August 22, 2024 • 40 mins
In a significant ruling, the South Carolina Supreme Court will determine whether interference from a court clerk influenced the jury's decision to convict Alex Murdaugh of killing his wife, Maggie, and youngest son, Paul.
Murdaugh's lawyers allege that Becky Hill, the court clerk, attempted to sway the jury to secure a conviction in order to promote a book she is writing about the case, particularly focusing on the trial.
Concerns about potential jury tampering were raised during the trial. Trial Judge Clifton Newman addressed the issue in an in-chambers discussion with defense and prosecution attorneys, expressing concern that court clerk Becky Hill might have had inappropriate contact with at least one juror, who was later dismissed from the trial.
Following the trial, Murdaugh's attorneys sought to have Newman barred from hearing any appeals in the case; however, Newman retired before a decision was made. His replacement, retired Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, Judge Jean Toal, ultimately rejected the claims of jury tampering.
The South Carolina Supreme Court has now overturned Judge Toal's decision, meaning the state Supreme Court will consider whether Alex Murdaugh should be granted a retrial.
Joining Nancy Grace Today:
- Mark Peper – Criminal Defense Attorney, The Pepper Law Firm; X: @PeperLawFirm
- Dr. Bethany Marshall – Psychoanalyst; Instagram & TikTok: @drbethanymarshall, X: @DrBethanyLive, Appearing in the latest season of “Paris in Love” on Peacock – BOOK: “Deal Breaker: When to work on a relationship and when to walk away”
- Chris McDonough – Director at the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective; Host of YouTube channel: “The Interview Room"
- Dr. Michelle DuPre – Forensic Pathologist and former Medical Examiner, Author: “Homicide Investigation Field Guide” & “Investigating Child Abuse Field Guide”, Ret. Police Detective Lexington County Sheriff’s Department
- Jennifer Wood – Director of Research at FITSNews.com; X: @IndyJenn_
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Does it ever end with
this guy Alex Murdogg? Major twist? Will this double killer
actually walk free? I'm Nancy Grace, this is Crime Stories.
(00:24):
Thank you for being with us. I can see his brain. Gee.
(00:50):
I wonder why Alex Murdog because you shot him. That's
what a jury said. But now, in a stunning and
very upsetting twist, it looks like Alex Murdog could walk free.
How How is that possible? Because it appears if I'm
reading the two leaves correctly, what the South Carolina Supreme
(01:13):
Court is going to do is grant him a new trial?
Is that going to happen? So what am I supposed
to believe him and his lawyers or the court clerk
who is accused of wrongdoing?
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Hmm?
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Speaking of lying and who to believe?
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Listen, moilbo, I mean my wife? And oh no, well
(01:56):
you know, Mariam, I bear my sword, no bear ground
out at my perils. I'm really glad.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Okay, So let me understand I'm supposed to believe him
and his lawyers over the court clerk straight out to
Mark Pepper, high profile lawyer joining us, uh joining US
out of Charleston with the Pepper Law firm, Mark, I'm
supposed to believe him. You can hear him lying. The
(02:37):
jury found him guilty. He did you do you hear that? Uh?
It's my wife and my son and I like you
and I'm screaming and the carrying on. It's all lies.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
I don't disagree, and certainly the jury didn't. I mean,
as you may recall, he took the stand for what
seemed like forever. In everything that came out of his
mouth was a lie. I'm not so sure why anybody
would believe him at this point.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
Nancy, Okay, did anyone tell Mark Pepper he's supposed to
argue with me and take the other side.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
I'm happy to do that. Well, you may not necessarily
have to believe in Nancy. Maybe I don't either. But
if the Supreme Court of South Carolina believes that the
jury tampering affected the outcome of his trial, it may
not matter to them whether he was lying or not.
If his sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial
trial was violated, then they'll let him lie again on
(03:37):
the stand at a new trial. That's the issue this
before us, that's come out of this bombshell ruling last
week by our Supreme courts.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
I'm stunned. Hold on straight out to Jennifer Wood, joining US,
Director research at fitznews dot com, Fiitsnews fitznews dot com.
Who was really all up in this story from the
beginning about three inches up Murdock's tailpipe. Jennifer, thank you
for being with us. What is happening? How is this happening?
Speaker 4 (04:08):
You know, this is the story that will just never end.
But you know, really what we're looking at is the
allegations that Becky Hill, the Clerk of Court in Calleton
County now former Clerk court, tampered with the jury by
talking to them about the about the merits of the trial,
and that Wonder said that that affected her decision.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
One juror said it affected her decision. Jennifer Wood joining
us from Fiatznia's did that. One juror state it would
have changed her decision had that not happened, because that's
the standard, that is the legal standard.
Speaker 4 (04:46):
It's interesting how she phrased it. She said that she
felt influenced to find mister Murdoch guilty by Becky Hill's
remarks before she entered the jury room.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Well Jennifer Wood, You're absolutely right. Let's hear it from
the horse's mouth. Listen.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Was your verdict.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Influenced in any way by the communications of the clerk.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Of court in this case, yes, ma'am?
Speaker 3 (05:12):
And how was it influenced?
Speaker 2 (05:20):
To me?
Speaker 1 (05:21):
It felt like.
Speaker 5 (05:26):
She made it seem like he was already guilty, all right, and.
Speaker 6 (05:30):
I understand that that's the tenor of the remark she made.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
Did that affect your finding of guilty in this case? Yes, ma'am.
That sound was from our friends at wlt X. Hmm. Okay,
that is ger r Z who says that an offhand
comment by the Clerk of court, Becky Hill, affected her decision.
(06:00):
You know what, I find that really hard to believe.
Doctor Bethany Marshall joining US, high profile psychoanalyst and author
of deal Breaker. You can see you're on peacock right
now and she's at doctor Bethany Marshall dot com. Doctor Bethany,
how would an offhand comment by the calendar clerk, the
(06:22):
court clerk just kind of erase the weeks and weeks
of testimony you've had where alex Urla got up there
on the stand and was proven to be a liar,
proven to be a liar, and all that, all the
ballistics evidence, all the nav system evidence, all of the
(06:46):
digital evidence. Yeah, forget about that. It was because Becky Hill, Yeah,
watched him on the stand. Wait, that made her vote guilty.
Speaker 5 (06:58):
Nancy, that's giving Becky Hill a lot of power, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
You're right?
Speaker 5 (07:02):
Weeks of testimony, blatant lying on Murdoch's part, him getting
up and taking the scand himself and being so unbelievable.
Besides the fact, Nancy, there's wader before they choose the jurors.
These jurors are very well schooled and taught as to
how to engage in critical thinking when it comes to
(07:22):
a trial. It's not like they enter the jury pool
with absolutely no instruction. They're also a part of a community.
They talk to each other, they talk things over and then, Nancy,
at the end of the day, there's just common sense
when you hear all this testimony. Murdoch shot his wife
and son, the heineous nature of the crime. Why would
(07:44):
one comment from a court clerk override all of that.
It doesn't make sense. So I would wonder, you know,
what else is motivating this store. I'd have to examine
her in person to know, but it's something other than
the fact that she.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Was in Okay, what exactly aren't the claims? Because yes,
Becky Hill, and I'm not taking her side, and I'm
not taking anybody's side, but it's really hard for me
to think of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Hey,
the Caniar clerk, the court clerk made an inappropriate comment.
She told the jury to hurry up with a verdict,
(08:22):
and that somehow translates into a new trial. Yes, the
court clerk made a book deal for one hundred grand,
but does that mean Murdog is not guilty? How did
her having a book deal, which we may frown upon,
But how does her having a book deal get him
(08:43):
a new trial? Shouldn't she just be reprimanded? Why do
we have to have a new trial and jeopardize a
true verdict? I'm not getting it. What exactly are the
allegations because this is somehow turned into Becky Hill versus
Alex Murdogg. I mean, if that's my choice, I'm clearly
going to rule against Murdog, but the law must be
(09:07):
followed whether we like it or not. First, what are
the allegations listen.
