March 26, 2024 • 59 mins
On this week's show Sara and Jim sit with Will Folks. The irreverant founder and editor of Fits News shares about how the news operation started, his one too many kids, and his journey of sobriety. Up close and personal, talks openly about his relationship with newsmaker and politician Nikki Haley. Will also shares about his coverage of corruption S. Carolina, the Murdaugh case, and life after Murdaugh. Sara, Jim and Will then take a deep dive into the case against Susan Smith and whether she deserves early parole. Does the woman Sara refers to as “Horny Susan” and a “sex machine” deserve freedom? What says Will? The hosts and Will then examine the Michigan cases against the Crumbley parents leading to guilty verdicts for the actions of their son who shot up his high school after a history of mental health struggles that went neglected by the Crumbleys. Jim shares an interesting story about S. Carolina prisons for women, and Sara wraps the show by asking Will who he’d hire if he got into trouble.
Art – Simon & Associates
Music – Caleb Fletcher
Art – Simon & Associates
Music – Caleb Fletcher
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:22):
Hello everyone, and welcome to thePresumption. I'm joined by Jim griff and
I Jim, Hey, Sarah,how are you good? How are you
good? Then? And this veryhandsome guy here with us, Will,
Folks welcome, Will. Thanks Ra. I figured you guys needed somebody on
the show with less hair than Jim, so here I am happy to help.
(00:46):
So we're gonna be talking about todayabout Will basically told me, you
know, Jim was asking me,is well, okay to talk about this
and that, and we'll told meyou'll talk about anything, So I'm taking
you up for that. I amvery interested in you sharing with us your
journey in sobriety because obviously that's abig part of our mission here on this
(01:07):
podcast. And then a little somethingsomething you had to do with Nikki Haley.
We're gonna be talking about that,your coverage of Murdoch of course,
and and how that came about.And then uh, corruption in South Carolina.
I've seen you in your feed talka lot about you know, you
know, you're on this mission againstcorruption down there. And then two cases
(01:29):
Horny Susan Smith, we'll talk aboutthat. I'm fascinated by that case.
And then the parents the Crumbly parentswho, for the first time in America
are guilty of involuntary mass later forthe actions of their son. But for
those people, our viewers and listenerswho don't know Will, you must know
(01:49):
Will. And I always love whenour southern constituency sits down with us.
He is the irreverend founding editor ofFitznews, which is an independent, unapologetic
media outlet covering news and politics inSouth Carolina. I've also seen sports and
all kinds of news that you cover. And prior to establishing fits News,
he was the Press secretary to theGovernor of South Carolina, played bass guitar,
(02:15):
led a very colorful life which we'llget to, and he lives with
his wife and many many children inthe Midlands area of South Carolina. You've
got eight kids, bro, almostalmost almost eight seven at the moment,
but yes, number eight is onroots. So we're very excited. What's
(02:36):
that? Is that a pro lifeissue or what? I go where I'm
told? Literally, So I justlooked around one day, we were at
five and she said, I'm pregnantagain, and it's like, okay,
Well at that point, you know, just keep going, just roll with
it. You know. Yeah,Jim's got four, I've got zero.
So anyway, and you mentioned offthe record, well that you that fits
(03:01):
News was created by accident. Tellus about that. Yeah, that is
actually true. And a lot ofpeople seem to think there's a grand design
by everything that fitz News does.And I think that this story is kind
of emblematic of the evolution of thewebsite. But yes, it was back
in the uh, you know,mid aughts, I guess you would say,
(03:24):
when blogs were just starting up.Political blogs in particular were starting up,
and I was on one of them. And this was back when I
really still cared what people said orthought about me. And so I was
furiously typing a response to some commentand I literally hit the wrong button and
so instead of posting my comment,it took me to some page that that
(03:46):
said create your own blog and threesimple steps. And I'm very tech illiterate,
you know, In fact, everybodythat works for me will tell you
how tech illiterate I am. ButI thought, you know what, I
could probably do that, and soI clicked the three buttons, started a
blog, and here we are adecade and a half later, one of
the biggest media outlets in the PalmMeta States. So it's been a crazy
(04:09):
ride. I know that, youknow, Jim and Dick uh have a
lot of respect for Fitz News andyou know, sort of your transparency and
your ethics and your journalism. Forme, I was not. I'm gonna
admit I didn't know what. Ididn't know Fitz News until after almost close
(04:29):
to the time the trial ended,the Murdoch trial ended. During the trial,
I was following Avery who was reportingfor Posting Caurier, and you know,
you just kind of get fixated onthis like one one person's feed.
It's great. Yeah. And thenafter, of course, you know,
I know that obviously Jim and Dickwere have a lot of regard for you,
(04:53):
and I started following you, andI've seen you. It's been very
difficult at times for you not tofight, but you restraint your tongue and
pen as they say in alcoholics anonymoussome days, some days, most days.
Yeah, and uh and and Iand I do love your story.
So I'm going to turn it overto Jim because he's down there. Obviously
(05:15):
Murdoch was his case, and andhe knows all about corruption in South Carolina.
So I'm gonna let him take itfrom here. Yeah, just just
back to fitz News first though,Will what what does fits stand for?
Yes, it's fine, I'm gladyou asked that. There's actually one of
the one of the lawsuits that gotfiled against us recently alleges that it stands
(05:36):
for first in the South and thatthat is somehow indicative of a rush to
publish information. Actually first in theSouth. That's a reference to the presidential
calendar. Fitz News started as apolitical website, but that's actually not what
the website stands for. So ifyou go to I think it's actually on
(05:58):
Wikipedia, but actually I got mycard here you can see it fits.
It actually stands for faith in theSound, which is a lyric from a
nineteen ninety George Michael song. Itwas the one where all the the models
were lip syncing. Yeah, andso that is actually what it stands for.
But there's like, literally no oneknows that. So it's kind of
(06:19):
fun to see people guess at whatit stands for. So but there you
go. Now, you guys gotthe truth can do with fitness? Right?
Well clearly not. Although I wasin pretty good shape when the Murdoch
trial started and then afterward, aftersix weeks of eating the food in Walterborough,
not so much. But yeah,you would be surprised how many people
(06:40):
tell me that I look so muchbetter in person than I'm doing TV.
And frankly, you know, Iate and drank and worked my ass off
during six weeks and so you know, we're all we all got run down
during that during that trial, andyou guys, you know, put in
as much time or almost as muchtime as we did, I'm sure.
But just back still in fits News. You know, I followed you for
(07:02):
I can't you know since you started, frankly, but I mean, the
platform has evolved clearly from the earlydays when it was more of a gossip
column and you you would post thehottest female lawyers in the state, and
I mean and then now you're Imean, you're not mainstream media, but
but your your journalism is very highquality and it's news now for sure.
(07:29):
Yeah, it's definitely evolved. Youknow, I think your characterizations are are
accurate. You know, it wasnot what I would refer to as a
media outlet for a long time,because that wasn't what I was trying to
do for a long time. Ithink the moment we really started trying to
shift, it was about twenty seventeen, which is when we started moving to
a subscription based model. And Ithink my thought process at that time was
(07:53):
that if if we're going to havesubscribers, if we're going to run it
like that, then we need tostart taking it a little more seriously.
So yeah, I think the toneof the site these days is uh,
definitely more in line with a moretraditional mainstream outlet. However, I do
like the fact that from time totime we will, you know, be
(08:13):
a little more aggressive, I thinkthan some of the mainstream outlets. And
I like that because it lets allof the judges, all the prosecutors,
all the lawmakers in particular, itlets them know, hey, these guys
are still a little crazy. They'restill you know, you never know exactly,
uh, you know, what they'llsay. And I guess, Jim,
you know, I mean, weweren't exactly kind to you and Dick
(08:35):
all the time. So yeah,one of the things that you did.
And I got to tell you gotgreat sources. I mean, you you
do have you know, high qualitysources. You get good information, not
always accurate, but you know,somewhere in the ballpark, I mean the
information. And you did report liketwo days after the Murdoch murders that Alet
(08:58):
Murdoch was a person of interest,and I think you subsequently said that you
even had stronger information, but thatyou you know, you felt restrained not
to say he was a suspect buta person of interest. And and I
got to tell you when I readthat, you know, smoke came out
of my ears. And I talkedto Sploud about it, and they were
like, they were very upset aboutit. But you know, I don't
(09:18):
want to know who your sources are, but but you are usually first in
breaking news. I will say thattry to try to get it right.
Don't always do it right, don'talways get it right, but that's the
goal. That's what we're trying todo for sure. Let let me let
me let's let's talk about Nikki Haleyright quick? And how do I say,
(09:39):
hold on? Before you get tonick, who are the hottest lawyers
in in South Carolina? I wantto know, Well, we clearly met.
I know there were guys on there, there were guys on there,
but we clearly met. I mean, I don't know if you know this,
gim but I had there. Itwas something I tweeted the other day,
and your part partner, Maggie,I think, retweeted it and I
(10:03):
didn't think it was her. AndI was telling all these other people that's
not really her, that's not her. She would never and then somebody one
of one of her budgets like,oh, yeah, that was her,
And I was like, I'm notworthy. She's a big fan of yours,
Maggie, Like I said, yourshe might not visibly show it,
but she damns me a lot ofyour posts. I know she she's a
(10:26):
fan of yours well, and agreat lawyer too, and the you know
there's so many like just killer femalelawyers in South Carolina. And and also
you know, you got to giveit up for justice former Justice Gene Toll.
I haven't always been a complimentary ofher. I didn't necessarily agree with
her rulings on the Murdock case,but boy did she show command of that
(10:50):
courtroom and a and an adeptness withthe arguments in the case. Law I
appreciate you segueing into Justice Toll,but we're talking about hot lawyer. Well,
I'm just trying to get Jim awayfrom NICKI Haley. So that's that's
my master plan here. No,I'm on Nicki Haley too. I want
to know as much as Jim does. But I also want to know who
(11:11):
the lawyers are. Anyway, goahead, talk about it. Yeah,
I mean, so you know,I got the list of topics from Sarah
and said, yeah, ask himabout Nicki Haley. And I go,
you sure he wants to talk aboutNikki Haley. And I did a little
Google searching and and you know,I'd forgotten Will. But you know,
you you became became public in twentyten. You submit You submitted that for
(11:35):
David you described that you had ainappropriate physical relationship with Nicki Haley at the
time. She was just in theHouse of Representatives in the state of South
Carolina running for governor. And andyou know, I don't really care about
your personal relationship with anybody, frankly, but the really the question, you
(11:56):
know, I want to ask youis why did you come out in publicly
about that. I think she wasmarried at the time, so I guess
that's what you're referring to as inappropriate. But another lobbyist came out at about
the same time, And I mean, just why, why did you do
that? Yeah, I mean there'sa lot of theories about it. In
fact, the most popular theory wasthat it was in coordination with her campaign,
(12:22):
because it actually ended up really helpingher campaign. It Sure it did,
it, sure did right. Youknow again, hindsight's twenty twenty.
I would have loved to go backand not do that, not handle it
the way that I did. Iwas actually very happily surprised with the way
that everything played out on this issueduring her presidential bid, because that could
(12:45):
have gotten pretty crazy. And Ithink other than a couple pieces in the
Daily Mail which actually kind of exoneratedwhat I said years ago, other than
that, I think I pretty muchdodged the bullet of this whole issue during
her residential race. But you know, my thought on it was, at
the time all this was going down, NICKI Haley was a limited government Tea
(13:07):
Party candidate, and the reason thatI came forward with the specific language I
did at the time was that twodifferent media outlets were getting ready to break
this story. There was The threeTimes, a local paper here in Columbia.
