Speaker 1: Hey, that folks. It is Wednesday, May thirteenth, and the
Speaker 1: double murder conviction of Alec's murder has been thrown out
Speaker 1: by the State Supreme Court of South Carolina. With that,
Speaker 1: welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. This is
Speaker 1: a breaking story just getting this news rope. Not sure
Speaker 1: how many saw this one necessarily coming, but how many
Speaker 1: days a week did we have to cover this story
Speaker 1: back at GMA when this was happening in twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2: Yes, when the murders happened in twenty twenty one. This
Speaker 2: captivated the nation because this wasn't look this is a
Speaker 2: tragic situation in any community when a mother and her
Speaker 2: son are murdered, but when the suspected gunman is the
Speaker 2: father and husband of those two, and then have it
Speaker 2: be a well respected, powerful family that was at the
Speaker 2: pinnacle of law enforcement for decades. Yeah, this had all
Speaker 2: the makings of a unbelievable, unthinkable crime story.
Speaker 1: This is one. This was a family, Yes, Alex Murda
Speaker 1: and the Murda family. This had all the makings of
Speaker 1: really a family and a legacy you only really see
Speaker 1: fantasized in movies or on TV shows, But they really
Speaker 1: exist and this is what that family was in that area,
Speaker 1: small community. They were judges, lawyers, they just it's a legacy,
Speaker 1: generational family there and they were the ones at the
Speaker 1: center of this. So, yeah, Ropes, this was a story.
Speaker 1: I mean, the murders happened in twenty twenty one, but
Speaker 1: arrests didn't come until a year later. So that was
Speaker 1: a year of people following this case and then following
Speaker 1: the trial. And now you're telling me, after all that
Speaker 1: we watched for a couple of years, the damn convictions
Speaker 1: have been thrown out. Now we should make clear here
Speaker 1: that does not mean Alex Murda is walking out of
Speaker 1: jail today.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, no no, because part of all
Speaker 2: of this legal saga was the fact that Alex Murdau
Speaker 2: had been charged with financial crimes of significant proportions to
Speaker 2: the point where he has forty years I believe for
Speaker 2: the federal charges and twenty seven years for the state
Speaker 2: charges for whatever that is, which one is, which the
Speaker 2: point being he's going or he is going to stay
Speaker 2: behind bars almost certainly for the rest of his life,
Speaker 2: regardless of this double murder conviction being overturned.
Speaker 1: Now I don't know where he's fifty seven, he said, right,
Speaker 1: so fifty seven, I don't know where any type of
Speaker 1: parole or chance to get out with those other convictions,
Speaker 1: But the double murder convictions were the ones that were
Speaker 1: going to keep him for sure in jail for the
Speaker 1: rest of his life. Ro This is significant, a significant
Speaker 1: legal win. It has to be for him and his
Speaker 1: legal team, even if he's not walking out of jail.
Speaker 1: But the South Carolina Supreme Court overturned these double murder
Speaker 1: of this guy who was convicted of murdering, Yes, his
Speaker 1: wife and his twenty two year old son. Now this
Speaker 1: how many justices is five and five? There was unanimous,
Speaker 1: so they unanimously agreed that yes, in fact, he should
Speaker 1: have those convictions overturned. He should get a new trial. Now,
Speaker 1: this guy ropes I actually I haven't followed that much
Speaker 1: since the conviction, but he has continued from the jump
Speaker 1: and even after conviction as we sit here, still claims
Speaker 1: his innocence.
Speaker 3: He says he is an innocent man. He says he
Speaker 3: would never, could, never harm his wife.
Speaker 2: And his son, and has pleaded with the jury, with
Speaker 2: the judge to say, please hear me. During his sentencing
Speaker 2: he pleaded for his life and insisted upon his innocence.
Speaker 2: But that is not what this case. That's not what
Speaker 2: this overturning of these convictions has. It has nothing to
Speaker 2: do with any presumed guilt or innocence. It has everything
Speaker 2: to do with how jury the Supreme Court has now ruled,
Speaker 2: was tampered with or wrongfully influenced.
Speaker 1: And that sounds when you say tampered, that is a
Speaker 1: really big word, right, jury tampering. But that is essentially
Speaker 1: what we are talking about. So you hear a case
Speaker 1: Robes that's been so carefully examined, so scrutinized, yes, in media,
Speaker 1: but also by a bunch of lawyers, any podcasts, and
Speaker 1: this thing has been covered inside and out. So you
Speaker 1: think of all these reasons, So why and you hear
Speaker 1: even jury tampering. Somebody's messing with the jury. I didn't
Speaker 1: know where this one was going, and I haven't been
Speaker 1: following it closely enough. But yes, somebody and not maybe
Speaker 1: who you would think is accused of messing with this jury. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I would have assumed if someone gave improper jury instructions
Speaker 2: or unduly influenced the jury, it would have been the
Speaker 2: judge or an attorney, but I wouldn't never have considered
Speaker 2: the court clerk. But that is the person who is
Speaker 2: now officially, I guess, responsible for improperly influencing this jury
Speaker 2: according to the Supreme Court. And yes, that clerk is
Speaker 2: the reason why Alex Murdaw is getting a new trial.