Speaker 7 (09:11):
In a bombshell ruling, the South Carolina Supreme Court will
consider whether interference from a court clerk helped sway the
jury in convicting Alex Murda of killing his wife, Maggie
and youngest son Paul. Murdall. Lawyers say Becky Hill tried
to get the jury to convict Murdall to help push
sales of a book she is writing about the case
in general and specifically about the trial.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Okay, I'm hearing that, But Jennifer Wood joining me, Director
research Fitznews dot com. Yes, she had a book deal,
Yes she published a book based on the Murdog saga.
But what does that have to do with whatever she
allegedly said to the jury. What does she say to
them about a book deal? And how does she push
(09:52):
them to get a guilty verdict? And how would a
guilty verdict be more sensational than a not guilty. I mean,
I sat through the evidence as you did, Nifer Wood.
I was not surprised when they found him guilty. It
would have been much more of an explosion if they
had found him not guilty, like Totmom, like OJ Simpson,
(10:12):
like Robert Blake, the Shacker is they let him go.
So how does her having a book deal somehow equate
to them finding murdog guilty under duress?
Speaker 4 (10:27):
So testimony from Rhonda mcaleene, who is the Clerk of
court in Barnwell County, South Carolina and was in Callton
helping Becky out during the trial, was that Becky had
told her that a guilty verdict would be better for
her book sales. So that is the defense's argument that
she was motivated to sell more books and was pushing
(10:51):
the jury towards a guilty guilty verdict.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Okay, So because she made the comment, wow, my book
is a lot better if they found guilty, that has
been used to claim her comments to the jury. I
don't care if they were financially motivated. I don't like it.
But what matters is under the law, and correct me
(11:16):
if I'm wrong, Mark Pepper. What matters under the law
is did her comments, whatever the motivation be, did they
affect the outcome of the trial. But for those comments,
would there have been a different verdict? Isn't that what matters?
I mean, it doesn't matter her motivation as to the comments.
(11:40):
What matters is did it affect the verdict? Right?
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Mark, that's a great point. It doesn't necessarily matter what
she said. What matters is whether it prejudiced mister Murdoch,
the defendant in this case. How do we show prejudice, Well,
we have one juror saying that, but for the comments
made to me by Becky Hill. And let's keep in
mind it wasn't just that one comment.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
That's not what she said, Mark Pepper, that is not
what she said. Ah h, hold on, She did not
say but four.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
Well, I was gonna say. It's not a butt four test.
It simply did have an outcome on the verdict. In
other words, it was it a fair and impartial verdict.
And what this one particular juror is saying is that
she influenced my vote. She doesn't have to go as
for the law doesn't require you to say I would
(12:31):
have voted not guilty. It simply says she influenced my vote.
She is an outside for she works for Colleton County.
She's the clerk of court. She had twenty four to
seven access to these jurors. She also mentioned to them,
as testimony revealed the hearing that as he approached the
witness stand that morning to testifind his other defense, she
told the jurors, don't let him fool you. Don't let
(12:54):
him fool you. That juror has said those comments affected
her and therefore violated six minute right. The prejudice is
the only test that's going to before the Supreme Court.
I don't know that he gets more blatant than that.
When you have an elected official influencing the jury verdict
or at least one of the jurors, and it takes
all twelve a unanimous verdict in the state of South
(13:14):
Carolina to convict one of those was influenced by Becky
Hill's comments.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Name's Maggie Murdoch, okay, and what's your son's first name?
Is Paul Kerry Murdoch?
Speaker 3 (13:33):
Where they are?
Speaker 8 (13:35):
Yes, that's what it looks like.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Deja vou all over again. Joining me an all star
panel including Jennifer Wood from Fitz News to doctor Michelle
Dupree joining us for now forensic pathologists, medical examiner, former
detective with Lexington County Sheriffs and author of a brand
new book, Money, Mischief and Murder Them murdog Saga the
(14:02):
rest of the story, and she, like me, endured every
day of the trial, and it was painful knowing what
the evidence was to unfold, and then seeing Murdog on
that body caim where he's like crying and all upset.
He just shocked his wife and his son as his
(14:27):
son was trying to get away, and we believe Maggie
Murdog tried to stop him, and she's dead too, And
there he is crying and carrying on in front of
the police when they get there, when they respond to
that nine to one one call, doctor Michelle Dupree, we're
(14:48):
talking about Becky Hill and her book deal and oh
she's so awful. Okay, granted she should not have said
a word to the jury period, but good morning, there's
lunch and goodbye. That's it. According to Jerrr's she did speak,
and at least one of them says it affected the verdict.
Is that true? I find it hard to believe. But
(15:10):
if the juror says that, that's all the court has
to go on. Can we have a little reality check
about what happened to Maggie and Paul. And this is
why I'm so upset, what was done to Maggie and Paul.
Speaker 8 (15:26):
When Nancy, first of all, I actually attended that hearing,
and I saw that juror who said that, And I
have to tell you, I don't think she was that credible.
There was some questions. In fact, one of the other
attorneys actually wanted to bring her back, and Judge told
to Deny that he wanted to bring her back so
she could further explain her answer. So, I mean, this
(15:47):
is crazy. I think it's absolutely crazy. But what happened
to Maggie and Paul is horrific. They were shot by
someone that they loved, that supposedly loved them, and not
just shot, but shot.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
In a horrible way.
Speaker 8 (16:00):
He was shot at least four times, maybe five rifle
was shot twice with a shotgun. That is a devastating injury.
And I think many people cannot get their head around
how a father could do that to their son or
as he said, his child.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
You know, you stated that a shotgun was used as
a murder weapon. Explain why that is so barbaric, Nancy.
Speaker 8 (16:23):
That is so barbaric because the shot that comes out
of that is widespread. It, for lack of a better word,
it literally can blow someone's head off, and that is
approximately what it did to Paul. You see in the
photographs are showing this is brain matter, skull tissue. There's
no coming back from that. And to do this to
(16:46):
someone that you love, that is a horrific way to die.
And he was shot twice. Paul knew who was shooting him,
Maggie knew who her assailant was. This is unbelievable and
to have a new trial based on something like this
is absolutely unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
Brain matter, skull blood, Paul's head was blown off his body,
Maggie chased down and shot. Now the specter has raised,
(17:25):
he is set for a new trial. I'm just you know,
to Chris McDonough joining me, director of the Cold Case Foundation.
I found him on his hit YouTube channel, the Interview Room,
but important to me, former homicide detective with over three
(17:48):
hundred death inquiries under his belt. Chris, do you see
that photo? Blood was literally just absorbed by dirt. They
were gunned down outside there at the dog kennel. The
digital evidence places were like there. His own navigation system
(18:12):
in his vehicle places him there. We can even see
when he rolls his window down to throw Maggie's cell
phone out of his car to go alibi himself en
route to his mother's home where he stayed just long
enough to then go back to the dog kennel and
quote find end, quote the bodies and call nine one.
(18:36):
Chris mcdonnaugh, when you think about the barbaric nature of
these two murders on the mother of your two children
and your child, your child, it is just gut wrenching
to think, Chris mcdonnaugh, this is going to be reversed
(18:59):
over some off hand comments by the clerk.
Speaker 9 (19:02):
Yeah, Nancy, I mean, if we take this right in
its totality, this is a very barbaric act. The fact
that you have the mother of now her deceased child
is slaughtered in the same manner as the child herself himself.
(19:23):
And now you have the father, who is that individual
who's been convicted of this crime. Now think about this.
The father chooses a shotgun to blow the hat off
of his child, but he's he's not satisfied with that.
He does it again. He fires that shotgun again. That's
(19:46):
the crew de grag just to make sure that that
child is gone. And then that blood in the dirt,
that's Mom bleeding out from multiple gunshot or multiple gunshot wounds.
He's laying there. She may have witnessed her son being
murdered by her ex, by her husband and that child's father.