I think that's owned by the PostingCaurier now. But the real phone
call that scared me was a guynamed Jim Davenport. For those of you
(13:28):
who aren't familiar with Jim, hedied a little over a decade ago.
He was an Associated Press reporter.He was the most powerful reporter in South
Carolina. I don't think anyone beforeor since, at least that I know
of, has ever had the kindof influence he had. And when he
called and indicated that this was somethinghe was investigating, I did feel like
(13:50):
it was time to be proactive andkind of control the story. That's what
us in the spin business are taught, and so I actually did. Her
campaign was very aware of what Iwas going to say of when I was
going to say it. I didn'tget any indication that they were upset by
it. I felt like it openedthe door for them to approach it in
any number of different ways. AndI think it, like you said,
(14:11):
Jim, that ultimately did benefit her. But when was the relationship and how
long was the relationship? Yeah,the relationship started in February of two thousand
and seven, and it didn't lastthat long. It was over by May
of two thousand and seven. IfI'm honest, she was a little clingy.
Can I I'll just be honest.She was a little bit of a
clinger and I was starting to datemy wife at the time. Yeah,
(14:35):
I was just we'll call stuff likeit, right, I love it.
That's why I'm not saying she wasstage five or anything. But she was
a little clingy and I started connectingwith the woman I eventually married. And
you've had seven kids and when onemore on the way, right, So
that's right. But the real story, the funny thing is the story that
never was told, was, youknow, my wife had had an interaction
(14:58):
with Niki Haley that was pretty combative. I think this was in two thousand
and nine, but it was onethat probably would have drawn a lot of
attention. And I actually asked mywife at the time. I'm like,
hey, you know, if youwere to share that story, that would
probably, you know, have animpact on this. And she's like,
yeah, right, this is yourmess. You're dealing with it. So
(15:20):
but yeah, they Well, whatyou're describing as clinging Nikki is something that
it's a dynamic that you know,like Jim and I also encounter in our
and our practices. It's the it'sthe maybe me more than Jem because I
do a lot of you know,sexual assault cases, but uh, you
know, so it's the woman whothinks of a situation almost delusionally more than
(15:46):
what it is, with expectations andthen it doesn't go their way. Except
Nikki Ailey didn't come after you forsome weird u during that though, she
came out categorically denied any relationship.What's what with you? And then you
release you know, phone records andand you know, I remember, you
know, I lived through it,and everyone was saying, well, if
(16:07):
it's not true, she's got thebest defamation case in the world. You
know, she's gonna sue you,and you've been sued a lot for defamation,
but she never sued you. Didshe never did? Ye? Yeah,
so, and I want to getyour take on uh, former President
Trump's running for president again. Lookslike he is the now the Republican nominee.
(16:29):
But but he did a speech Ibelieve in Myrtle Beach where he was
saying, you know, where's MichaelHaley, where's Nicki Henry's husband, And
we all knew what he was talkingabout. And then I mean, what
do you think of that? Youknow, I think sometimes he gets lost
in his sense of his own humor. I think he thinks he's funnier than
(16:51):
he is a lot of times.Yeah, I don't know if I were
advising him, I would not haveadvised him to make that remark, particularly
considering that, whatever you want tosay about Nikki Haley, at the time
he made that remark, her husbandwas serving in the Horn of Africa,
which, by the way, isa pretty dangerous place right now. So
I don't know if that's something Iwould have said if I were him.
(17:14):
But you know, this guy,he's at the point with the GOP electorate,
I think he could say pretty muchanything. So but did you think
he was insinuating that, you know, they put Michael Haley on ice so
that they wouldn't have to address theseissues that you know we're talking about today.
I you know, it certainly wasconvenient for her that she did not
(17:34):
have to have that part of thestory front and center. Let's put it
that way. Yes, So,yeah, I mean, whenever her husband
comes up, he is, youknow, active duty for which he volunteered
for. Is I understand true?But one other thing I do want to
point out, Jim, I mean, this guy, I don't want to
(17:55):
make this guy out like he's somekind of a saint, Michael Haley.
I mean, this is a guywho was pretty well aware of her extracurriculars,
a guy who was no stranger toextra extracurriculars of his own. He's
also a guy who has been sortof the vehicle for a lot of the
Haley family corruption that we followed.Whether it's the there's a casino up in
(18:15):
North Carolina where he was very quietlymade a partner, uh. And then
there was also there's a subcontractor fora defense company uh selling uh, military
vehicles to Taiwan. Obviously Haley wascalling for America to arm Taiwan. That
seems to me pretty self serving.So I don't I'm not saying this guy's
(18:36):
a saint by instruct of the imagination. Sure, and now when you know,
we'll move on. But when NikkiHaley ran for governor, I mean,
she was doing the books for hermother's dress job, and they were
not in good financial shape. Andnow you know, Sarah Palin comes to
town. That was jet fuel forher campaign. You you and others boosted
(18:56):
a little bit by talking about howshe likes to have extracurricular act activities and
now me and Sarah Palen there yougo. Yeah. Now, now she's
a multi millionaire and so anyway,okay, so you were press secretary to
her, No, I was,actually I was her political strategist for about
a year. But yeah, Iwas press secretary actually to her predecessor,
(19:19):
Mark Sandford, another name when peoplethink of South Carolina. Yeah. I
actually two questions I had. Oneis about Murdoch, one is about corruption.
And I don't see those two thingsas the same. By the way,
as you know on Murdoch, youknow everybody would well, I don't
(19:40):
want to say everybody, a certaingroup of people. We're trying to take
credit for breaking the story. AndJim, you know, uh just made
a really good point about how youhave great sources and you alerted him to
him being a person of interest.So what what is what is this?
I mean, what is this competition? What story? What part of the
(20:03):
story? And who broke it first? Yeah, and I'll confess I was
way too worried about that for waytoo long, to the detriment of the
news product that Fitz News was puttingout. Obviously was working with some folks
at the time that viewed credit asa indispensable part of the job. I
(20:25):
have since learned that that's the verylast thing you need to worry about.
Just do the job. Whatever credityou get, whatever credit you don't get,
take it, don't you know.It's just not a factor anymore for
me. And so, you know, one of the things that I do
think I try to do anyway,is credit other outlets when they clearly first
(20:45):
broke something. If it's a documentthat we get later, I will still
say, hey, these guys hadit first, they reported it first.
You know, you mentioned Avery Wilkesa moment ago. He's a guy who's
done great work on the Murdock case. Michael de Witt and has done great
work. John Monk with the Statenewspaper has done great work. All of
these reporters and a bunch of nationalones too. I mean, there's been
(21:07):
national reporters who have have dived intothis story and really peeled back some of
the nuances and the layers and soyou know, but yeah, there's some
folks that felt like they owned itand felt like anybody that reported on it
was, you know, had somenefarious agenda. And again, I just
the further I've gotten away from thatmindset, I think, the better work
(21:29):
we've done, and certainly I thinkthe better I felt about it, because
you know, just not worrying aboutthat stuff. That stuff is so toxic.
You know, it's just so toxic. And isn't like so much more
peaceful now that uh Murdock's on theback? Cheers to that man who Well,
I want to I want to askyou your opinion as to why it
(21:52):
attracted so much attention. And Iwas interviewed recently they win and where it'll
be out, you know, ina few months. But you know,
during the course of the interview,I was told that during the trial court
TV's viewership went up six And Idon't know what your numbers are, but
my sense that you have had atremendous increase in your subscriber base, and
(22:18):
I know others have because of theMurdock case. What what Why was it
so attractive to listeners and viewers?In your opinion, well, I think
it started obviously with the crime itself. I mean, you look at this
crime, you look at just howgraphic it was, all of the details
(22:40):
surrounding it, the uncertainty surrounding it, no murder weapon, et cetera,
the mystery associated with it. Soyou have a savage crime, no immediate
explanation for it. I think thatimmediately gets people's attention. Then they start
looking at the characters involved, andoh, wait a minute's this guy whose
family has has run this part ofthe state for the last one hundred years.
(23:03):
Basically, wait a minute, they'rethese judges potentially mixed up. There's
all these other layers of corruption.I think that sort of started drawing people
into it. But then what reallyto me? Did it? And on
Jim, I don't know if younoticed this as well, but this story
was already a very big story andwas drawing a ton of attention. And
then in September, when the roadsideshooting incident took place involving Murdoch after the
(23:30):
murders, several months after the murders, all of a sudden, we just
saw the second huge explosion of interestand attention, and all of a sudden,
it went from sort of being thisvery impactful case that everyone was already
following to being something that everyone justbecame obsessed with. And that roadside shooting
I think really propelled it because itwas not only a story about something that
(23:55):
had happened. It was a storythat was continuing to happen, and so
I think that incident really to meanyway, that's when we noticed a lot
of people really dialing into the story, and certainly when Netflix got involved and
some of the other production companies.HBO obviously as well, did a great
job. Fox Nation. You knowthose stories did not do a great job
(24:18):
HBO. I mean, because youknow why, And I mean at the
time I watched HBO because before thetrial, because I was trying to get
a sense of By the way,you don't know this, but Jim does.
My fascination with the story was fromthe time the murders happened. Chris
Cuomo was an old friend of mineand you know, we would we would
(24:41):
exchange story like crime stories, andhe brought this up to me and I
said, this is wild, youknow, And he was I think one
of the first people in mainstream orcable media, at least on CNN to
cover the story. And then Ijust started following it. But but I
thought HBO at the time I watchedit, I knew nothing about you know,
(25:03):
the show, and I watched Jim'sinterview and everything. But then when
the trial came about. I wasfact checking the stuff that came out on
the HBO documentary, and it wasa lot of stuff was inaccurate, simply
not a fact. You know,well and just I mean the same.
You know. Netflix obviously did avery hyper focus on Buster Murdoch and the
(25:26):
Stephen Smith case, and I thinkat this point everyone can agree that is
the way it went down. AlthoughI will say this, I mean I
was the first guy to get theunredacted they called a MATE report, a
multi Accident Investigative Team report. Wewere the first out to ever get that
for the Stephen Smith case. AndI remember going through it. This was
twenty seventeen, I think when Igot it. So this was before the
(25:49):
boat crash, before the double homicide, before the roadside shooting, all this,
and I remembered seeing the Murdoch namein there like forty times and thinking
who are these people? Uh?And there was never enough in there for
us to run something at the time. But obviously when it all exploded and
people began to sort of start peelingthose layers back, yeah, obviously Buster
(26:10):
Murdoch became a focus. But yeah, I don't know, I look at
some people really want to pin allthat on Buster Murdoch. I you know,
again, that's that's part of thestory to me, where things sort
of jumped the shark. I guessit's the term I would use. I
mean, so during the shortly afterthe murders led and the and there,
(26:33):
you know that there's been a lotof discussion about all they've Slid is putting
so much effort and time and energysolving these murders of Maggie and Paul and
what about Stephen Smith? And thenin the midst of that, you know,
Slid says we are opening an investigationinto Steven Smith based on information we've
learned in the Murdoch investigation. Imean, to this day, I mean,
(26:55):
do you have any idea what thehell they were talking about? I
do. Actually it was that report. Literally no one had ever sent them
that original Highway patrol report with allof the Murdoch references, and so you
know, when they made that announcement, like you, Jim and probably Sarah
if you're following that too, Ithought, wow, they've got something from
the crime scene something and Alex,you know, that's exactly where my mind
(27:22):
went. But apparently it was literallysomeone forwarded them this report and that was
all it was. And uh,I think that ended up being very unfair,
uh to Buster Murdoch because it createdthis perception that there was a connection
that was much stronger than it ultimatelyended up being just sort of closing loop
on this as the Murdoch story.Is it fading now? Is it still
(27:48):
gardner as much? I'm from myperspective, right after I couldn't go anywhere
without anyone recognizing me. Then aftertime went on, I get to you
know, I know you from somewhere? Where do I know you from?