Speaker 1: And let's be clear here, folks, we hear clerk all
Speaker 1: the time when it comes to courtrooms and sometimes don't
Speaker 1: exactly understand what these folks do. But this person, it
Speaker 1: sounds like, certainly by what we know of court clerks.
Speaker 1: But then the descriptions they gave of her responsibilities, she
Speaker 1: had the ability robes and she might have had more
Speaker 1: influence and more interaction with this jury than anybody else
Speaker 1: because as the court clerk she served during this trial
Speaker 1: as the person who essentially handled all of the paperwork
Speaker 1: she handled, she was kind of a liaison to the
Speaker 1: jury is one way to even describe it. She was
Speaker 1: there person, She was kind of their go to as
Speaker 1: the court clerk, so she handled a lot of logistics
Speaker 1: moving them around. So she had a lot of time
Speaker 1: and a lot of influence with these folks. But why robes,
Speaker 1: Even if she does, why does she have a dog
Speaker 1: in the fight, and why would she want to influence
Speaker 1: the jury one way or another.
Speaker 3: Well, she had a book to sell.
Speaker 1: Yes, it all comes down to the same shit. Does
Speaker 1: it money?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Wow?
Speaker 2: I mean yes she according to all accounts, and the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court agreed. She suggested that Alex Murdau's own testimony
Speaker 2: could not be trusted. And yes, she was co authoring
Speaker 2: a book that was set to be released, So yes,
Speaker 2: she had skin in the game, so to speak, which
Speaker 2: I actually am surprised that the clerk of court would
Speaker 2: be allowed in any way, shape or form to profit
Speaker 2: off of a story and certainly a trial that she
Speaker 2: had absolute influence already over like to me, that is
Speaker 2: all almost tempting Fate's that's it's a tough situation to
Speaker 2: allow someone who has a legal and a professional duty
Speaker 2: to uphold the law on one hand, on the other hand,
Speaker 2: to be able to prom to allow that employee to
Speaker 2: profit off of a court case that seems like a
Speaker 2: mess in the making.
Speaker 1: They said she was. She's kind of just dropping hints
Speaker 1: about his guilt. She just keeps saying things in the air,
Speaker 1: putting things in their air. And the jury had to
Speaker 1: at some point afterwards they were questioned about this, so
Speaker 1: they explained what she did, but Roll just saying like
Speaker 1: watch his body language, or he can't be trusted, or
Speaker 1: he looks shifty, or the little things putting influence to
Speaker 1: taint this jury against this guy. Was that necessary? First
Speaker 1: of all, she could have probably.
Speaker 3: Let the evidence speak for itself.
Speaker 1: But what a shame, I mean that personal profit right
Speaker 1: it has thrown out. How much money was wasted trying
Speaker 1: this guy. You got to do it again.
Speaker 2: It's interesting you say that because in the Supreme Court's
Speaker 2: decision they acknowledge that.
Speaker 3: I thought it was so.
Speaker 2: Interesting the wording that they used in making this fairly
Speaker 2: shocking decision. Today, but they say, our justice system provides
Speaker 2: demands that every person is entitled to a fair trial,
Speaker 2: of course, which includes an impartial jury, untainted by external
Speaker 2: forces bent on influencing the jury toward a biased verdict.
Speaker 2: Although we are aware of the time, money and effort
Speaker 2: expended for this lengthy trial, we have no choice but
Speaker 2: to reverse the denial of Murdo's motion for a new
Speaker 2: trial due to hills improper external influences on the jury,
Speaker 2: and remand for a new trial.
Speaker 3: So they even said, like, hey, begrudgingly. We have to.
Speaker 3: We are forced to overturn these convictions.
Speaker 1: That's every once in a while. Don't get to say
Speaker 1: this a lot. Something gives you faith in the justice system.
Speaker 1: This is going to cost all of us more money.
Speaker 1: This is going to excuse me, South Carolina particular taxpayers
Speaker 1: a lot more money to do this again because one
Speaker 1: person decided to do what this clerk did and Robes,
Speaker 1: it's worth it for this man who already has got
Speaker 1: forty year conviction in the twenty seven year conviction for
Speaker 1: financial crimes, it's still worth it to make sure he
Speaker 1: gets a fair trial. Robes. It's exhausting sometimes, but man,
Speaker 1: that's a fair trial. That's something about it that gives
Speaker 1: you faith in the justice.