(20:08):
This is far barrack. And now we measure that against
two affidavits that were taken by the defense with these jurors,
and one of the jurors says, well, you know, we
didn't know we were going to spend the whole night
and some of us smoke, and we didn't know we
couldn't take smoking breaks during the deliberation process. This is ludicrous,
(20:32):
It really is.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
You know, doctor Bethany Marshall joining me, psychoanalyst and author.
You can see Ron Peacock now, doctor Bethany, just the
way that Chris mcdonna said that. And I'm going to
circle back to Jennifer and doctor Michelle about the wounds
to the victims. But what he just said, I don't
think I can't think of anything worse in this world
(20:58):
than to see harm come to one of my two children,
much less what Maggie witnessed. It's just when I think
about it, shooting not only your spouse, but your spouse and.
Speaker 5 (21:17):
Your son, decimating your entire family and Nancy. As Chris
McDonough was talking, the thought crossed my mind. When was
there a dawning of consciousness for Maggie? Was that split
second where she saw her son's head get blown off?
Did she realize what was happening? Did it just hit
her from out of the blue. You know, Alex Murdoch
(21:40):
is not attached to anybody, just himself. And when you
think about it, why did he kill them? Because he
had this elaborate Ponzi scheme going. He would spend money
out of clients trust accounts, and once you'd own that money,
then he had to sure more money from another client's
trust account and we know the story. It went on
and on, and now there was a trial coming up
(22:03):
in which he was potentially going to have to pay
more money because of his son, the Mallory Beach situation
with the boat being driven into the peer and the
girl that was ejected and killed. So like the Ponzi scheme,
he had to figure out a way to either smack
people out or get more money. And I think this
was a part of his mo in terms of killing
(22:23):
Makie and his son.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
And I've just better to the.
Speaker 5 (22:25):
Juror for a second. I don't think we can have
it both ways in our customs justice system. We can't
say I trust you, the juror, to make the appropriate
decision about whether or not this man is guilty. But no,
I don't trust you juror to be easily swayed by
somebody's comment. So is the jur trusted or is the
(22:47):
jur not trusted? Which way is it? So? I think
this whole whole thing is fallacious. Of argument about Becky Hill.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
You know Mark Pepper joining these high profile criminal defense
attorney and Mark, you can't even argue that this was
spur of the moment. He did a passion where he
got into an argument. It just went crazy and shot
them or shot one in anger and then shot the
other one because he didn't want to witness. Because he
lured Maggie to that location. They're hunting a lodge out
(23:17):
a mozelle. He lured her there. So this was planned
in advance. I mean, they had plenty of guns and
ammunition there, but he planned it. This was cold blooded
to murder his wife and son in cold blood.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
We watched the same trial, Nancy, and respectfully, I don't
recall evidence to that effect. I recall that there were
some cell phone downa that put him at the scene
within a seven minute window or so.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
But I don't recall oh Don just a moment. Pepper,
Jennifer Wood, let's correct, Mark Pepper. That's why he wins
all of his because his revisionist history revit his version
of the facts. Isn't it true, Jennifer from vis News
(24:10):
that Maggie told her friends, I don't know why he
wants me to go all the way out to Mozelle.
He wants me to come back to the Hohing Loss
and she was worried on her way out there. She
didn't want to go. Isn't that true, Jennifer? Would she did?
Speaker 4 (24:25):
He did want her to come out there, but it
was because his father had been admitted to the hospital.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
So yeah, now when I go to the hospital, Jennifer.
Speaker 4 (24:35):
That's a good question. Why not meet at the hospital?
I believe he was in Savannah, rather than have her
drive all the way to Hampton from out of Still
Island where their second home was.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
Alex murdog on path to get a new trial. Will
he walk free? I've got to decide. Am I believing
him and his lawyers or am I believing Becky Hill
the clerk. Now let's take a look at Murdog's credibility.
(25:10):
Remember this.
Speaker 10 (25:16):
Can't thinking now.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
One one ways your emergency? Oh sofa hatchie road?
Speaker 10 (25:22):
Okay, what's going on?
Speaker 2 (25:25):
I stopped.
Speaker 10 (25:25):
I got a flat tire and I stopped and somebody
stopped to help me. And when I turned my back,
they tried to shoot me. Okay, will you shot? Yes?
But oh may I'm okay.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
I'm shot in the head, but I'm okay. This elaborate
ruse for what insurance money? His lawyers then claimed he
had traumatic brain injury. But he shows up in court
a few days later with a band aid on his head.
And here he is lying to nine one one, and
(26:02):
then later through his lawyers, lying to the court about
his attack on the side of the road.
Speaker 10 (26:08):
Listen, you shot where where were you shut at?
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Huh?
Speaker 10 (26:14):
They actually shoot you, They're tied to shoot you. They
shot me. But okay, wait you need ems? Uh huh? Well,
I mean yes, I can't drive, okay, And I'm bleeding
a lot. When we're part of your body, I'm not
sure somewhere on my head you're not.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
Bleeding a lot. You're lying. You're actually fine. This was
all a setup arranged by Alex Murdogg. To get what else? Money? Money?
It's all about money, you know, I'm trying to understand,
Jennifer Wood. As you recall, Murdog set up to this
(26:57):
whole scheme where he would be shot on the side
of the road for money, and there he is lying
about it to nine one one, and all of this
came out at trial.
Speaker 4 (27:09):
It shure, did I mean when it happened? Shortly after
we realized that the vehicle he was driving actually had
run flat tires, so he claimed that he stopped a
change of flat tyre And quickly we realized that he
didn't even need to. That car would have kept driving,
so it really fell apart. And then during the trial
(27:30):
the prosecution managed to get evidence about that roadside shooting
admitted in testimony.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
Yet now Murdogg is on the precipice, the verge of
a new trial. To you, Pepper, what would that mean
if he got a new trial?
Speaker 3 (27:47):
We start all anew It never happened. None of the
testimony that has been placed under oath can never be
read into the record. Again, we start as if we
were way back in Jane, wary of last year, picking
a brain new jury, sending new summons out the question
will become can he get a fair and impartial trial
(28:07):
in Hampton County? Can he get it anywhere in the
state of South Carolina. At this point, if we get
a new trial by the Supreme Court, we've got a
lot of homework to do. Where is the venue going
to be, who are the how big is the jury
pool going to be? But they're going to have to
put up the same exact witnesses. And now Murdoch's lawyers
are going to have the Procetitut's playbook, They're going to
have seen all their cards. This is a very interesting twist.
(28:31):
It could very well not only grant him a new trial,
but render the opposite verdict this time.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Now there's the issue of an unauthorized photo taken of
Murnaud in the holding sale listen.
Speaker 7 (28:45):
Currently facing of ethics violations during her time as the
Clerk of Court, Hill has been been accused of arranging
a photo to be taken of Alex Murda when he
was being held in a holding cell. The State Ethics
Commission filed two complaints against to Becky for a total
of seventy six ethics five violations.
Speaker 11 (29:00):
The complaint against Hill has two counts, one that she
provided an individual with confidential information the photo of an
inmate in the Collegeen County Courthouse holding celle to promote
the sale of a book count two states. Hill filmed
a promotional segment with the Walterborough Chamber of Commerce president
or her book in her office at the Collegden County Courthouse.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
Jennifer Hill Fitz News. How does a photo of Alex
and Murdog in a holding sale and a promo she
shoots with the Chamber of Commerce, What does that have
to do with Murdoch getting a new trial? I don't
care about that.
Speaker 4 (29:34):
It goes straight to Becky Hill's credibility. So we keep
talking about how Murdoch is incredible because he lies over
and over again. But now we're looking at a seventy
six count ethics and ethics complaint that is being heard
by the Ethics Commission in December, and a lot of
those those ethics complaints have been referred to for criminal investigation.
(29:58):
So it you know, it's going to be very interesting
to see how that plays out. You know, Becky Hill
used that photo to promote her book, the photo of
Alex in his holding cell, and that came up in
the ethics complaint. Hill says that Gary Hale, one of
her employees, actually took the photo.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
So it is.