Now? They look at me like, who is that? Which is I'm
(28:10):
glad to get back to my oldlife, I promise you. But where
are we on the news cycle forMurdock. Yeah, it's definitely died down
since the motion for a new trialwas denied. And again I didn't necessarily
believe that was the right decision.I watched your arguments that day, Jim.
I watched creighton Waters arguments as well. I thought Creighton did a great
(28:33):
job. I just didn't agree withhis assessment of the law. But yeah,
in the aftermath of that hearing,I think a lot of folks felt
some finality regarding it, and certainlythere's a you probably can think in your
head what the grounds are on theappeal. But you guys obviously have a
great appeal coming up, certainly onthe federal side, if not on the
state side. And you know,we've got some changes to the composition of
(28:57):
the State Supreme Court that could beimpactful. But we'll see where it goes.
But you know, a lot ofpeople are still focused on the Becky
Hill side of it. But asfar as the Murdock case itself, yeah,
I think people have Finally, Inever never, never say never.
But you have to dye your hair. You do not have to cross dress.
(29:19):
Well, you're cool. There comesa time when you just want to
cross dress. There, don't takethat away from me. That's going on
in our article. Jim, Ilike that. You know. In high
school, you know, we didhave that. We we did have that
(29:41):
beauty contest where the guys on thefootball team dressed up is and I was
I was, mister Pendleton, Ilook pretty damn good in a night gown.
If you if you tell me thatDick Harpootleing and Jack Swirling engaged in
some of this behavior at Clemson,then we got us. Now I've heard
(30:03):
all their stories. You need assets, you need pictures. So so you
know, for me, one ofthe things I always tell Jim is that
what's incredible to me is that,you know, the Murdoch story was was
portrayed as this really corrupt family,This corrupt guy owned the legal system down
there. He was. I mean, some of it was true. Yeah,
he was defrauding his clients, butyou know, but he just he
(30:26):
was filthy, rich and corrupt.And and I mean I think that to
a lot, to some extent,a great extent. It's the tables have
turned. I mean it the casenow put the spotlight on a lot of
other corrupt, you know, institutions. I mean, I I I'm going
(30:48):
to say this because I don't practiceor live in South Carolina sled. I
mean, lying to a grand jury, handling a crime scene in the way
that they did. That's not okay, whether you want to call it corrupt
or what. To me, it'scorrupt. And Becky Hill and then her
(31:10):
son, so to me, it'sironic that you know, this whole thing
was that Murdoch was corrupt and theMurdo's were corrupt. But then now it
seems like it put the spotlight ona lot of other people, places and
things. Right, Well, Ithink two things can be true at once.
I think there was a lot ofinstitutional corruption that enabled the thefts that
(31:33):
Alec Murdock and his associates were ableto pull off. I don't think all
of that has been exposed yet.I do think that particularly the FEDS are
are digging into some of that alittle a little deeper. But you're absolutely
right, Sarah. I mean processmatters, and I've always said, you
know, Jim, feel free tocontradict me. I've always said I believe
Alec Murdoch did it. I believethat the verdict and the sentence were appropriate,
(31:56):
and that I believe he's where heshould be. But having said that,
process, particularly in the aftermath ofthis trial, based on the revelations
regarding Becky Hill, and I wrotethis, I've written this repeatedly. Got
a lot of heartburn about the waythat went down, particularly the office of
Alan Wilson overseeing the investigation into BeckyHill, while at the same time relying
(32:19):
on Becky Hill as a counter tothe testimony of some of these jurors.
And I've shared that with the AttorneyJournal. You know, he's a friend.
I think he's somebody I would calla friend. I think he would
say the same. But you know, I've had some frank conversations with him
about how I feel that's a conflict, and I think they should have kicked
it to another solicitor to handle.And I'm very disappointed that the State granjury
(32:42):
is still actively investigating Becky Hill onthese jury tampering an allegations, which,
to me, how does that makesense? How does that in any universe
lend public faith to this process?It doesn't, And so, you know,
I have been disappointed, But you'reright, sare that script flip a
good bit after the verdicts. SoI have one thing on Murdoch that I
(33:05):
want us to move forward to theyou know cases that are in the news
now. You know you you've beensober how many years now, well,
seventeen, seventeen and eighteen this June. Congratulations, that's a big, big
deal. And you are you activelyin twelve step and stuff or is that
(33:28):
something from the past. No,I'm not. And the thing about sobriety,
everyone's got a different way to doit, and I absolutely respect people
who are in the program. AndI will say this, knowing the program
is there is a big help.I have never had to avail myself of
it over these last eighteen years,but knowing it's there as a resource is
(33:51):
a big help. Also, havingthe number of somebody you know you can
call in that situation if you feellike you're about to stumble, if you
feel like you're you know, aboutto make a mistake, having that number
that somebody you know you can calland they're going to be there for you.
Those have been the things that havereally helped me. But I certainly
(34:12):
like the program has. You talkedabout the steps, the tenth step,
you know about personal inventory and whenwe're wrong, promptly admitting it. That's
one that I try to try tolive by, both professionally and personally,
because you know, that's a hugeone, and certainly the first step about
admitting that we're powerless. Until youdo that, none of the other steps
are going to help you. Sobut yeah, it's been a journey.
(34:36):
Probably the smartest thing I ever didin my life other than marrying my wife,
And in fact, I don't thinkI would have been able to to
marry my wife and raise the familyI've been able to raise, had I
not quit drinking and doing drugs first, you know, it is I I
had my own battle with one particulardrug. So when you say sobriety's sort
(35:00):
of like an individual thing. Forme. It was eight years of hardcore
AA and then I did not.So there are people that are simply addicts
to every like, essentially any substance. They say, your drug a choice
is just drugs. You know,my thing was just one thing for particular
(35:21):
reason. I had to go addressa lot of you know, issues from
way back when. And so forme, I actually needed more than twelve
steps, you know. And itgot to a point where I actually felt
disingenuous saying, hey, I'm Sarahand I'm an alcoholic. I don't have
a problem with drinking. I drinkmaybe once a month or not, you
know. And so, but itis the twelve steps is something that all
(35:46):
of us should implement in our lives. In my opinion, it's so basic,
you know, it's just being agood person, doing better, you
know, keeping your side of thestreet clean. To me, it's not
even you know, an addict oralcoholic manual. It's everybody's manual. But
(36:07):
that's just my opinion. And Iyou know, I direct a lot of
clients to twelve Steps, and forsome people it works, for some people
it doesn't. But like you said, it's really good to have a support
group, to know where to goto, know who to talk to.
And on that note, I wantto end with Murdoch so we can move
on to the other cases. Murdochhad a pretty bad addiction to opiates.
(36:30):
I mean, it was so obviousto me. I saw those pictures of
them sweating, all red, justa mess, you know, and I
was like, it's at the beginningwhen I had connected with Jim. I
was like, your client is reallyfucked up. You know, your client.
I can't believe people don't believe thathe was an act of course at
that point, well, nobody wasbelieving anything. Murdoch was staying because all
(36:51):
of you know, the two anda half weeks of financial fraud information that
came out. But why do youthink that to this day when you bring
up his addiction, people go,now, he was not an addict.
He was just a liar and acheater or whatever. I mean, do
you believe that he had an addictionas bad as he did? Well,
(37:12):
I think once again, two thingscan be true at once. He could
have had a very bad opioid addictionand then still never been able to do
the amount of opioids that were linkedto these financial transactions. I mean,
obviously, I think you know Napoleon'sentire cavalry, you would probably knock them
down with the amount of opioids hewas moving. So the drug part of
(37:34):
this has always been a big mysterybecause we found we went down several rabbit
holes and actually came very close tomaking some connections that I think would have
taken that angle of the story further. A lot of folks were focused on
the cowboys in the street, yeah, part of it, but we were
looking much deeper to properties, toLLC's that were tied to companies that we
(37:55):
felt were fronts for moving drugs ona much bigger scale. And listen,
I'm not I'm not. I'm notsaying that people that are addicts or alcoholics
are criminals, that they necessarily commitcrimes. And there are plenty of people
who are addicts, sober or notwho have a clean rap sheet, right
but but but I have seen plentyof them, including lawyers that are really
(38:22):
messed up. You know that Isee an absolute nexus between the addiction and
the financial you know, the moralchurpitude and all of it. I mean,
there is definitely I don't you know. People always fight me on this,
like what does that have to dowith this? Like you said,
two things can be true, andthere is absolutely a correlation between a lawyer
(38:43):
who's really messed up on drugs andthen starts getting comfortable with his client's money,
and to me, see, Idon't. I don't agree with you.
I don't believe he did it.Okay, I believe well Number one,
I don't believe it was proven thathe did it. Number two,
I don't believe he did it.I believe he knows what happened. I
believe he was there, and Ibelieve that it was related to his drug
(39:07):
use. So when you say thisgoing down these holds, please keep going,
please? Yeah, absolutely, Ido think there's something there. It
bothers me, and it's like theScott Peterson case Apples and oranges, but
twenty years later, it's unbelievable thethings that the defense is uncovered. That
is now you know, they're tryingto get court orders for to test to
(39:28):
bring out witness statements, attach friends. It's just yeah, this might be
one of those cases. But hopefullyhe'll get relief. The Jim will do
great jobs like he always does andturn this around in the fourth circuit.
So I want to talk. Iwant to turn this over to Jim,
because the Jim Crump, the JamesGrumbley and his wife Jennifer Crumbley, the
two parents for the first time inAmerica who are held liable culpable guilty on
(39:53):
involuntary manslaughter two different juries a fewweeks apart, and it is huge precedent,
and I keep struggling with it.So I'm gonna turn over to Jim
because I want you to chime inon this. You know, I don't
know what more you want me tosay about it other than that ask Will
Sarah. But the fact of thematter is, you know, the mother
(40:15):
and the father have been convicted ofthem volunteering in manslaughter because they gave their
men lead you know, sick son, you know, a gun and you
know, as a president, andthey took him shooting. And you know,
I don't know, I have realconcerns about the conviction, but I
(40:35):
want to hear you. I knowyou followed it, what do you think,
Yeah, I mean I have tremendousconcern about the precedent. And what's
hard about this case is that ifyou look at the aggravating factors that would
go into the fundamental question, wouldyou ever convict parents for responsibility for their
kids' crimes? If you look atthe aggravating factors that would lead you to
(40:59):
do that case really has them all. I mean, the neglect, the
force, responsibility right. In fact, the thing that really did it for
me was listening to, you know, some of the trial where they talked
about the meeting the day of theshooting where they tell these parents that this
kid needs immediate emergency assistance and themother's just like, are we done here?
(41:25):
No, we're not taking it,you know it just so the level
there was a piece of paper.To me, that was the most compelling
thing because the mom what the schoolkept him in class after that? Yeah,
the school actually had no sense ofurgency. They're like, just get
him help in the next forty eighthours, Like, well, we actually
(41:45):
think it's better for him to goback to class, it's better for him
to be with his peers. Andthey kept him there. But again,
you know these parents, the motherand father's the facts were a little bit
different with the mother than the Themother was engaged in a lot of texts
with the son that were cries forhelp that she ignored. The dad bought
(42:08):
the gun. The dad didn't securethe gun, he just hid it under
some clothing apparently. But at thesame time, and then there was a
really bad journal that the kid hadwritten his cries for help and and all
that, and that the thing wasforciability. The dad did not know what's
in that journal. But that morning, Jim the mourning that, you know,
the school calls the parents of thekid. He and the mom both
(42:30):
were aware of this horrible blueprint ofthe massacre, saying blood everywhere and it's
a shoot up. I mean,it is the blueprint, and they still
kept him in school. So Istruggle because, like you, I feel
like, what's next. Now We'regoing to say parents are criminally liable in
voluntary mass laughter. I mean it'dbe different if the parents knew the kid
(42:52):
had a gun in his backpack.I mean, they didn't know that there
were no gun missing. They werenot looking for a gun. I mean
they it calls correct to the schooland you've got a fucked up song.