Speaker 2: Yes, I hear what you're saying, but I just feel
Speaker 2: for every person involved, from the prosecutor to of course
Speaker 2: the surviving family members. Again, know what shambles this family
Speaker 2: must be in.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I can't imagine there is a surviving son. He has
Speaker 2: some legal issues of his own. I mean, this is
Speaker 2: to have to go through this again, to live through
Speaker 2: this again, the people who loved members of this family,
Speaker 2: who have suffered unimaginable losses to finally feel like, Okay,
Speaker 2: he's behind bars. He's staying behind bars, and that is
Speaker 2: perhaps the silver lining for folks who feel emotionally upended
Speaker 2: by all of this. At least he is not getting
Speaker 2: out of prison. He is going to remain behind bars.
Speaker 2: As prosecutors and they say this is going to be
Speaker 2: a speedy recovery. They claim they are going to pursue,
Speaker 2: they're going to retry him again, and they're not going
Speaker 2: to waste time doing it.
Speaker 3: So there's that we got to do this all over again.
Speaker 1: But rope, So for that, I'm not sure exactly how
Speaker 1: this goes. And you know what, even if he didn't
Speaker 1: have the other financial crimes, I think we've seen stuff
Speaker 1: like this before. Even if they had overturned it, I
Speaker 1: don't think he would have been walking out of prison now.
Speaker 3: I highly doubt that.
Speaker 2: No, given his and look, he had incredible means, he
Speaker 2: had incredible power. So in terms of being a flight risk, yeah,
Speaker 2: and so yes, if the financial crimes weren't there, weren't
Speaker 2: keeping him behind bars, I have a hard time believing
Speaker 2: he would be let out while they get their ducks
Speaker 2: in a row to retry him.
Speaker 1: But still now Robes, he's got I assume appeals going
Speaker 1: on those other convictions. We don't know when he might
Speaker 1: be eligible for parole, eligible to get out, or if
Speaker 1: one of his convictions gets overturned or an appeal that's successful.
Speaker 1: You couple that, now, Robes with the possibility of having
Speaker 1: to go through a whole new trial. Yeah, where you
Speaker 1: throw your hands up, Robes, Who knows what could happen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was gonna say, what if the jury finds
Speaker 2: him not guilty. Look, the reality is there were no
Speaker 2: witnesses to this crime, and he says he didn't do it.
Speaker 2: And look, this was in a remote area. I believe
Speaker 2: it was their hunting property where his wife. Uh, and
Speaker 2: we should mention his the victim's Maggie. She goes by,
Speaker 2: But Margaret Murdaw Maggie is how she went by. And
Speaker 2: then Paul Murdau, who was just twenty two years old.
Speaker 2: No one wants to think a father is capable of
Speaker 2: killing his own son, and yes, his wife, we've seen
Speaker 2: that before plenty. But the allegation was the motive was
Speaker 2: that he was trying to garner pity from the community
Speaker 2: because he was being looked into and was potentially being
Speaker 2: charged with financial crimes, and so he was trying.
Speaker 3: To distract, deflect, get pity.
Speaker 2: That seems like a really hard motive to get my
Speaker 2: head around, but the prosecution proved it to a jury
Speaker 2: of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1: I said that to you as we were getting caught
Speaker 1: up again. I'm like, wow, I don't remember that being
Speaker 1: the motive, because it's such a it's hard to believe.
Speaker 1: I just want to help my reputation, So I'm going
Speaker 1: to kill these two people. I love, one of them,
Speaker 1: a son of mine that is robes hard to get
Speaker 1: you hat around.
Speaker 3: That's hard to get your head around.
Speaker 2: And then just the entire story itself, we were trying
Speaker 2: to remember because it.
Speaker 3: Has so many legs. His son Paul, who.
Speaker 2: Was murdered, he had an issue that created some of
Speaker 2: the investigation into his finances. I mean, this whole thing
Speaker 2: is just a complicated web of deceit and certainly legal wrangling,
Speaker 2: and it's just been an overwhelming story to try and
Speaker 2: cover and get through.
Speaker 3: So finally they had put this all to bed, and
Speaker 3: now it's all bubbling up again.
Speaker 1: It's bubbling up, but we've been mentioning at least the
Speaker 1: clerk and why that was addressed by the court. But
Speaker 1: there is another reason they cited as to why maybe
Speaker 1: Alex Murda needed to get a new trial. Stay here,
Speaker 1: all right, folks, we continue here on Amy and DJ
Speaker 1: at Breaking News episode. Here were just came down a
Speaker 1: short time ago before we hit the record button. Alex
Speaker 1: Murda is getting a new trial in South Carolina. Met
Speaker 1: some of these trials ropes, they get some of the
Speaker 1: same words. It was a case that captivated the country.