Speaker 4 (30:21):
It's they're all interesting and they all go to Becky
Hill's credibility.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
Crime stories with Nancy Grace.
Speaker 12 (30:36):
Did you see a part.
Speaker 3 (30:36):
Of the book?
Speaker 1 (30:38):
I did plagiariyce, mister har it is and for that
I'm very sorry and I have apologized.
Speaker 12 (30:45):
And that makes it okay.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
What I did, I did, and I apologized for that.
Speaker 12 (30:52):
And part of the book is you say literary license exaggeration.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
I wouldn't call it exaggeration. Okay. You're hearing in COURTTHRK
Becky Hill under cross examination by Murdog's defense. So we've
got her admitting that she plagiarized in part of her book.
The book was immediately taken off the stand. But how
does that equal a new trial? And by the way,
that sound was from our friends at w l t X.
(31:21):
So let's compare that to testimony from Alex Murdog.
Speaker 13 (31:25):
Listen a lot of Danny Henderson, I did light of Daddy, Julia,
Jenny Seconder, Yes, I did, Julio, and that Griswold I did.
July to Michael Gunn.
Speaker 14 (31:36):
I'm sure I did at some point, but Michael wasn't
involved in any of this, so I don't know that
any of this ever came up with michaelj.
Speaker 13 (31:45):
A lot of your clients use a lot of Pamela Pagney.
I did Natasha Thomas.
Speaker 14 (31:50):
I don't know that I'd dealt with Natasha, but I
certainly lied about that.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
A lot of the people he lied too, or his clients,
some of them even disabled getting big money settlements for
them and stealing it. You're hearing sound from the triump
from our friends at w l t X. But this pattern,
and you will recall this, doctor Michelle Dupree, seemingly goes
back at least to the death of teen girl Mallory Beach.
(32:19):
In that case, his son was on his Murdoch's boat
drinking to excess. Photos have emerged of that evening on
the boat. I went out on the water and saw
where Mallory Beach's body was flown through the air with
(32:43):
Murdoch's son speeding drunk at the helm. And this is
what we know. We know, Doctor Dupree, that witnesses state
that immediately after the boat crash caused by Murdoch's son
Murdoch goes to the hospital and tries to tries to
get the teens to change their story and not speak
(33:07):
to police. So that starts at the time of the
Mallory Beach death, the pattern of lying and subterfuge to
get what you want. Do you remember the death of
Mallory Beach, doctor Dupree?
Speaker 8 (33:24):
Absolutely, Nancy, another tragic accident that should not have happened.
Speaker 1 (33:29):
WHOA did you call that an accident where you're drunk
out of your skull and everybody's begging you to get
from behind the wheel, but you laugh maniacally and keep
driving until you hit cement pilings under an overpass and
Mallory goes flying through the air to her death. She's
fished out of the water about three days later, bloated,
(33:50):
bloated in purple. That's not an accident with every drink
that was intentional. That's a crash.
Speaker 8 (33:58):
You're absolutely right. I think that should be last fight
as a homicide. Unfortunately it usually isn't.
Speaker 3 (34:03):
But no, you're right.
Speaker 8 (34:04):
I mean, you know, Alex said everything he could, no
matter what it costs, no matter what it took, he
would lie his way out of things. And he has
a pattern of doing that since basically the beginning of time.
That is how he has lived his life, and it
just came to fruition. It came to light with the
Mallory Beach crash, and then it went down on hell
(34:25):
from there.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
Now another person is probably doing the backflip over the possibility,
the very strong possibility of any trial for Murdock is
Prosecutor Creighton Waters now here he is trying to rehabilitate
Becky Hill on the stand.
Speaker 3 (34:42):
At any time, did you.
Speaker 6 (34:46):
Interact with any juror in an attempt to influence their.
Speaker 13 (34:50):
View of the facts in the state of the Murdock case.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
No, all right, now I want to ask.
Speaker 6 (34:56):
You some specifics about that and some allegation that have
been raised. At any time, did you tell the jury
not to be fooled by evidence.
Speaker 3 (35:07):
Presented by mister Murdock's attorneys, I did not.
Speaker 6 (35:11):
At any time, did you instruct the jury to watch
him closely and look.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
At his actions?
Speaker 1 (35:16):
I did not.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
At any time, did.
Speaker 9 (35:19):
You instruct the jury or tell the jury.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
To look at his movements?
Speaker 6 (35:23):
At any time as the jury moved to deliberate, did
you tell the jury this shouldn't take long.
Speaker 1 (35:30):
That from our friends at w lt X. The problem
is this Mark Pepper, a high profile lawyer with the
Pepper firm. I may not well, I don't believe anything
Alex Murdoch says, and I did not observe any inappropriate
behavior on the part of Baker Hill when I was
there every day at the trial. But the law is
(35:54):
that if the appellate Court is not a try or
of fact, they've got to make their decision based on
the transcripts and the evidence given to them, and if
it looks like to them that Becky Hill had any
impact on even one gr R man, we're looking at
a new trial.
Speaker 3 (36:13):
That's correct, that's the test. We can talk about who's
a liar and who's not. All we want at the
end of the day, either Becky Hill is lying to
ar answer to create Waters or these jurors whom he
was reading their written affidavits to Becky and they're lying.
And our law is clear. If there's an outside force,
especially an elected official who you spend hours and hours with,
(36:37):
that has influenced your vote, then as a matter of law,
you did not get a fair and impartial verdict rendered
against you, and you are entitled to a new trial.
That is the law of our state. That is the
law of the United States.
Speaker 1 (36:49):
Let me give you an example.
Speaker 12 (36:51):
You indicate riding back from Mozelle that you and three
other people were in a car and you all decided Adam,
I think was the word you use, that he was guilty,
that he had killed his wife and son. Is that
what you put in the book?
Speaker 4 (37:07):
I can't remember if I put that in the book,
but if you say I did, then I.
Speaker 9 (37:10):
Will figure that happened.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
We did have a conversation about what each of us.
Speaker 12 (37:15):
Thought, and the all four agreed that he was guilty correctly,
and none.
Speaker 1 (37:19):
Of us were jurors.
Speaker 12 (37:21):
No trust me, I know that. But you had an
abiding conviction at least by the time of the Mozelle visit,
that he was guilty.
Speaker 1 (37:33):
That's for our friends at w lt X. Thank you
lt X. Doesn't matter what Baker Hill thought or believed.
What matters is what the jury believed and did she
affect their decision? For the appellate court, what matters is
is there an appearance of impropriety? Does it look like
(37:53):
she may have affected their decision? And if so, Alex
Murdock could be headed to a new trial and it
wouldn't be the first time there maybe jury tampering, whether
wittingly or unwittingly. Think John Gottie, the mob boss, Remember Gotti,
jury tampering, Haffa, Jimmy Hoffa, same thing, jury tampering. We're
(38:18):
still looking for his body. By the way, you know,
Chris mcdonna joining me, Director Cole Case Foundation, former homicide detective.
How sick does it make you to think of Paul
and Maggie dad shot the way they were, no mercy,
all the hard work put into that case. You remember
(38:39):
that trial, we lived through it together, and now a reversal.
Speaker 9 (38:44):
Yeah, I mean again, I go back to you know,
there's a huge difference of just you know, allegations of
state funds and using facilities as you know, ethics violations,
et cetera for you know, the clerk of the court.
But from an investigative aspect, I mean, just that one
nine to one one call from the shot earlier, you know,
(39:07):
just that alone was gold for an investigator. I mean,
first of all, he says, they shot me, Well, who's they?
Speaker 1 (39:16):
You know?
Speaker 9 (39:17):
And I think those are the kind of smoke and
mirrors that are taking place by the defense. And you've
got to give them credit. They're doing their job. But
at the same time, it is very frustrating to see
that they skip the appellate process and the Supreme Court
in South Carolina picks it up right away. But why
do they do that Because they shifted the law on
(39:39):
a federal cage and they applied that, you know, to
the to the motion. So yeah, it is frustrating, Nancy.