Well, there's got a lot ofparents out there who have that such.
Well what about and what about ifthe kid had killed himself? Do we
(43:12):
then it doesn't matter whose life wastaken if the parents are criminally negligent for
the actions of their kids. Soare we now going to say we're going
to indict them for the kid harminghimself? I mean it's possible. Right.
This definitely sets the precedent. Sothere's several alsuits of you know,
negligent and trust cases all the time, this vehicle or I'm sure there are
(43:34):
gun cases out there, but veryseldom, you know. I think this
is the first one where it's goingto the level of criminal convictions and they're
looking at fifteen fifteen to sixty yearsin prison. Yeah, what do you
think they'll get, Jim, becauseit's fifteen per count. But they're not
going to get They're not going toget stacked. It's just four different victims.
(43:58):
Who knows and how much time doyou have to do on that?
It all depends on the jurisdiction.I haven't looked it up. You know,
how much real community to do?Yeah, it's a frightening president though,
and as horrific as the facts ofthis case are, and as damning
as they are for both of thoseparents, I mean, I think again,
if you were looking at a caseto bring charges like this, this
(44:21):
is the case. I mean,it's a terrible fact pattern. But still
I just I have a hard timesupporting a prosecutor bringing these charges. But
again, as you guys know,even before this trial, there was an
extended legal process about the appropriateness ofbringing the charges in the first place.
In the courts in Michigan, Ibelieve erroneously ruled that these charges were appropriate
(44:46):
to be brought. And you know, I think you can bring these type
charges in just about every mass shootingcase involving a young adult or child.
I mean Columbin, for example,I think there was similarournal's there and you
know that was that was you know, as that's worse Colin Biden was a
lot worse. And then you knowthat the elementary school up in was it
(45:10):
Maine, New Hampshire, Sandy Hook, correct? I mean, you know
you could go after the parents,blame the parents, and and that sort
of gets me to you know,a beef, I have you get high
profile cases and you get a juryin there, and the jury is I
mean, they fill the pressure ofpublic opinions. I find them guilty in
(45:30):
my view, and on appeal,I think, well that the ruling and
other rulings that you brought up willbe grounds as well as the journal.
There was no evidence that the father, for example, I had any knowledge
about what's in the journal, andyet the journal was admitted. So it
was highly prejudicial and not that probativeat the end of the day. The
(45:52):
other case, I think we wantto talk to you about and we'll close
with this is what I call HornySusan. The case of Susan Smith from
South Carolina. Another notorious murderer downthere, and this one's very wild because
Smith was convicted of murdering her twoyoung children, three years old and fourteen
months old in July of nineteen ninetyfive. She didn't get the death penalty.
(46:15):
In October nineteen ninety four, shestraps the two boys to their car
seats in the back of her sedanand then just lets the car roll into
the lake. She's the last personthat's seen with the boys alive. She
then tells the police that a blackman had carjacked her at gunpoint when she
was stopped at an intersection and thendrove off with her children. But when
(46:37):
they investigated the lights at the intersection, her story didn't add up, so
they suspect her as a person ofinterest and her involvement, and then this
nationwide manhunt begins for this concocted carjackeressentially, and then Smith meanwhile was having
these pressers professing her love for theboys and you know, pleading for them
(47:00):
to come back home safely. Soten days after the alleged carjacking, the
lie Smith finally confesses to drowning thetwo boys. Her defense was despair,
So it's not evil, it wasdespair. It was what was going on
with me. She had a verydifficult childhood, but a lot of our
clients do. Her father committed suicidewhen she was six, She attempted suicide
(47:25):
herself at thirteen and seventeen. Thenher stepfather, who was a Christian leader,
molested her repeatedly during her high schoolyears, and she claimed she enjoyed
it because it made her mother jealous. That's you know, how twisted she
was. And that relationship continued evenafter her marriage and up to just weeks
(47:45):
before the murders. Closer to thetime of the murders, she had an
affair with a man who broke offwith her. You know, I think
they slept together maybe a dozen timesor less than a dozen times, and
he moves on. And so thatbreakup is Smith claims kind of put her
over the edge because this man didnot want kids, including the kids that
(48:06):
Smith had had previously, these twoboys. And so her defense was essentially
she was desperate over Finley's decision toterminate the relationship, and that's what led
to the murder of her children.She did even know what was going on
that night. So now she's behindbars. You've been reporting on this,
Will I've been following this on yourpage. And she's up for parole.
(48:29):
She didn't get the death penalty,she didn't get life with pearl without the
possible part. She has the hospularpearol. So she's up for parole there
and you're taking a poll as towhether or not this woman should parle.
She has had an she got anSTD while she's behind bars. She's had
sex with prison staff while under theirauthority, like a guard and a captain.
(48:52):
She's had sex with multiple female inmates. She's a sex machine and she's
been having phone sex with random menand then sexting other men, giggling and
talking about wiggling and swirming and itis wild. So when we think about
(49:12):
parole, it's about rehabilitation, right. So Susan Atkins paroled, you know,
in the Charles Manson case. Butshe was a model inmate. And
so I'm looking at this woman goingshe has like got to have a million
write ups for sexual misconduct. Whatis your pole show, well, and
what are your thoughts on this?I mean, obviously overwhelmingly people do not
(49:37):
believe she should get out. Andalso in addition to all those, there
have been some drug infractions behind barsfor her, some other infractions behind bars.
She has absolutely not been a modelinmate. And I think this case,
you know, obviously, the Murdockcase, is a level of attention
on a legal proceeding that South Kronahas never seen before and will probably never
(49:59):
see again. I mean, let'sjust be honest. I being at that
trial and the scrutiny and the attention, I don't think we'll ever see anything
like that again. The closest thingto it, though, would have been
the Susan Smith trial back in nineteenninety five. They called it the trial
of the century back then, backin the twentieth century, and I think
it was. And you know,you did a great job, Sarah,
(50:22):
going through all the facts of it. The thing that I that always hits
me is the is the timeframe.Uh six minutes. It took that car
six minutes to sink. And accordingto Tommy Pope, the prosecutor, he
just did an interview with jin Woodin our office on this case about some
of his experiences, and he pointedout that there was not a drop of
(50:45):
water on Susan Smith's clothes. Andthose two things just really stood out to
me because as a dad, yeah, it just you can't you can't get
in in side the mind to somebodylike that. My kid, you know,
my kids anything even they feel badabout something, you know, your
(51:07):
instinct just takes over. You wantto help them and save them, or
you at the very least go tothem. And so that just blew my
mind. And then the there wasthe interview with the diver who found the
car, who talked about seeing oneof the little hands through the window.
It just I mean, yeah,it's heart wrenching and you know this is
(51:30):
not an this is not a defact, Sarah. They Tommy Pope saw the
death ponemy in that case and didnot get it. Yeah I did because,
Yeah, Jim's interesting. You mentionedthat in his interview with Jim in
our office. I think we publishedit just last month from when we recorded
(51:52):
this. He talked about how heviewed it as a defeat because he got
guilty verdicts, but he did andget the death penalty, and he felt
that she really deserved it. AndI think his logic was pretty good for
pursuing it because his point was,listen, let's assume that her story was
true. Let's assume a black mancarjacked these kids and killed them. Would
(52:15):
we not seek the death penalty inthat situation? And of course everyone would
have. So I think he madea very good argument for seeking the death
penalty. And I also think thatTommy Pope, who's a guy I've I've
had differences with in the past,but I respect the way he conducted himself
in this case. And certainly healso had to do it going uphill because
(52:36):
a lot of local law enforcement weresympathetic to Susan Smith. I think her
she's left. No. I cantell you the law enforcement nicer who got
the confession out of her as agreat friend of mine, and he had
he was retired FBI agent. Hewas a legend, and he sat down
(52:59):
with her like a grand father woodand she broke down and confessed to him.
And I believe he gave assurances thatshe that they would not seek the
death penalty. And as soon asshe confessed, Tommy Pope seeking the death
penalty. And I know he wasvery upset about Tommy Pope's decision. And
I'm not gonna so they saw seeI didn't know this, so they sought
(53:20):
the death penalty. Yeah, okay, okay, Well she's lucky she didn't
get that. She's also lucky she'snot serving life without without Now. On
a lighter note, there was Iprobably shouldn't say this, but I'm going
to. There was a trial inRichland County. Some guards were being prosecuted
(53:42):
for having sex with inmates, includingSusan Smith, and the trial judge relayed
the testimony to me at one pointin time over cocktails, and it something
like this that that people were testifiedthat when the lights went out and the
women's prison at night. It soundedlike a soup kitchen. So there you
(54:07):
go. I probably shouldn't have saidthat that is consistent with the intelligence we've
gotten. Yeah, it's unbelievable.And listen, I was just gonna say
this, it's not you know,it's not a defense, certainly, and
she I don't know who her.I don't know her defense lawyer, even
if I knew the name, Butthey did the best they could to make
(54:31):
a case that she was desperate andthat she was I believe it is.
David Brock represented her, and hewas one of the best death penalty defense
lawyers in the country, teachers atHarvard. But I just think, you
know, it's incredibly sad to me. The saddest part, of course,
are the two boys and what happenedto them in those six minutes. But
(54:52):
it's also sad to me the cycleof abuse. I see it on my
own clients. I see it onmy own cases, you know, I
see how people get messed up andhistory repeats itself. It's not a defense,
but it is definitely a horrible phenomenon. So well, I think that's
why she ultimately didn't get the deathpenalty. Sarah, you had mentioned it
(55:13):
when you when you did the recapof the case, all the things that
happened to her. I think that'sultimately why they decided not to give her
the death penalty, because I thinkthey looked at all of those things and
thought, well, yes, itdoesn't excuse what she did, but they
are certainly mitigating factors on a deathpenalty ruling. Yeah. So I want
(55:34):
to end with this. You getin trouble, well, you get her
liston down and I don't know summerin Columbia. Would you hire Jim Griffin
or Dick Carpoulia Mary Sellers, that'shis lawyer, and you know, we
don't want to take any business awayfrom the way who Bacary Sellers. Sorry,
(55:55):
Macary is my friend. But let'ssay but Cary says, you know,
well, i'm your friend. Ithink it's right for me to do
this. I don't want problems inour friendship. And you are you just
have two choices. Basically, it'sDick or Job. I mean, I
think have we not established on thiscall? I would call Maggie Fox first.
I mean, come on, Maggieand I Ali Denvento. All the
(56:20):
good looking women all the good lookingwomen. I mean, come on,
that's the thing. There's a tonof great defense lawyers down here, and
I think that's the one thing thatI had to you know, watching this
whole case unfold. You know,say what you will about this case and
what your opinions are on it.But the attorneys in this case, Jim,
your work on this case, Dick'swork on this case. Creighton Waters,
(56:43):
I mean, let's give him credit. I mean, he did a
phenomenal job. It was very impressiveto watch the councils on both sides litigate
this case. Just some very skilledlitigators. Thank you. I mean,
I'm very impressed by the handful oflawyers that I've met in South Carolina.
(57:06):
I'm not impressed by where's Jim's bobblehead? That's what I want to know,
Jim, if you get a bibblehead, I'm in sign me up. You
know, I've just a cross dressfor that, though not quite there yet.
