning was
Speaker 1: trying to play the all shucks, judge, if the jury
Speaker 1: wants to do it, you know, I'd like to do
Speaker 1: it as well, But it's up to the jury. He knows.
Speaker 1: Judge Newman can't go ask the jury that. But what
Speaker 1: if you would have there's yet another appealable issue if
Speaker 1: there's a conviction, or if he would have said, yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: I'll do it. Did some mistrial, or if he says
Speaker 1: what he did, say no, that's unheard of. You know
Speaker 1: that if you want it, though you got it, you're
Speaker 1: setting the stage for a potential mistrial. That seems to
Speaker 1: be some type of strategy that the defense is employed.
Speaker 1: Remember these are the defense lawyers whose own client rejected
Speaker 1: their advice and said, I appreciate your advice, but I
Speaker 1: reject it and I will be taking the stand. These
Speaker 1: folks are doing everything they can to protect him. Now
Speaker 1: I suppose they're doing everything to make sure he doesn't
Speaker 1: get convicted in any scenario possible, and that's their job.
Speaker 1: What do you think about the two gun theory, because
Speaker 1: who better than Alex and Murdoch to come up with
Speaker 1: a mode of murder that would suggest to assailants. He's
Speaker 1: been a prosecutor, he's tried many, many cases, he's been
Speaker 1: in on investigations. Well, you know, he's not afraid to
Speaker 1: pull out his fake badge, put his blue light going
Speaker 1: in his private vehicle. If you wanted to fake out
Speaker 1: a jury, what better way than to use two weapons. Well,
Speaker 1: the only one I can come up with is that
Speaker 1: you hire somebody to do it. I personally give it
Speaker 1: all that background. You're absolutely right, he's a former prosecutor,
Speaker 1: some say current, he carries a badge. He obviously lives
Speaker 1: in the legal arena in that world, speaks the language.
Speaker 1: I still personally just don't think he's smart enough to
Speaker 1: have done this on his own. What I do think
Speaker 1: is that he used his relationships or is certainly that's
Speaker 1: a plausible explanation for as I drive off, the two
Speaker 1: shooters or one shooter comes up and the guns will
Speaker 1: be there, or maybe they already have them. You know,
Speaker 1: again we're speculating at this point, but that's exactly what
Speaker 1: the defense lawyers are going to do in their closing
Speaker 1: is offer some alternative explanations to just get the jury
Speaker 1: to hesitate to act as to whether to convict the defendant. Well,
Speaker 1: you know another thing, Dan Corcentina with me, former police chief,
Speaker 1: former sheriff, served on US Helmet Security Senior Advisory Board,
Speaker 1: now private investigator. Dan, I don't believe I have ever
Speaker 1: once seen a murder conspiracy or somebody didn't blab. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that's virtually impossible. Exactly in Colorado, We've had
Speaker 1: at least two or three murder for hires actually during
Speaker 1: my career that I've been involved in, and one of
Speaker 1: those individuals has shared information with a third party in
Speaker 1: the case was broke wide open. I mean, you're absolutely right, Nancy,
Speaker 1: someone's going to talk if that was the case. In
Speaker 1: my professional opinion, I think the question for me becomes
Speaker 1: on June seventh, between the hours of when we speculate
Speaker 1: this murder took place, why at that moment in time,
Speaker 1: when Maggie and Paul were killed, why is that so
Speaker 1: much outside the norm of Alex Murdock's plan for everything else,
Speaker 1: everything else he's done in his life has been orchestrated.
Speaker 1: There's been a pattern, and why isn't this part of
Speaker 1: that pattern? It just seems unusual to me. When you
Speaker 1: fit it with his personality, that there being anomaly here.
Speaker 1: And of course, guys, we're about to head back in
Speaker 1: the courtroom. But while this is not a standard of proof,
Speaker 1: it can certainly be argued by the state. Who in
Speaker 1: the world would want Maggie and Paul dead. The best
Speaker 1: the defense has come up with so far is a
Speaker 1: random vigilante for what because they read something a line
Speaker 1: and got mad and then decided to show up at
Speaker 1: the law hope there were going to be guns there
Speaker 1: and kill Paul and Maggie. It's crazy, it's outlandish, it's fantastical.
Speaker 1: That did not happen. So the jury is going to
Speaker 1: have to sort through potential motives as well. Okay, I'm
Speaker 1: hearing in my ear people are starting to kneel back
Speaker 1: into the courtroom. Let's go straight back to the courthouse. Everybody,
Speaker 1: we're alive here at Carleton County and we're going back
Speaker 1: into the courtroom. Thank you to the guests, and thank
Speaker 1: you to you for being with us. Goodbye, everybody.