And you know, I hope the victims get justice here.
Speaker 1 (39:49):
But wouldn't you agree, Chris mcdonna, wouldn't you agree even
knowing the blood, sweat and tears that Ellie Law Enforcement
put into making this case that no matter what we
think of Alex Murdoch and no matter what he did,
the law is the law, and the law must prevail,
(40:12):
whether you and I like it or not, we serve
the law. Do you agree with.
Speaker 9 (40:18):
That one hundred percent? Nancy? And that's that's why we
always investigate information and not the person. And you know,
let's hope that the right information goes to that court as.
Speaker 1 (40:30):
It stands right now, I don't see a way around it.
We'll see as just as unfolds. Nancy Grace signing off,
goodbye friend,
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Does it ever end with
this guy Alex Murdogg? Major twist? Will this double killer
actually walk free? I'm Nancy Grace, this is Crime Stories.
(00:24):
Thank you for being with us. I can see his brain. Gee.
(00:50):
I wonder why Alex Murdog because you shot him. That's
what a jury said. But now, in a stunning and
very upsetting twist, it looks like Alex Murdog could walk free.
How How is that possible? Because it appears if I'm
reading the two leaves correctly, what the South Carolina Supreme
(01:13):
Court is going to do is grant him a new trial?
Is that going to happen? So what am I supposed
to believe him and his lawyers or the court clerk
who is accused of wrongdoing?
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Hmm?
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Speaking of lying and who to believe?
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Listen, moilbo, I mean my wife? And oh no, well
(01:56):
you know, Mariam, I bear my sword, no bear ground
out at my perils. I'm really glad.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Okay, So let me understand I'm supposed to believe him
and his lawyers over the court clerk straight out to
Mark Pepper, high profile lawyer joining us, uh joining US
out of Charleston with the Pepper Law firm, Mark, I'm
supposed to believe him. You can hear him lying. The
(02:37):
jury found him guilty. He did you do you hear that? Uh?
It's my wife and my son and I like you
and I'm screaming and the carrying on. It's all lies.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
I don't disagree, and certainly the jury didn't. I mean,
as you may recall, he took the stand for what
seemed like forever. In everything that came out of his
mouth was a lie. I'm not so sure why anybody
would believe him at this point.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
Nancy, Okay, did anyone tell Mark Pepper he's supposed to
argue with me and take the other side.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
I'm happy to do that. Well, you may not necessarily
have to believe in Nancy. Maybe I don't either. But
if the Supreme Court of South Carolina believes that the
jury tampering affected the outcome of his trial, it may
not matter to them whether he was lying or not.
If his sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial
trial was violated, then they'll let him lie again on
(03:37):
the stand at a new trial. That's the issue this
before us, that's come out of this bombshell ruling last
week by our Supreme courts.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
I'm stunned. Hold on straight out to Jennifer Wood, joining US,
Director research at fitznews dot com, Fiitsnews fitznews dot com.
Who was really all up in this story from the
beginning about three inches up Murdock's tailpipe. Jennifer, thank you
for being with us. What is happening? How is this happening?
Speaker 4 (04:08):
You know, this is the story that will just never end.
But you know, really what we're looking at is the
allegations that Becky Hill, the Clerk of Court in Calleton
County now former Clerk court, tampered with the jury by
talking to them about the about the merits of the trial,
and that Wonder said that that affected her decision.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
One juror said it affected her decision. Jennifer Wood joining
us from Fiatznia's did that. One juror state it would
have changed her decision had that not happened, because that's
the standard, that is the legal standard.
Speaker 4 (04:46):
It's interesting how she phrased it. She said that she
felt influenced to find mister Murdoch guilty by Becky Hill's
remarks before she entered the jury room.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Well Jennifer Wood, You're absolutely right. Let's hear it from
the horse's mouth. Listen.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Was your verdict.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Influenced in any way by the communications of the clerk.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Of court in this case, yes, ma'am?
Speaker 3 (05:12):
And how was it influenced?
Speaker 2 (05:20):
To me?
Speaker 1 (05:21):
It felt like.
Speaker 5 (05:26):
She made it seem like he was already guilty, all right, and.
Speaker 6 (05:30):
I understand that that's the tenor of the remark she made.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
Did that affect your finding of guilty in this case? Yes, ma'am.
That sound was from our friends at wlt X. Hmm. Okay,
that is ger r Z who says that an offhand
comment by the Clerk of court, Becky Hill, affected her decision.
(06:00):
You know what, I find that really hard to believe.
Doctor Bethany Marshall joining US, high profile psychoanalyst and author
of deal Breaker. You can see you're on peacock right
now and she's at doctor Bethany Marshall dot com. Doctor Bethany,
how would an offhand comment by the calendar clerk, the
(06:22):
court clerk just kind of erase the weeks and weeks
of testimony you've had where alex Urla got up there
on the stand and was proven to be a liar,
proven to be a liar, and all that, all the
ballistics evidence, all the nav system evidence, all of the
(06:46):
digital evidence. Yeah, forget about that. It was because Becky Hill, Yeah,
watched him on the stand. Wait, that made her vote guilty.
Speaker 5 (06:58):
Nancy, that's giving Becky Hill a lot of power, isn't it.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
You're right?
Speaker 5 (07:02):
Weeks of testimony, blatant lying on Murdoch's part, him getting
up and taking the scand himself and being so unbelievable.
Besides the fact, Nancy, there's wader before they choose the jurors.
These jurors are very well schooled and taught as to
how to engage in critical thinking when it comes to
(07:22):
a trial. It's not like they enter the jury pool
with absolutely no instruction. They're also a part of a community.
They talk to each other, they talk things over and then, Nancy,
at the end of the day, there's just common sense
when you hear all this testimony. Murdoch shot his wife
and son, the heineous nature of the crime. Why would
(07:44):
one comment from a court clerk override all of that.
It doesn't make sense. So I would wonder, you know,
what else is motivating this store. I'd have to examine
her in person to know, but it's something other than
the fact that she.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Was in Okay, what exactly aren't the claims? Because yes,
Becky Hill, and I'm not taking her side, and I'm
not taking anybody's side, but it's really hard for me
to think of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Hey,
the Caniar clerk, the court clerk made an inappropriate comment.
She told the jury to hurry up with a verdict,
(08:22):
and that somehow translates into a new trial. Yes, the
court clerk made a book deal for one hundred grand,
but does that mean Murdog is not guilty? How did
her having a book deal, which we may frown upon,
But how does her having a book deal get him
(08:43):
a new trial? Shouldn't she just be reprimanded? Why do
we have to have a new trial and jeopardize a
true verdict? I'm not getting it. What exactly are the
allegations because this is somehow turned into Becky Hill versus
Alex Murdogg. I mean, if that's my choice, I'm clearly
going to rule against Murdog, but the law must be
(09:07):
followed whether we like it or not. First, what are
the allegations listen.
Speaker 7 (09:11):
In a bombshell ruling, the South Carolina Supreme Court will
consider whether interference from a court clerk helped sway the
jury in convicting Alex Murda of killing his wife, Maggie
and youngest son Paul. Murdall. Lawyers say Becky Hill tried
to get the jury to convict Murdall to help push
sales of a book she is writing about the case
in general and specifically about the trial.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Okay, I'm hearing that, But Jennifer Wood joining me, Director
research Fitznews dot com. Yes, she had a book deal,
Yes she published a book based on the Murdog saga.
But what does that have to do with whatever she
allegedly said to the jury. What does she say to
them about a book deal? And how does she push
(09:52):
them to get a guilty verdict? And how would a
guilty verdict be more sensational than a not guilty. I mean,
I sat through the evidence as you did, Nifer Wood.