I am I had a bobblehead yearsago from a personal injury lawyer.
(57:28):
You had a case with a keeamAnastapulo. So I think he was the
first lawyer in South Carolina to comeout with a bubblehead, but and then
it broke after. I mean,I think it's okay to have a babble
head that you keep in your Idon't know, I know it's not.
I'm sorry, I take it back. I was just thinking like maybe if
(57:52):
you just kept it somewhere behind thescenes and didn't, you know, actually
advertise it. But no, it'snever okay to do a bobblehead. I
think Jim and I would have greatbobbleheads. I mean, come on,
look, we've got a lot towork with here. I mean, yeah,
just an acorn is all I need. You know. That's holiday gift
(58:13):
was a him and his girls,his daughters. What are those those those
are better than bubbleheads. I can'tremember the name now, Jim, what
are those little characters? You know, the little Funko, the Funko Have
you seen those? Will the funkcharacters that come from like Marvel series and
all the different movies. Anyway,you can some of these? Yeah,
(58:37):
I think I know what you're talkingabout. Yeah, it has to make
funkos for you know people. Ithink that's way better than a bubblehead.
Anyway. Well, thank you somuch for giving us your valuable time.
Today, and I want to inviteour viewers and listeners to follow fits News
(58:58):
and their podcast and they're on xwith a lot of posts and links and
also prescribe to our podcast, ThePresumption wherever you get your podcasts and also
on YouTube. And until next time, Jim we rest we Rest
Hello everyone, and welcome to thePresumption. I'm joined by Jim griff and
I Jim, Hey, Sarah,how are you good? How are you
good? Then? And this veryhandsome guy here with us, Will,
Folks welcome, Will. Thanks Ra. I figured you guys needed somebody on
the show with less hair than Jim, so here I am happy to help.
(00:46):
So we're gonna be talking about todayabout Will basically told me, you
know, Jim was asking me,is well, okay to talk about this
and that, and we'll told meyou'll talk about anything, So I'm taking
you up for that. I amvery interested in you sharing with us your
journey in sobriety because obviously that's abig part of our mission here on this
(01:07):
podcast. And then a little somethingsomething you had to do with Nikki Haley.
We're gonna be talking about that,your coverage of Murdoch of course,
and and how that came about.And then uh, corruption in South Carolina.
I've seen you in your feed talka lot about you know, you
know, you're on this mission againstcorruption down there. And then two cases
(01:29):
Horny Susan Smith, we'll talk aboutthat. I'm fascinated by that case.
And then the parents the Crumbly parentswho, for the first time in America
are guilty of involuntary mass later forthe actions of their son. But for
those people, our viewers and listenerswho don't know Will, you must know
(01:49):
Will. And I always love whenour southern constituency sits down with us.
He is the irreverend founding editor ofFitznews, which is an independent, unapologetic
media outlet covering news and politics inSouth Carolina. I've also seen sports and
all kinds of news that you cover. And prior to establishing fits News,
he was the Press secretary to theGovernor of South Carolina, played bass guitar,
(02:15):
led a very colorful life which we'llget to, and he lives with
his wife and many many children inthe Midlands area of South Carolina. You've
got eight kids, bro, almostalmost almost eight seven at the moment,
but yes, number eight is onroots. So we're very excited. What's
(02:36):
that? Is that a pro lifeissue or what? I go where I'm
told? Literally, So I justlooked around one day, we were at
five and she said, I'm pregnantagain, and it's like, okay,
Well at that point, you know, just keep going, just roll with
it. You know. Yeah,Jim's got four, I've got zero.
So anyway, and you mentioned offthe record, well that you that fits
(03:01):
News was created by accident. Tellus about that. Yeah, that is
actually true. And a lot ofpeople seem to think there's a grand design
by everything that fitz News does.And I think that this story is kind
of emblematic of the evolution of thewebsite. But yes, it was back
in the uh, you know,mid aughts, I guess you would say,
(03:24):
when blogs were just starting up.Political blogs in particular were starting up,
and I was on one of them. And this was back when I
really still cared what people said orthought about me. And so I was
furiously typing a response to some commentand I literally hit the wrong button and
so instead of posting my comment,it took me to some page that that
(03:46):
said create your own blog and threesimple steps. And I'm very tech illiterate,
you know, In fact, everybodythat works for me will tell you
how tech illiterate I am. ButI thought, you know what, I
could probably do that, and soI clicked the three buttons, started a
blog, and here we are adecade and a half later, one of
the biggest media outlets in the PalmMeta States. So it's been a crazy
(04:09):
ride. I know that, youknow, Jim and Dick uh have a
lot of respect for Fitz News andyou know, sort of your transparency and
your ethics and your journalism. Forme, I was not. I'm gonna
admit I didn't know what. Ididn't know Fitz News until after almost close
(04:29):
to the time the trial ended,the Murdoch trial ended. During the trial,
I was following Avery who was reportingfor Posting Caurier, and you know,
you just kind of get fixated onthis like one one person's feed.
It's great. Yeah. And thenafter, of course, you know,
I know that obviously Jim and Dickwere have a lot of regard for you,
(04:53):
and I started following you, andI've seen you. It's been very
difficult at times for you not tofight, but you restraint your tongue and
pen as they say in alcoholics anonymoussome days, some days, most days.
Yeah, and uh and and Iand I do love your story.
So I'm going to turn it overto Jim because he's down there. Obviously
(05:15):
Murdoch was his case, and andhe knows all about corruption in South Carolina.
So I'm gonna let him take itfrom here. Yeah, just just
back to fitz News first though,Will what what does fits stand for?
Yes, it's fine, I'm gladyou asked that. There's actually one of
the one of the lawsuits that gotfiled against us recently alleges that it stands
(05:36):
for first in the South and thatthat is somehow indicative of a rush to
publish information. Actually first in theSouth. That's a reference to the presidential
calendar. Fitz News started as apolitical website, but that's actually not what
the website stands for. So ifyou go to I think it's actually on
(05:58):
Wikipedia, but actually I got mycard here you can see it fits.
It actually stands for faith in theSound, which is a lyric from a
nineteen ninety George Michael song. Itwas the one where all the the models
were lip syncing. Yeah, andso that is actually what it stands for.
But there's like, literally no oneknows that. So it's kind of
(06:19):
fun to see people guess at whatit stands for. So but there you
go. Now, you guys gotthe truth can do with fitness? Right?
Well clearly not. Although I wasin pretty good shape when the Murdoch
trial started and then afterward, aftersix weeks of eating the food in Walterborough,
not so much. But yeah,you would be surprised how many people
(06:40):
tell me that I look so muchbetter in person than I'm doing TV.
And frankly, you know, Iate and drank and worked my ass off
during six weeks and so you know, we're all we all got run down
during that during that trial, andyou guys, you know, put in
as much time or almost as muchtime as we did, I'm sure.
But just back still in fits News. You know, I followed you for
(07:02):
I can't you know since you started, frankly, but I mean, the
platform has evolved clearly from the earlydays when it was more of a gossip
column and you you would post thehottest female lawyers in the state, and
I mean and then now you're Imean, you're not mainstream media, but
but your your journalism is very highquality and it's news now for sure.
(07:29):
Yeah, it's definitely evolved. Youknow, I think your characterizations are are
accurate. You know, it wasnot what I would refer to as a
media outlet for a long time,because that wasn't what I was trying to
do for a long time. Ithink the moment we really started trying to
shift, it was about twenty seventeen, which is when we started moving to
a subscription based model. And Ithink my thought process at that time was
(07:53):
that if if we're going to havesubscribers, if we're going to run it
like that, then we need tostart taking it a little more seriously.
So yeah, I think the toneof the site these days is uh,
definitely more in line with a moretraditional mainstream outlet. However, I do
like the fact that from time totime we will, you know, be
(08:13):
a little more aggressive, I thinkthan some of the mainstream outlets. And
I like that because it lets allof the judges, all the prosecutors,
all the lawmakers in particular, itlets them know, hey, these guys
are still a little crazy. They'restill you know, you never know exactly,
uh, you know, what they'llsay. And I guess, Jim,
you know, I mean, weweren't exactly kind to you and Dick
(08:35):
all the time. So yeah,one of the things that you did.
And I got to tell you gotgreat sources. I mean, you you
do have you know, high qualitysources. You get good information, not
always accurate, but you know,somewhere in the ballpark, I mean the
information. And you did report liketwo days after the Murdoch murders that Alet
(08:58):
Murdoch was a person of interest,and I think you subsequently said that you
even had stronger information, but thatyou you know, you felt restrained not
to say he was a suspect buta person of interest. And and I
got to tell you when I readthat, you know, smoke came out
of my ears. And I talkedto Sploud about it, and they were
like, they were very upset aboutit. But you know, I don't
(09:18):
want to know who your sources are, but but you are usually first in
breaking news. I will say thattry to try to get it right.
Don't always do it right, don'talways get it right, but that's the
goal. That's what we're trying todo for sure. Let let me let
me let's let's talk about Nikki Haleyright quick? And how do I say,
(09:39):
hold on? Before you get tonick, who are the hottest lawyers
in in South Carolina? I wantto know, Well, we clearly met.
I know there were guys on there, there were guys on there,
but we clearly met. I mean, I don't know if you know this,
gim but I had there. Itwas something I tweeted the other day,
and your part partner, Maggie,I think, retweeted it and I
(10:03):
didn't think it was her. AndI was telling all these other people that's
not really her, that's not her. She would never and then somebody one
of one of her budgets like,oh, yeah, that was her,
And I was like, I'm notworthy. She's a big fan of yours,
Maggie, Like I said, yourshe might not visibly show it,
but she damns me a lot ofyour posts. I know she she's a
(10:26):
fan of yours well, and agreat lawyer too, and the you know
there's so many like just killer femalelawyers in South Carolina. And and also
you know, you got to giveit up for justice former Justice Gene Toll.
I haven't always been a complimentary ofher. I didn't necessarily agree with
her rulings on the Murdock case,but boy did she show command of that
(10:50):
courtroom and a and an adeptness withthe arguments in the case. Law I
appreciate you segueing into Justice Toll,but we're talking about hot lawyer. Well,
I'm just trying to get Jim awayfrom NICKI Haley. So that's that's
my master plan here. No,I'm on Nicki Haley too. I want
to know as much as Jim does. But I also want to know who
(11:11):
the lawyers are. Anyway, goahead, talk about it. Yeah,
I mean, so you know,I got the list of topics from Sarah
and said, yeah, ask himabout Nicki Haley. And I go,
you sure he wants to talk aboutNikki Haley. And I did a little
Google searching and and you know,I'd forgotten Will. But you know,
you you became became public in twentyten. You submit You submitted that for
(11:35):
David you described that you had ainappropriate physical relationship with Nicki Haley at the
time. She was just in theHouse of Representatives in the state of South
Carolina running for governor. And andyou know, I don't really care about
your personal relationship with anybody, frankly, but the really the question, you
(11:56):
know, I want to ask youis why did you come out in publicly
about that. I think she wasmarried at the time, so I guess
that's what you're referring to as inappropriate. But another lobbyist came out at about
the same time, And I mean, just why, why did you do
that? Yeah, I mean there'sa lot of theories about it. In
fact, the most popular theory wasthat it was in coordination with her campaign,
(12:22):
because it actually ended up really helpingher campaign. It Sure it did,
it, sure did right. Youknow again, hindsight's twenty twenty.