Speaker 1: It gripped the country. This was one of those things.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And look, their murders came right when we were
Speaker 2: coming out of her so kind of in the middle
Speaker 2: of a pandemic.
Speaker 3: So there was so much focus on this story.
Speaker 2: This was something that people almost watching sadly as entertainment,
Speaker 2: and it's become that Netflix series have come out of this.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is something that people have actually been
Speaker 2: consuming and just watching. But because it seems so unthinkable,
Speaker 2: it seems so crazy that someone would be capable, who
Speaker 2: had the means and the family and the power, why
Speaker 2: would you do what he was convicted of doing. It's
Speaker 2: hard to imagine.
Speaker 1: All Right, Well, at this point. He is no longer
Speaker 1: Robes as of today a convicted double murderer, because the
Speaker 1: state Supreme Court there has thrown out his double murder
Speaker 1: conviction has been overturned in ordered that he should get
Speaker 1: a new trial. We've been talking a lot about that.
Speaker 1: Did we say your name Becky Hill?
Speaker 3: Is her name Becky?
Speaker 2: I don't know if we even said her name, but
Speaker 2: Rebecca Hill goes by Becky.
Speaker 1: Yeah, she is the clerk we've been talking about. She
Speaker 1: is the one. I guess the centerpiece Robes really of
Speaker 1: why they say the conviction should be overturned, But they
Speaker 1: also mentioned it. I wonder, Robes, even if the clerk
Speaker 1: wasn't involved, did they have another good reason to overturn
Speaker 1: because they talked about a lot of his financial issues
Speaker 1: and his financial crimes that were used as evidence against
Speaker 1: him in the murder trial should not have come up.
Speaker 1: Had nothing to do with this trial, and these judges
Speaker 1: said it was improper for the judge to allow that
Speaker 1: evidence to be presented. Jury didn't need to hear anything
Speaker 1: about that. Got nothing to do with nothing when it
Speaker 1: comes to who shot these two people. So I wonder,
Speaker 1: even if you didn't have the clerk was that bar
Speaker 1: high enough well overturn and possibly.
Speaker 2: But you know what that means is that most likely
Speaker 2: won't now be in this new trial, and will that
Speaker 2: have an impact on what the jury decides.
Speaker 1: Damn At this point Robes, everybody's heard about it.
Speaker 2: And then I was just going to say, you've got
Speaker 2: now a further complication that there's almost I can't imagine
Speaker 2: you could find a jury of twelve who didn't already
Speaker 2: know about this case, didn't already have preconceived notions about
Speaker 2: this case, didn't even potentially follow this case. I don't
Speaker 2: know where they find a jury. I mean, I guess
Speaker 2: you just have to take the oath as a juror
Speaker 2: that you can suspend maybe even prior beliefs or prior
Speaker 2: knowledge about what you think happened, and sit there with
Speaker 2: an open mind and an open heart and listen to
Speaker 2: the testimony as if this is all new information to you.
Speaker 3: That's a tall order.
Speaker 1: Huh, That's what somebody now is going to have to do.
Speaker 1: Did you see a timeline at all on the retrial?
Speaker 2: Only only only by the fact that they said that
Speaker 2: they are going to quickly get this back on the
Speaker 2: court dockets and they want this to happen sooner rather
Speaker 2: than later, So you can only imagine that this is
Speaker 2: going to happen. I don't know what soon is though,
Speaker 2: when it comes to courts and our legal system, because
Speaker 2: that can mean very different things to different jurisdictions.
Speaker 3: Different It just depends on so many things.
Speaker 2: I don't know if they can decide just the court's
Speaker 2: schedule dictate when they can retry this and when they can't.
Speaker 2: Does this get priority over other cases? It might already
Speaker 2: have trial dates. I don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, folks, so yes, not a lot of answers now,
Speaker 1: but Eric, excuse me. Alex Murda got the response. At
Speaker 1: least he wonner from the state court. But that is
Speaker 1: a big headline today that one of the biggest court cases,
Speaker 1: one of the biggest murder trials we've seen in this
Speaker 1: country in the past decade. Certainly, now that trial didn't
Speaker 1: really happen, then that conviction has been tossed and Alex
Speaker 1: Murda is going to get a new trial. Just want
Speaker 1: to hop on and give be that breaking news update.
Speaker 1: But we always appreciate you spending some time with us.
Speaker 1: I am TJ. Holmes on behalf of my dear Amy Robock.
Speaker 1: We will talk to Elson