I was not surprised when they found him guilty. It
would have been much more of an explosion if they
had found him not guilty, like Totmom, like OJ Simpson,
(10:12):
like Robert Blake, the Shacker is they let him go.
So how does her having a book deal somehow equate
to them finding murdog guilty under duress?
Speaker 4 (10:27):
So testimony from Rhonda mcaleene, who is the Clerk of
court in Barnwell County, South Carolina and was in Callton
helping Becky out during the trial, was that Becky had
told her that a guilty verdict would be better for
her book sales. So that is the defense's argument that
she was motivated to sell more books and was pushing
(10:51):
the jury towards a guilty guilty verdict.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Okay, So because she made the comment, wow, my book
is a lot better if they found guilty, that has
been used to claim her comments to the jury. I
don't care if they were financially motivated. I don't like it.
But what matters is under the law, and correct me
(11:16):
if I'm wrong, Mark Pepper. What matters under the law
is did her comments, whatever the motivation be, did they
affect the outcome of the trial. But for those comments,
would there have been a different verdict? Isn't that what matters?
I mean, it doesn't matter her motivation as to the comments.
(11:40):
What matters is did it affect the verdict? Right?
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Mark, that's a great point. It doesn't necessarily matter what
she said. What matters is whether it prejudiced mister Murdoch,
the defendant in this case. How do we show prejudice, Well,
we have one juror saying that, but for the comments
made to me by Becky Hill. And let's keep in
mind it wasn't just that one comment.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
That's not what she said, Mark Pepper, that is not
what she said. Ah h, hold on, She did not
say but four.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
Well, I was gonna say. It's not a butt four test.
It simply did have an outcome on the verdict. In
other words, it was it a fair and impartial verdict.
And what this one particular juror is saying is that
she influenced my vote. She doesn't have to go as
for the law doesn't require you to say I would
(12:31):
have voted not guilty. It simply says she influenced my vote.
She is an outside for she works for Colleton County.
She's the clerk of court. She had twenty four to
seven access to these jurors. She also mentioned to them,
as testimony revealed the hearing that as he approached the
witness stand that morning to testifind his other defense, she
told the jurors, don't let him fool you. Don't let
(12:54):
him fool you. That juror has said those comments affected
her and therefore violated six minute right. The prejudice is
the only test that's going to before the Supreme Court.
I don't know that he gets more blatant than that.
When you have an elected official influencing the jury verdict
or at least one of the jurors, and it takes
all twelve a unanimous verdict in the state of South
(13:14):
Carolina to convict one of those was influenced by Becky
Hill's comments.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Name's Maggie Murdoch, okay, and what's your son's first name?
Is Paul Kerry Murdoch?
Speaker 3 (13:33):
Where they are?
Speaker 8 (13:35):
Yes, that's what it looks like.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Deja vou all over again. Joining me an all star
panel including Jennifer Wood from Fitz News to doctor Michelle
Dupree joining us for now forensic pathologists, medical examiner, former
detective with Lexington County Sheriffs and author of a brand
new book, Money, Mischief and Murder Them murdog Saga the
(14:02):
rest of the story, and she, like me, endured every
day of the trial, and it was painful knowing what
the evidence was to unfold, and then seeing Murdog on
that body caim where he's like crying and all upset.
He just shocked his wife and his son as his
(14:27):
son was trying to get away, and we believe Maggie
Murdog tried to stop him, and she's dead too, And
there he is crying and carrying on in front of
the police when they get there, when they respond to
that nine to one one call, doctor Michelle Dupree, we're
(14:48):
talking about Becky Hill and her book deal and oh
she's so awful. Okay, granted she should not have said
a word to the jury period, but good morning, there's
lunch and goodbye. That's it. According to Jerrr's she did speak,
and at least one of them says it affected the verdict.
Is that true? I find it hard to believe. But
(15:10):
if the juror says that, that's all the court has
to go on. Can we have a little reality check
about what happened to Maggie and Paul. And this is
why I'm so upset, what was done to Maggie and Paul.
Speaker 8 (15:26):
When Nancy, first of all, I actually attended that hearing,
and I saw that juror who said that, And I
have to tell you, I don't think she was that credible.
There was some questions. In fact, one of the other
attorneys actually wanted to bring her back, and Judge told
to Deny that he wanted to bring her back so
she could further explain her answer. So, I mean, this
(15:47):
is crazy. I think it's absolutely crazy. But what happened
to Maggie and Paul is horrific. They were shot by
someone that they loved, that supposedly loved them, and not
just shot, but shot.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
In a horrible way.
Speaker 8 (16:00):
He was shot at least four times, maybe five rifle
was shot twice with a shotgun. That is a devastating injury.
And I think many people cannot get their head around
how a father could do that to their son or
as he said, his child.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
You know, you stated that a shotgun was used as
a murder weapon. Explain why that is so barbaric, Nancy.
Speaker 8 (16:23):
That is so barbaric because the shot that comes out
of that is widespread. It, for lack of a better word,
it literally can blow someone's head off, and that is
approximately what it did to Paul. You see in the
photographs are showing this is brain matter, skull tissue. There's
no coming back from that. And to do this to
(16:46):
someone that you love, that is a horrific way to die.
And he was shot twice. Paul knew who was shooting him,
Maggie knew who her assailant was. This is unbelievable and
to have a new trial based on something like this
is absolutely unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
Brain matter, skull blood, Paul's head was blown off his body,
Maggie chased down and shot. Now the specter has raised,
(17:25):
he is set for a new trial. I'm just you know,
to Chris McDonough joining me, director of the Cold Case Foundation.
I found him on his hit YouTube channel, the Interview Room,
but important to me, former homicide detective with over three
(17:48):
hundred death inquiries under his belt. Chris, do you see
that photo? Blood was literally just absorbed by dirt. They
were gunned down outside there at the dog kennel. The
digital evidence places were like there. His own navigation system
(18:12):
in his vehicle places him there. We can even see
when he rolls his window down to throw Maggie's cell
phone out of his car to go alibi himself en
route to his mother's home where he stayed just long
enough to then go back to the dog kennel and
quote find end, quote the bodies and call nine one.
(18:36):
Chris mcdonnaugh, when you think about the barbaric nature of
these two murders on the mother of your two children
and your child, your child, it is just gut wrenching
to think, Chris mcdonnaugh, this is going to be reversed
(18:59):
over some off hand comments by the clerk.
Speaker 9 (19:02):
Yeah, Nancy, I mean, if we take this right in
its totality, this is a very barbaric act. The fact
that you have the mother of now her deceased child
is slaughtered in the same manner as the child herself himself.
(19:23):
And now you have the father, who is that individual
who's been convicted of this crime. Now think about this.
The father chooses a shotgun to blow the hat off
of his child, but he's he's not satisfied with that.
He does it again. He fires that shotgun again. That's
(19:46):
the crew de grag just to make sure that that
child is gone. And then that blood in the dirt,
that's Mom bleeding out from multiple gunshot or multiple gunshot wounds.
He's laying there. She may have witnessed her son being
murdered by her ex, by her husband and that child's father.
(20:08):
This is far barrack. And now we measure that against
two affidavits that were taken by the defense with these jurors,
and one of the jurors says, well, you know, we
didn't know we were going to spend the whole night
and some of us smoke, and we didn't know we
couldn't take smoking breaks during the deliberation process. This is ludicrous,
(20:32):
It really is.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
You know, doctor Bethany Marshall joining me, psychoanalyst and author.
You can see Ron Peacock now, doctor Bethany, just the
way that Chris mcdonna said that. And I'm going to
circle back to Jennifer and doctor Michelle about the wounds
to the victims. But what he just said, I don't
think I can't think of anything worse in this world
(20:58):
than to see harm come to one of my two children,
much less what Maggie witnessed. It's just when I think
about it, shooting not only your spouse, but your spouse and.
Speaker 5 (21:17):
Your son, decimating your entire family and Nancy. As Chris
McDonough was talking, the thought crossed my mind. When was
there a dawning of consciousness for Maggie? Was that split
second where she saw her son's head get blown off?