I would have loved to go backand not do that, not handle it
the way that I did. Iwas actually very happily surprised with the way
that everything played out on this issueduring her presidential bid, because that could
(12:45):
have gotten pretty crazy. And Ithink other than a couple pieces in the
Daily Mail which actually kind of exoneratedwhat I said years ago, other than
that, I think I pretty muchdodged the bullet of this whole issue during
her residential race. But you know, my thought on it was, at
the time all this was going down, NICKI Haley was a limited government Tea
(13:07):
Party candidate, and the reason thatI came forward with the specific language I
did at the time was that twodifferent media outlets were getting ready to break
this story. There was The threeTimes, a local paper here in Columbia.
I think that's owned by the PostingCaurier now. But the real phone
call that scared me was a guynamed Jim Davenport. For those of you
(13:28):
who aren't familiar with Jim, hedied a little over a decade ago.
He was an Associated Press reporter.He was the most powerful reporter in South
Carolina. I don't think anyone beforeor since, at least that I know
of, has ever had the kindof influence he had. And when he
called and indicated that this was somethinghe was investigating, I did feel like
(13:50):
it was time to be proactive andkind of control the story. That's what
us in the spin business are taught, and so I actually did. Her
campaign was very aware of what Iwas going to say of when I was
going to say it. I didn'tget any indication that they were upset by
it. I felt like it openedthe door for them to approach it in
any number of different ways. AndI think it, like you said,
(14:11):
Jim, that ultimately did benefit her. But when was the relationship and how
long was the relationship? Yeah,the relationship started in February of two thousand
and seven, and it didn't lastthat long. It was over by May
of two thousand and seven. IfI'm honest, she was a little clingy.
Can I I'll just be honest.She was a little bit of a
clinger and I was starting to datemy wife at the time. Yeah,
(14:35):
I was just we'll call stuff likeit, right, I love it.
That's why I'm not saying she wasstage five or anything. But she was
a little clingy and I started connectingwith the woman I eventually married. And
you've had seven kids and when onemore on the way, right, So
that's right. But the real story, the funny thing is the story that
never was told, was, youknow, my wife had had an interaction
(14:58):
with Niki Haley that was pretty combative. I think this was in two thousand
and nine, but it was onethat probably would have drawn a lot of
attention. And I actually asked mywife at the time. I'm like,
hey, you know, if youwere to share that story, that would
probably, you know, have animpact on this. And she's like,
yeah, right, this is yourmess. You're dealing with it. So
(15:20):
but yeah, they Well, whatyou're describing as clinging Nikki is something that
it's a dynamic that you know,like Jim and I also encounter in our
and our practices. It's the it'sthe maybe me more than Jem because I
do a lot of you know,sexual assault cases, but uh, you
know, so it's the woman whothinks of a situation almost delusionally more than
(15:46):
what it is, with expectations andthen it doesn't go their way. Except
Nikki Ailey didn't come after you forsome weird u during that though, she
came out categorically denied any relationship.What's what with you? And then you
release you know, phone records andand you know, I remember, you
know, I lived through it,and everyone was saying, well, if
(16:07):
it's not true, she's got thebest defamation case in the world. You
know, she's gonna sue you,and you've been sued a lot for defamation,
but she never sued you. Didshe never did? Ye? Yeah,
so, and I want to getyour take on uh, former President
Trump's running for president again. Lookslike he is the now the Republican nominee.
(16:29):
But but he did a speech Ibelieve in Myrtle Beach where he was
saying, you know, where's MichaelHaley, where's Nicki Henry's husband, And
we all knew what he was talkingabout. And then I mean, what
do you think of that? Youknow, I think sometimes he gets lost
in his sense of his own humor. I think he thinks he's funnier than
(16:51):
he is a lot of times.Yeah, I don't know if I were
advising him, I would not haveadvised him to make that remark, particularly
considering that, whatever you want tosay about Nikki Haley, at the time
he made that remark, her husbandwas serving in the Horn of Africa,
which, by the way, isa pretty dangerous place right now. So
I don't know if that's something Iwould have said if I were him.
(17:14):
But you know, this guy,he's at the point with the GOP electorate,
I think he could say pretty muchanything. So but did you think
he was insinuating that, you know, they put Michael Haley on ice so
that they wouldn't have to address theseissues that you know we're talking about today.
I you know, it certainly wasconvenient for her that she did not
(17:34):
have to have that part of thestory front and center. Let's put it
that way. Yes, So,yeah, I mean, whenever her husband
comes up, he is, youknow, active duty for which he volunteered
for. Is I understand true?But one other thing I do want to
point out, Jim, I mean, this guy, I don't want to
(17:55):
make this guy out like he's somekind of a saint, Michael Haley.
I mean, this is a guywho was pretty well aware of her extracurriculars,
a guy who was no stranger toextra extracurriculars of his own. He's
also a guy who has been sortof the vehicle for a lot of the
Haley family corruption that we followed.Whether it's the there's a casino up in
(18:15):
North Carolina where he was very quietlymade a partner, uh. And then
there was also there's a subcontractor fora defense company uh selling uh, military
vehicles to Taiwan. Obviously Haley wascalling for America to arm Taiwan. That
seems to me pretty self serving.So I don't I'm not saying this guy's
(18:36):
a saint by instruct of the imagination. Sure, and now when you know,
we'll move on. But when NikkiHaley ran for governor, I mean,
she was doing the books for hermother's dress job, and they were
not in good financial shape. Andnow you know, Sarah Palin comes to
town. That was jet fuel forher campaign. You you and others boosted
(18:56):
a little bit by talking about howshe likes to have extracurricular act activities and
now me and Sarah Palen there yougo. Yeah. Now, now she's
a multi millionaire and so anyway,okay, so you were press secretary to
her, No, I was,actually I was her political strategist for about
a year. But yeah, Iwas press secretary actually to her predecessor,
(19:19):
Mark Sandford, another name when peoplethink of South Carolina. Yeah. I
actually two questions I had. Oneis about Murdoch, one is about corruption.
And I don't see those two thingsas the same. By the way,
as you know on Murdoch, youknow everybody would well, I don't
(19:40):
want to say everybody, a certaingroup of people. We're trying to take
credit for breaking the story. AndJim, you know, uh just made
a really good point about how youhave great sources and you alerted him to
him being a person of interest.So what what is what is this?
I mean, what is this competition? What story? What part of the
(20:03):
story? And who broke it first? Yeah, and I'll confess I was
way too worried about that for waytoo long, to the detriment of the
news product that Fitz News was puttingout. Obviously was working with some folks
at the time that viewed credit asa indispensable part of the job. I
(20:25):
have since learned that that's the verylast thing you need to worry about.
Just do the job. Whatever credityou get, whatever credit you don't get,
take it, don't you know.It's just not a factor anymore for
me. And so, you know, one of the things that I do
think I try to do anyway,is credit other outlets when they clearly first
(20:45):
broke something. If it's a documentthat we get later, I will still
say, hey, these guys hadit first, they reported it first.
You know, you mentioned Avery Wilkesa moment ago. He's a guy who's
done great work on the Murdock case. Michael de Witt and has done great
work. John Monk with the Statenewspaper has done great work. All of
these reporters and a bunch of nationalones too. I mean, there's been
(21:07):
national reporters who have have dived intothis story and really peeled back some of
the nuances and the layers and soyou know, but yeah, there's some
folks that felt like they owned itand felt like anybody that reported on it
was, you know, had somenefarious agenda. And again, I just
the further I've gotten away from thatmindset, I think, the better work
(21:29):
we've done, and certainly I thinkthe better I felt about it, because
you know, just not worrying aboutthat stuff. That stuff is so toxic.
You know, it's just so toxic. And isn't like so much more
peaceful now that uh Murdock's on theback? Cheers to that man who Well,
I want to I want to askyou your opinion as to why it
(21:52):
attracted so much attention. And Iwas interviewed recently they win and where it'll
be out, you know, ina few months. But you know,
during the course of the interview,I was told that during the trial court
TV's viewership went up six And Idon't know what your numbers are, but
my sense that you have had atremendous increase in your subscriber base, and
(22:18):
I know others have because of theMurdock case. What what Why was it
so attractive to listeners and viewers?In your opinion, well, I think
it started obviously with the crime itself. I mean, you look at this
crime, you look at just howgraphic it was, all of the details
(22:40):
surrounding it, the uncertainty surrounding it, no murder weapon, et cetera,
the mystery associated with it. Soyou have a savage crime, no immediate
explanation for it. I think thatimmediately gets people's attention. Then they start
looking at the characters involved, andoh, wait a minute's this guy whose
family has has run this part ofthe state for the last one hundred years.
(23:03):
Basically, wait a minute, they'rethese judges potentially mixed up. There's
all these other layers of corruption.I think that sort of started drawing people
into it. But then what reallyto me? Did it? And on
Jim, I don't know if younoticed this as well, but this story
was already a very big story andwas drawing a ton of attention. And
then in September, when the roadsideshooting incident took place involving Murdoch after the
(23:30):
murders, several months after the murders, all of a sudden, we just
saw the second huge explosion of interestand attention, and all of a sudden,
it went from sort of being thisvery impactful case that everyone was already
following to being something that everyone justbecame obsessed with. And that roadside shooting
I think really propelled it because itwas not only a story about something that
(23:55):
had happened. It was a storythat was continuing to happen, and so
I think that incident really to meanyway, that's when we noticed a lot
of people really dialing into the story, and certainly when Netflix got involved and
some of the other production companies.HBO obviously as well, did a great
job. Fox Nation. You knowthose stories did not do a great job
(24:18):
HBO. I mean, because youknow why, And I mean at the
time I watched HBO because before thetrial, because I was trying to get
a sense of By the way,you don't know this, but Jim does.
My fascination with the story was fromthe time the murders happened. Chris
Cuomo was an old friend of mineand you know, we would we would
(24:41):
exchange story like crime stories, andhe brought this up to me and I
said, this is wild, youknow, And he was I think one
of the first people in mainstream orcable media, at least on CNN to
cover the story. And then Ijust started following it. But but I
thought HBO at the time I watchedit, I knew nothing about you know,
(25:03):
the show, and I watched Jim'sinterview and everything. But then when
the trial came about. I wasfact checking the stuff that came out on
the HBO documentary, and it wasa lot of stuff was inaccurate, simply
not a fact. You know,well and just I mean the same.
You know. Netflix obviously did avery hyper focus on Buster Murdoch and the
(25:26):
Stephen Smith case, and I thinkat this point everyone can agree that is
the way it went down. AlthoughI will say this, I mean I
was the first guy to get theunredacted they called a MATE report, a
multi Accident Investigative Team report. Wewere the first out to ever get that
for the Stephen Smith case. AndI remember going through it. This was
twenty seventeen, I think when Igot it. So this was before the
(25:49):
boat crash, before the double homicide, before the roadside shooting, all this,
and I remembered seeing the Murdoch namein there like forty times and thinking
who are these people? Uh?And there was never enough in there for
us to run something at the time. But obviously when it all exploded and
people began to sort of start peelingthose layers back, yeah, obviously Buster
(26:10):
Murdoch became a focus. But yeah, I don't know, I look at
some people really want to pin allthat on Buster Murdoch. I you know,
again, that's that's part of thestory to me, where things sort
of jumped the shark. I guessit's the term I would use. I
mean, so during the shortly afterthe murders led and the and there,
(26:33):
you know that there's been a lotof discussion about all they've Slid is putting
so much effort and time and energysolving these murders of Maggie and Paul and
what about Stephen Smith? And thenin the midst of that, you know,
Slid says we are opening an investigationinto Steven Smith based on information we've
learned in the Murdoch investigation. Imean, to this day, I mean,
(26:55):
do you have any idea what thehell they were talking about? I
do. Actually it was that report. Literally no one had ever sent them
that original Highway patrol report with allof the Murdoch references, and so you
know, when they made that announcement, like you, Jim and probably Sarah
if you're following that too, Ithought, wow, they've got something from
the crime scene something and Alex,you know, that's exactly where my mind
(27:22):
went. But apparently it was literallysomeone forwarded them this report and that was
all it was. And uh,I think that ended up being very unfair,
uh to Buster Murdoch because it createdthis perception that there was a connection
that was much stronger than it ultimatelyended up being just sort of closing loop
on this as the Murdoch story.Is it fading now? Is it still
(27:48):
gardner as much? I'm from myperspective, right after I couldn't go anywhere
without anyone recognizing me. Then aftertime went on, I get to you
know, I know you from somewhere? Where do I know you from?