Did she realize what was happening? Did it just hit
her from out of the blue. You know, Alex Murdoch
(21:40):
is not attached to anybody, just himself. And when you
think about it, why did he kill them? Because he
had this elaborate Ponzi scheme going. He would spend money
out of clients trust accounts, and once you'd own that money,
then he had to sure more money from another client's
trust account and we know the story. It went on
and on, and now there was a trial coming up
(22:03):
in which he was potentially going to have to pay
more money because of his son, the Mallory Beach situation
with the boat being driven into the peer and the
girl that was ejected and killed. So like the Ponzi scheme,
he had to figure out a way to either smack
people out or get more money. And I think this
was a part of his mo in terms of killing
(22:23):
Makie and his son.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
And I've just better to the.
Speaker 5 (22:25):
Juror for a second. I don't think we can have
it both ways in our customs justice system. We can't
say I trust you, the juror, to make the appropriate
decision about whether or not this man is guilty. But no,
I don't trust you juror to be easily swayed by
somebody's comment. So is the jur trusted or is the
(22:47):
jur not trusted? Which way is it? So? I think
this whole whole thing is fallacious. Of argument about Becky Hill.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
You know Mark Pepper joining these high profile criminal defense
attorney and Mark, you can't even argue that this was
spur of the moment. He did a passion where he
got into an argument. It just went crazy and shot
them or shot one in anger and then shot the
other one because he didn't want to witness. Because he
lured Maggie to that location. They're hunting a lodge out
(23:17):
a mozelle. He lured her there. So this was planned
in advance. I mean, they had plenty of guns and
ammunition there, but he planned it. This was cold blooded
to murder his wife and son in cold blood.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
We watched the same trial, Nancy, and respectfully, I don't
recall evidence to that effect. I recall that there were
some cell phone downa that put him at the scene
within a seven minute window or so.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
But I don't recall oh Don just a moment. Pepper,
Jennifer Wood, let's correct, Mark Pepper. That's why he wins
all of his because his revisionist history revit his version
of the facts. Isn't it true, Jennifer from vis News
(24:10):
that Maggie told her friends, I don't know why he
wants me to go all the way out to Mozelle.
He wants me to come back to the Hohing Loss
and she was worried on her way out there. She
didn't want to go. Isn't that true, Jennifer? Would she did?
Speaker 4 (24:25):
He did want her to come out there, but it
was because his father had been admitted to the hospital.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
So yeah, now when I go to the hospital, Jennifer.
Speaker 4 (24:35):
That's a good question. Why not meet at the hospital?
I believe he was in Savannah, rather than have her
drive all the way to Hampton from out of Still
Island where their second home was.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
Alex murdog on path to get a new trial. Will
he walk free? I've got to decide. Am I believing
him and his lawyers or am I believing Becky Hill
the clerk. Now let's take a look at Murdog's credibility.
(25:10):
Remember this.
Speaker 10 (25:16):
Can't thinking now.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
One one ways your emergency? Oh sofa hatchie road?
Speaker 10 (25:22):
Okay, what's going on?
Speaker 2 (25:25):
I stopped.
Speaker 10 (25:25):
I got a flat tire and I stopped and somebody
stopped to help me. And when I turned my back,
they tried to shoot me. Okay, will you shot? Yes?
But oh may I'm okay.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
I'm shot in the head, but I'm okay. This elaborate
ruse for what insurance money? His lawyers then claimed he
had traumatic brain injury. But he shows up in court
a few days later with a band aid on his head.
And here he is lying to nine one one, and
(26:02):
then later through his lawyers, lying to the court about
his attack on the side of the road.
Speaker 10 (26:08):
Listen, you shot where where were you shut at?
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Huh?
Speaker 10 (26:14):
They actually shoot you, They're tied to shoot you. They
shot me. But okay, wait you need ems? Uh huh? Well,
I mean yes, I can't drive, okay, And I'm bleeding
a lot. When we're part of your body, I'm not
sure somewhere on my head you're not.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
Bleeding a lot. You're lying. You're actually fine. This was
all a setup arranged by Alex Murdogg. To get what else? Money? Money?
It's all about money, you know, I'm trying to understand,
Jennifer Wood. As you recall, Murdog set up to this
(26:57):
whole scheme where he would be shot on the side
of the road for money, and there he is lying
about it to nine one one, and all of this
came out at trial.
Speaker 4 (27:09):
It shure, did I mean when it happened? Shortly after
we realized that the vehicle he was driving actually had
run flat tires, so he claimed that he stopped a
change of flat tyre And quickly we realized that he
didn't even need to. That car would have kept driving,
so it really fell apart. And then during the trial
(27:30):
the prosecution managed to get evidence about that roadside shooting
admitted in testimony.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
Yet now Murdogg is on the precipice, the verge of
a new trial. To you, Pepper, what would that mean
if he got a new trial?
Speaker 3 (27:47):
We start all anew It never happened. None of the
testimony that has been placed under oath can never be
read into the record. Again, we start as if we
were way back in Jane, wary of last year, picking
a brain new jury, sending new summons out the question
will become can he get a fair and impartial trial
(28:07):
in Hampton County? Can he get it anywhere in the
state of South Carolina. At this point, if we get
a new trial by the Supreme Court, we've got a
lot of homework to do. Where is the venue going
to be, who are the how big is the jury
pool going to be? But they're going to have to
put up the same exact witnesses. And now Murdoch's lawyers
are going to have the Procetitut's playbook, They're going to
have seen all their cards. This is a very interesting twist.
(28:31):
It could very well not only grant him a new trial,
but render the opposite verdict this time.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Now there's the issue of an unauthorized photo taken of
Murnaud in the holding sale listen.
Speaker 7 (28:45):
Currently facing of ethics violations during her time as the
Clerk of Court, Hill has been been accused of arranging
a photo to be taken of Alex Murda when he
was being held in a holding cell. The State Ethics
Commission filed two complaints against to Becky for a total
of seventy six ethics five violations.
Speaker 11 (29:00):
The complaint against Hill has two counts, one that she
provided an individual with confidential information the photo of an
inmate in the Collegeen County Courthouse holding celle to promote
the sale of a book count two states. Hill filmed
a promotional segment with the Walterborough Chamber of Commerce president
or her book in her office at the Collegden County Courthouse.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
Jennifer Hill Fitz News. How does a photo of Alex
and Murdog in a holding sale and a promo she
shoots with the Chamber of Commerce, What does that have
to do with Murdoch getting a new trial? I don't
care about that.
Speaker 4 (29:34):
It goes straight to Becky Hill's credibility. So we keep
talking about how Murdoch is incredible because he lies over
and over again. But now we're looking at a seventy
six count ethics and ethics complaint that is being heard
by the Ethics Commission in December, and a lot of
those those ethics complaints have been referred to for criminal investigation.
(29:58):
So it you know, it's going to be very interesting
to see how that plays out. You know, Becky Hill
used that photo to promote her book, the photo of
Alex in his holding cell, and that came up in
the ethics complaint. Hill says that Gary Hale, one of
her employees, actually took the photo.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
So it is.
Speaker 4 (30:21):
It's they're all interesting and they all go to Becky
Hill's credibility.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
Crime stories with Nancy Grace.
Speaker 12 (30:36):
Did you see a part.
Speaker 3 (30:36):
Of the book?
Speaker 1 (30:38):
I did plagiariyce, mister har it is and for that
I'm very sorry and I have apologized.
Speaker 12 (30:45):
And that makes it okay.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
What I did, I did, and I apologized for that.
Speaker 12 (30:52):
And part of the book is you say literary license exaggeration.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
I wouldn't call it exaggeration. Okay. You're hearing in COURTTHRK
Becky Hill under cross examination by Murdog's defense. So we've
got her admitting that she plagiarized in part of her book.
The book was immediately taken off the stand. But how
does that equal a new trial? And by the way,
that sound was from our friends at w l t X.