Now? They look at me like, who is that? Which is I'm
(28:10):
glad to get back to my oldlife, I promise you. But where
are we on the news cycle forMurdock. Yeah, it's definitely died down
since the motion for a new trialwas denied. And again I didn't necessarily
believe that was the right decision.I watched your arguments that day, Jim.
I watched creighton Waters arguments as well. I thought Creighton did a great
(28:33):
job. I just didn't agree withhis assessment of the law. But yeah,
in the aftermath of that hearing,I think a lot of folks felt
some finality regarding it, and certainlythere's a you probably can think in your
head what the grounds are on theappeal. But you guys obviously have a
great appeal coming up, certainly onthe federal side, if not on the
state side. And you know,we've got some changes to the composition of
(28:57):
the State Supreme Court that could beimpactful. But we'll see where it goes.
But you know, a lot ofpeople are still focused on the Becky
Hill side of it. But asfar as the Murdock case itself, yeah,
I think people have Finally, Inever never, never say never.
But you have to dye your hair. You do not have to cross dress.
(29:19):
Well, you're cool. There comesa time when you just want to
cross dress. There, don't takethat away from me. That's going on
in our article. Jim, Ilike that. You know. In high
school, you know, we didhave that. We we did have that
(29:41):
beauty contest where the guys on thefootball team dressed up is and I was
I was, mister Pendleton, Ilook pretty damn good in a night gown.
If you if you tell me thatDick Harpootleing and Jack Swirling engaged in
some of this behavior at Clemson,then we got us. Now I've heard
(30:03):
all their stories. You need assets, you need pictures. So so you
know, for me, one ofthe things I always tell Jim is that
what's incredible to me is that,you know, the Murdoch story was was
portrayed as this really corrupt family,This corrupt guy owned the legal system down
there. He was. I mean, some of it was true. Yeah,
he was defrauding his clients, butyou know, but he just he
(30:26):
was filthy, rich and corrupt.And and I mean I think that to
a lot, to some extent,a great extent. It's the tables have
turned. I mean it the casenow put the spotlight on a lot of
other corrupt, you know, institutions. I mean, I I I'm going
(30:48):
to say this because I don't practiceor live in South Carolina sled. I
mean, lying to a grand jury, handling a crime scene in the way
that they did. That's not okay, whether you want to call it corrupt
or what. To me, it'scorrupt. And Becky Hill and then her
(31:10):
son, so to me, it'sironic that you know, this whole thing
was that Murdoch was corrupt and theMurdo's were corrupt. But then now it
seems like it put the spotlight ona lot of other people, places and
things. Right, Well, Ithink two things can be true at once.
I think there was a lot ofinstitutional corruption that enabled the thefts that
(31:33):
Alec Murdock and his associates were ableto pull off. I don't think all
of that has been exposed yet.I do think that particularly the FEDS are
are digging into some of that alittle a little deeper. But you're absolutely
right, Sarah. I mean processmatters, and I've always said, you
know, Jim, feel free tocontradict me. I've always said I believe
Alec Murdoch did it. I believethat the verdict and the sentence were appropriate,
(31:56):
and that I believe he's where heshould be. But having said that,
process, particularly in the aftermath ofthis trial, based on the revelations
regarding Becky Hill, and I wrotethis, I've written this repeatedly. Got
a lot of heartburn about the waythat went down, particularly the office of
Alan Wilson overseeing the investigation into BeckyHill, while at the same time relying
(32:19):
on Becky Hill as a counter tothe testimony of some of these jurors.
And I've shared that with the AttorneyJournal. You know, he's a friend.
I think he's somebody I would calla friend. I think he would
say the same. But you know, I've had some frank conversations with him
about how I feel that's a conflict, and I think they should have kicked
it to another solicitor to handle.And I'm very disappointed that the State granjury
(32:42):
is still actively investigating Becky Hill onthese jury tampering an allegations, which,
to me, how does that makesense? How does that in any universe
lend public faith to this process?It doesn't, And so, you know,
I have been disappointed, But you'reright, sare that script flip a
good bit after the verdicts. SoI have one thing on Murdoch that I
(33:05):
want us to move forward to theyou know cases that are in the news
now. You know you you've beensober how many years now, well,
seventeen, seventeen and eighteen this June. Congratulations, that's a big, big
deal. And you are you activelyin twelve step and stuff or is that
(33:28):
something from the past. No,I'm not. And the thing about sobriety,
everyone's got a different way to doit, and I absolutely respect people
who are in the program. AndI will say this, knowing the program
is there is a big help.I have never had to avail myself of
it over these last eighteen years,but knowing it's there as a resource is
(33:51):
a big help. Also, havingthe number of somebody you know you can
call in that situation if you feellike you're about to stumble, if you
feel like you're you know, aboutto make a mistake, having that number
that somebody you know you can calland they're going to be there for you.
Those have been the things that havereally helped me. But I certainly
(34:12):
like the program has. You talkedabout the steps, the tenth step,
you know about personal inventory and whenwe're wrong, promptly admitting it. That's
one that I try to try tolive by, both professionally and personally,
because you know, that's a hugeone, and certainly the first step about
admitting that we're powerless. Until youdo that, none of the other steps
are going to help you. Sobut yeah, it's been a journey.
(34:36):
Probably the smartest thing I ever didin my life other than marrying my wife,
And in fact, I don't thinkI would have been able to to
marry my wife and raise the familyI've been able to raise, had I
not quit drinking and doing drugs first, you know, it is I I
had my own battle with one particulardrug. So when you say sobriety's sort
(35:00):
of like an individual thing. Forme. It was eight years of hardcore
AA and then I did not.So there are people that are simply addicts
to every like, essentially any substance. They say, your drug a choice
is just drugs. You know,my thing was just one thing for particular
(35:21):
reason. I had to go addressa lot of you know, issues from
way back when. And so forme, I actually needed more than twelve
steps, you know. And itgot to a point where I actually felt
disingenuous saying, hey, I'm Sarahand I'm an alcoholic. I don't have
a problem with drinking. I drinkmaybe once a month or not, you
know. And so, but itis the twelve steps is something that all
(35:46):
of us should implement in our lives. In my opinion, it's so basic,
you know, it's just being agood person, doing better, you
know, keeping your side of thestreet clean. To me, it's not
even you know, an addict oralcoholic manual. It's everybody's manual. But
(36:07):
that's just my opinion. And Iyou know, I direct a lot of
clients to twelve Steps, and forsome people it works, for some people
it doesn't. But like you said, it's really good to have a support
group, to know where to goto, know who to talk to.
And on that note, I wantto end with Murdoch so we can move
on to the other cases. Murdochhad a pretty bad addiction to opiates.
(36:30):
I mean, it was so obviousto me. I saw those pictures of
them sweating, all red, justa mess, you know, and I
was like, it's at the beginningwhen I had connected with Jim. I
was like, your client is reallyfucked up. You know, your client.
I can't believe people don't believe thathe was an act of course at
that point, well, nobody wasbelieving anything. Murdoch was staying because all
(36:51):
of you know, the two anda half weeks of financial fraud information that
came out. But why do youthink that to this day when you bring
up his addiction, people go,now, he was not an addict.
He was just a liar and acheater or whatever. I mean, do
you believe that he had an addictionas bad as he did? Well,
(37:12):
I think once again, two thingscan be true at once. He could
have had a very bad opioid addictionand then still never been able to do
the amount of opioids that were linkedto these financial transactions. I mean,
obviously, I think you know Napoleon'sentire cavalry, you would probably knock them
down with the amount of opioids hewas moving. So the drug part of
(37:34):
this has always been a big mysterybecause we found we went down several rabbit
holes and actually came very close tomaking some connections that I think would have
taken that angle of the story further. A lot of folks were focused on
the cowboys in the street, yeah, part of it, but we were
looking much deeper to properties, toLLC's that were tied to companies that we
(37:55):
felt were fronts for moving drugs ona much bigger scale. And listen,
I'm not I'm not. I'm notsaying that people that are addicts or alcoholics
are criminals, that they necessarily commitcrimes. And there are plenty of people
who are addicts, sober or notwho have a clean rap sheet, right
but but but I have seen plentyof them, including lawyers that are really
(38:22):
messed up. You know that Isee an absolute nexus between the addiction and
the financial you know, the moralchurpitude and all of it. I mean,
there is definitely I don't you know. People always fight me on this,
like what does that have to dowith this? Like you said,
two things can be true, andthere is absolutely a correlation between a lawyer
(38:43):
who's really messed up on drugs andthen starts getting comfortable with his client's money,
and to me, see, Idon't. I don't agree with you.
I don't believe he did it.Okay, I believe well Number one,
I don't believe it was proven thathe did it. Number two,
I don't believe he did it.I believe he knows what happened. I
believe he was there, and Ibelieve that it was related to his drug
(39:07):
use. So when you say thisgoing down these holds, please keep going,
please? Yeah, absolutely, Ido think there's something there. It
bothers me, and it's like theScott Peterson case Apples and oranges, but
twenty years later, it's unbelievable thethings that the defense is uncovered. That
is now you know, they're tryingto get court orders for to test to
(39:28):
bring out witness statements, attach friends. It's just yeah, this might be
one of those cases. But hopefullyhe'll get relief. The Jim will do
great jobs like he always does andturn this around in the fourth circuit.
So I want to talk. Iwant to turn this over to Jim,
because the Jim Crump, the JamesGrumbley and his wife Jennifer Crumbley, the
two parents for the first time inAmerica who are held liable culpable guilty on
(39:53):
involuntary manslaughter two different juries a fewweeks apart, and it is huge precedent,
and I keep struggling with it.So I'm gonna turn over to Jim
because I want you to chime inon this. You know, I don't
know what more you want me tosay about it other than that ask Will
Sarah. But the fact of thematter is, you know, the mother
(40:15):
and the father have been convicted ofthem volunteering in manslaughter because they gave their
men lead you know, sick son, you know, a gun and you
know, as a president, andthey took him shooting. And you know,
I don't know, I have realconcerns about the conviction, but I
(40:35):
want to hear you. I knowyou followed it, what do you think,
Yeah, I mean I have tremendousconcern about the precedent. And what's
hard about this case is that ifyou look at the aggravating factors that would
go into the fundamental question, wouldyou ever convict parents for responsibility for their
kids' crimes? If you look atthe aggravating factors that would lead you to
(40:59):
do that case really has them all. I mean, the neglect, the
force, responsibility right. In fact, the thing that really did it for
me was listening to, you know, some of the trial where they talked
about the meeting the day of theshooting where they tell these parents that this
kid needs immediate emergency assistance and themother's just like, are we done here?