(31:21):
So let's compare that to testimony from Alex Murdog.
Speaker 13 (31:25):
Listen a lot of Danny Henderson, I did light of Daddy, Julia,
Jenny Seconder, Yes, I did, Julio, and that Griswold I did.
July to Michael Gunn.
Speaker 14 (31:36):
I'm sure I did at some point, but Michael wasn't
involved in any of this, so I don't know that
any of this ever came up with michaelj.
Speaker 13 (31:45):
A lot of your clients use a lot of Pamela Pagney.
I did Natasha Thomas.
Speaker 14 (31:50):
I don't know that I'd dealt with Natasha, but I
certainly lied about that.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
A lot of the people he lied too, or his clients,
some of them even disabled getting big money settlements for
them and stealing it. You're hearing sound from the triump
from our friends at w l t X. But this pattern,
and you will recall this, doctor Michelle Dupree, seemingly goes
back at least to the death of teen girl Mallory Beach.
(32:19):
In that case, his son was on his Murdoch's boat
drinking to excess. Photos have emerged of that evening on
the boat. I went out on the water and saw
where Mallory Beach's body was flown through the air with
(32:43):
Murdoch's son speeding drunk at the helm. And this is
what we know. We know, Doctor Dupree, that witnesses state
that immediately after the boat crash caused by Murdoch's son
Murdoch goes to the hospital and tries to tries to
get the teens to change their story and not speak
(33:07):
to police. So that starts at the time of the
Mallory Beach death, the pattern of lying and subterfuge to
get what you want. Do you remember the death of
Mallory Beach, doctor Dupree?
Speaker 8 (33:24):
Absolutely, Nancy, another tragic accident that should not have happened.
Speaker 1 (33:29):
WHOA did you call that an accident where you're drunk
out of your skull and everybody's begging you to get
from behind the wheel, but you laugh maniacally and keep
driving until you hit cement pilings under an overpass and
Mallory goes flying through the air to her death. She's
fished out of the water about three days later, bloated,
(33:50):
bloated in purple. That's not an accident with every drink
that was intentional. That's a crash.
Speaker 8 (33:58):
You're absolutely right. I think that should be last fight
as a homicide. Unfortunately it usually isn't.
Speaker 3 (34:03):
But no, you're right.
Speaker 8 (34:04):
I mean, you know, Alex said everything he could, no
matter what it costs, no matter what it took, he
would lie his way out of things. And he has
a pattern of doing that since basically the beginning of time.
That is how he has lived his life, and it
just came to fruition. It came to light with the
Mallory Beach crash, and then it went down on hell
(34:25):
from there.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
Now another person is probably doing the backflip over the possibility,
the very strong possibility of any trial for Murdock is
Prosecutor Creighton Waters now here he is trying to rehabilitate
Becky Hill on the stand.
Speaker 3 (34:42):
At any time, did you.
Speaker 6 (34:46):
Interact with any juror in an attempt to influence their.
Speaker 13 (34:50):
View of the facts in the state of the Murdock case.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
No, all right, now I want to ask.
Speaker 6 (34:56):
You some specifics about that and some allegation that have
been raised. At any time, did you tell the jury
not to be fooled by evidence.
Speaker 3 (35:07):
Presented by mister Murdock's attorneys, I did not.
Speaker 6 (35:11):
At any time, did you instruct the jury to watch
him closely and look.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
At his actions?
Speaker 1 (35:16):
I did not.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
At any time, did.
Speaker 9 (35:19):
You instruct the jury or tell the jury.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
To look at his movements?
Speaker 6 (35:23):
At any time as the jury moved to deliberate, did
you tell the jury this shouldn't take long.
Speaker 1 (35:30):
That from our friends at w lt X. The problem
is this Mark Pepper, a high profile lawyer with the
Pepper firm. I may not well, I don't believe anything
Alex Murdoch says, and I did not observe any inappropriate
behavior on the part of Baker Hill when I was
there every day at the trial. But the law is
(35:54):
that if the appellate Court is not a try or
of fact, they've got to make their decision based on
the transcripts and the evidence given to them, and if
it looks like to them that Becky Hill had any
impact on even one gr R man, we're looking at
a new trial.
Speaker 3 (36:13):
That's correct, that's the test. We can talk about who's
a liar and who's not. All we want at the
end of the day, either Becky Hill is lying to
ar answer to create Waters or these jurors whom he
was reading their written affidavits to Becky and they're lying.
And our law is clear. If there's an outside force,
especially an elected official who you spend hours and hours with,
(36:37):
that has influenced your vote, then as a matter of law,
you did not get a fair and impartial verdict rendered
against you, and you are entitled to a new trial.
That is the law of our state. That is the
law of the United States.
Speaker 1 (36:49):
Let me give you an example.
Speaker 12 (36:51):
You indicate riding back from Mozelle that you and three
other people were in a car and you all decided Adam,
I think was the word you use, that he was guilty,
that he had killed his wife and son. Is that
what you put in the book?
Speaker 4 (37:07):
I can't remember if I put that in the book,
but if you say I did, then I.
Speaker 9 (37:10):
Will figure that happened.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
We did have a conversation about what each of us.
Speaker 12 (37:15):
Thought, and the all four agreed that he was guilty correctly,
and none.
Speaker 1 (37:19):
Of us were jurors.
Speaker 12 (37:21):
No trust me, I know that. But you had an
abiding conviction at least by the time of the Mozelle visit,
that he was guilty.
Speaker 1 (37:33):
That's for our friends at w lt X. Thank you
lt X. Doesn't matter what Baker Hill thought or believed.
What matters is what the jury believed and did she
affect their decision? For the appellate court, what matters is
is there an appearance of impropriety? Does it look like
(37:53):
she may have affected their decision? And if so, Alex
Murdock could be headed to a new trial and it
wouldn't be the first time there maybe jury tampering, whether
wittingly or unwittingly. Think John Gottie, the mob boss, Remember Gotti,
jury tampering, Haffa, Jimmy Hoffa, same thing, jury tampering. We're
(38:18):
still looking for his body. By the way, you know,
Chris mcdonna joining me, Director Cole Case Foundation, former homicide detective.
How sick does it make you to think of Paul
and Maggie dad shot the way they were, no mercy,
all the hard work put into that case. You remember
(38:39):
that trial, we lived through it together, and now a reversal.
Speaker 9 (38:44):
Yeah, I mean again, I go back to you know,
there's a huge difference of just you know, allegations of
state funds and using facilities as you know, ethics violations,
et cetera for you know, the clerk of the court.
But from an investigative aspect, I mean, just that one
nine to one one call from the shot earlier, you know,
(39:07):
just that alone was gold for an investigator. I mean,
first of all, he says, they shot me, Well, who's they?
Speaker 1 (39:16):
You know?
Speaker 9 (39:17):
And I think those are the kind of smoke and
mirrors that are taking place by the defense. And you've
got to give them credit. They're doing their job. But
at the same time, it is very frustrating to see
that they skip the appellate process and the Supreme Court
in South Carolina picks it up right away. But why
do they do that Because they shifted the law on
(39:39):
a federal cage and they applied that, you know, to
the to the motion. So yeah, it is frustrating, Nancy.
And you know, I hope the victims get justice here.
Speaker 1 (39:49):
But wouldn't you agree, Chris mcdonna, wouldn't you agree even
knowing the blood, sweat and tears that Ellie Law Enforcement
put into making this case that no matter what we
think of Alex Murdoch and no matter what he did,
the law is the law, and the law must prevail,
(40:12):
whether you and I like it or not, we serve
the law. Do you agree with.
Speaker 9 (40:18):
That one hundred percent? Nancy? And that's that's why we
always investigate information and not the person. And you know,
let's hope that the right information goes to that court as.
Speaker 1 (40:30):
It stands right now, I don't see a way around it.
We'll see as just as unfolds. Nancy Grace signing off,
goodbye friend,
Host
Nancy Grace
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!