(41:25):
No, we're not taking it,you know it just so the level
there was a piece of paper.To me, that was the most compelling
thing because the mom what the schoolkept him in class after that? Yeah,
the school actually had no sense ofurgency. They're like, just get
him help in the next forty eighthours, Like, well, we actually
(41:45):
think it's better for him to goback to class, it's better for him
to be with his peers. Andthey kept him there. But again,
you know these parents, the motherand father's the facts were a little bit
different with the mother than the Themother was engaged in a lot of texts
with the son that were cries forhelp that she ignored. The dad bought
(42:08):
the gun. The dad didn't securethe gun, he just hid it under
some clothing apparently. But at thesame time, and then there was a
really bad journal that the kid hadwritten his cries for help and and all
that, and that the thing wasforciability. The dad did not know what's
in that journal. But that morning, Jim the mourning that, you know,
the school calls the parents of thekid. He and the mom both
(42:30):
were aware of this horrible blueprint ofthe massacre, saying blood everywhere and it's
a shoot up. I mean,it is the blueprint, and they still
kept him in school. So Istruggle because, like you, I feel
like, what's next. Now We'regoing to say parents are criminally liable in
voluntary mass laughter. I mean it'dbe different if the parents knew the kid
(42:52):
had a gun in his backpack.I mean, they didn't know that there
were no gun missing. They werenot looking for a gun. I mean
they it calls correct to the schooland you've got a fucked up song.
Well, there's got a lot ofparents out there who have that such.
Well what about and what about ifthe kid had killed himself? Do we
(43:12):
then it doesn't matter whose life wastaken if the parents are criminally negligent for
the actions of their kids. Soare we now going to say we're going
to indict them for the kid harminghimself? I mean it's possible. Right.
This definitely sets the precedent. Sothere's several alsuits of you know,
negligent and trust cases all the time, this vehicle or I'm sure there are
(43:34):
gun cases out there, but veryseldom, you know. I think this
is the first one where it's goingto the level of criminal convictions and they're
looking at fifteen fifteen to sixty yearsin prison. Yeah, what do you
think they'll get, Jim, becauseit's fifteen per count. But they're not
going to get They're not going toget stacked. It's just four different victims.
(43:58):
Who knows and how much time doyou have to do on that?
It all depends on the jurisdiction.I haven't looked it up. You know,
how much real community to do?Yeah, it's a frightening president though,
and as horrific as the facts ofthis case are, and as damning
as they are for both of thoseparents, I mean, I think again,
if you were looking at a caseto bring charges like this, this
(44:21):
is the case. I mean,it's a terrible fact pattern. But still
I just I have a hard timesupporting a prosecutor bringing these charges. But
again, as you guys know,even before this trial, there was an
extended legal process about the appropriateness ofbringing the charges in the first place.
In the courts in Michigan, Ibelieve erroneously ruled that these charges were appropriate
(44:46):
to be brought. And you know, I think you can bring these type
charges in just about every mass shootingcase involving a young adult or child.
I mean Columbin, for example,I think there was similarournal's there and you
know that was that was you know, as that's worse Colin Biden was a
lot worse. And then you knowthat the elementary school up in was it
(45:10):
Maine, New Hampshire, Sandy Hook, correct? I mean, you know
you could go after the parents,blame the parents, and and that sort
of gets me to you know,a beef, I have you get high
profile cases and you get a juryin there, and the jury is I
mean, they fill the pressure ofpublic opinions. I find them guilty in
(45:30):
my view, and on appeal,I think, well that the ruling and
other rulings that you brought up willbe grounds as well as the journal.
There was no evidence that the father, for example, I had any knowledge
about what's in the journal, andyet the journal was admitted. So it
was highly prejudicial and not that probativeat the end of the day. The
(45:52):
other case, I think we wantto talk to you about and we'll close
with this is what I call HornySusan. The case of Susan Smith from
South Carolina. Another notorious murderer downthere, and this one's very wild because
Smith was convicted of murdering her twoyoung children, three years old and fourteen
months old in July of nineteen ninetyfive. She didn't get the death penalty.
(46:15):
In October nineteen ninety four, shestraps the two boys to their car
seats in the back of her sedanand then just lets the car roll into
the lake. She's the last personthat's seen with the boys alive. She
then tells the police that a blackman had carjacked her at gunpoint when she
was stopped at an intersection and thendrove off with her children. But when
(46:37):
they investigated the lights at the intersection, her story didn't add up, so
they suspect her as a person ofinterest and her involvement, and then this
nationwide manhunt begins for this concocted carjackeressentially, and then Smith meanwhile was having
these pressers professing her love for theboys and you know, pleading for them
(47:00):
to come back home safely. Soten days after the alleged carjacking, the
lie Smith finally confesses to drowning thetwo boys. Her defense was despair,
So it's not evil, it wasdespair. It was what was going on
with me. She had a verydifficult childhood, but a lot of our
clients do. Her father committed suicidewhen she was six, She attempted suicide
(47:25):
herself at thirteen and seventeen. Thenher stepfather, who was a Christian leader,
molested her repeatedly during her high schoolyears, and she claimed she enjoyed
it because it made her mother jealous. That's you know, how twisted she
was. And that relationship continued evenafter her marriage and up to just weeks
(47:45):
before the murders. Closer to thetime of the murders, she had an
affair with a man who broke offwith her. You know, I think
they slept together maybe a dozen timesor less than a dozen times, and
he moves on. And so thatbreakup is Smith claims kind of put her
over the edge because this man didnot want kids, including the kids that
(48:06):
Smith had had previously, these twoboys. And so her defense was essentially
she was desperate over Finley's decision toterminate the relationship, and that's what led
to the murder of her children.She did even know what was going on
that night. So now she's behindbars. You've been reporting on this,
Will I've been following this on yourpage. And she's up for parole.
(48:29):
She didn't get the death penalty,she didn't get life with pearl without the
possible part. She has the hospularpearol. So she's up for parole there
and you're taking a poll as towhether or not this woman should parle.
She has had an she got anSTD while she's behind bars. She's had
sex with prison staff while under theirauthority, like a guard and a captain.
(48:52):
She's had sex with multiple female inmates. She's a sex machine and she's
been having phone sex with random menand then sexting other men, giggling and
talking about wiggling and swirming and itis wild. So when we think about
(49:12):
parole, it's about rehabilitation, right. So Susan Atkins paroled, you know,
in the Charles Manson case. Butshe was a model inmate. And
so I'm looking at this woman goingshe has like got to have a million
write ups for sexual misconduct. Whatis your pole show, well, and
what are your thoughts on this?I mean, obviously overwhelmingly people do not
(49:37):
believe she should get out. Andalso in addition to all those, there
have been some drug infractions behind barsfor her, some other infractions behind bars.
She has absolutely not been a modelinmate. And I think this case,
you know, obviously, the Murdockcase, is a level of attention
on a legal proceeding that South Kronahas never seen before and will probably never
(49:59):
see again. I mean, let'sjust be honest. I being at that
trial and the scrutiny and the attention, I don't think we'll ever see anything
like that again. The closest thingto it, though, would have been
the Susan Smith trial back in nineteenninety five. They called it the trial
of the century back then, backin the twentieth century, and I think
it was. And you know,you did a great job, Sarah,
(50:22):
going through all the facts of it. The thing that I that always hits
me is the is the timeframe.Uh six minutes. It took that car
six minutes to sink. And accordingto Tommy Pope, the prosecutor, he
just did an interview with jin Woodin our office on this case about some
of his experiences, and he pointedout that there was not a drop of
(50:45):
water on Susan Smith's clothes. Andthose two things just really stood out to
me because as a dad, yeah, it just you can't you can't get
in in side the mind to somebodylike that. My kid, you know,
my kids anything even they feel badabout something, you know, your
(51:07):
instinct just takes over. You wantto help them and save them, or
you at the very least go tothem. And so that just blew my
mind. And then the there wasthe interview with the diver who found the
car, who talked about seeing oneof the little hands through the window.
It just I mean, yeah,it's heart wrenching and you know this is
(51:30):
not an this is not a defact, Sarah. They Tommy Pope saw the
death ponemy in that case and didnot get it. Yeah I did because,
Yeah, Jim's interesting. You mentionedthat in his interview with Jim in
our office. I think we publishedit just last month from when we recorded
(51:52):
this. He talked about how heviewed it as a defeat because he got
guilty verdicts, but he did andget the death penalty, and he felt
that she really deserved it. AndI think his logic was pretty good for
pursuing it because his point was,listen, let's assume that her story was
true. Let's assume a black mancarjacked these kids and killed them. Would
(52:15):
we not seek the death penalty inthat situation? And of course everyone would
have. So I think he madea very good argument for seeking the death
penalty. And I also think thatTommy Pope, who's a guy I've I've
had differences with in the past,but I respect the way he conducted himself
in this case. And certainly healso had to do it going uphill because
(52:36):
a lot of local law enforcement weresympathetic to Susan Smith. I think her
she's left. No. I cantell you the law enforcement nicer who got
the confession out of her as agreat friend of mine, and he had
he was retired FBI agent. Hewas a legend, and he sat down
(52:59):
with her like a grand father woodand she broke down and confessed to him.
And I believe he gave assurances thatshe that they would not seek the
death penalty. And as soon asshe confessed, Tommy Pope seeking the death
penalty. And I know he wasvery upset about Tommy Pope's decision. And
I'm not gonna so they saw seeI didn't know this, so they sought
(53:20):
the death penalty. Yeah, okay, okay, Well she's lucky she didn't
get that. She's also lucky she'snot serving life without without Now. On
a lighter note, there was Iprobably shouldn't say this, but I'm going
to. There was a trial inRichland County. Some guards were being prosecuted
(53:42):
for having sex with inmates, includingSusan Smith, and the trial judge relayed
the testimony to me at one pointin time over cocktails, and it something
like this that that people were testifiedthat when the lights went out and the
women's prison at night. It soundedlike a soup kitchen. So there you
(54:07):
go. I probably shouldn't have saidthat that is consistent with the intelligence we've
gotten. Yeah, it's unbelievable.And listen, I was just gonna say
this, it's not you know,it's not a defense, certainly, and
she I don't know who her.I don't know her defense lawyer, even
if I knew the name, Butthey did the best they could to make
(54:31):
a case that she was desperate andthat she was I believe it is.
David Brock represented her, and hewas one of the best death penalty defense
lawyers in the country, teachers atHarvard. But I just think, you
know, it's incredibly sad to me. The saddest part, of course,
are the two boys and what happenedto them in those six minutes. But
(54:52):
it's also sad to me the cycleof abuse. I see it on my
own clients. I see it onmy own cases, you know, I
see how people get messed up andhistory repeats itself. It's not a defense,
but it is definitely a horrible phenomenon. So well, I think that's
why she ultimately didn't get the deathpenalty. Sarah, you had mentioned it
(55:13):
when you when you did the recapof the case, all the things that
happened to her. I think that'sultimately why they decided not to give her
the death penalty, because I thinkthey looked at all of those things and
thought, well, yes, itdoesn't excuse what she did, but they
are certainly mitigating factors on a deathpenalty ruling. Yeah. So I want
(55:34):
to end with this. You getin trouble, well, you get her
liston down and I don't know summerin Columbia. Would you hire Jim Griffin
or Dick Carpoulia Mary Sellers, that'shis lawyer, and you know, we
don't want to take any business awayfrom the way who Bacary Sellers. Sorry,
(55:55):
Macary is my friend. But let'ssay but Cary says, you know,
well, i'm your friend. Ithink it's right for me to do
this. I don't want problems inour friendship. And you are you just
have two choices. Basically, it'sDick or Job. I mean, I
think have we not established on thiscall? I would call Maggie Fox first.
I mean, come on, Maggieand I Ali Denvento. All the
(56:20):
good looking women all the good lookingwomen. I mean, come on,
that's the thing. There's a tonof great defense lawyers down here, and
I think that's the one thing thatI had to you know, watching this
whole case unfold. You know,say what you will about this case and
what your opinions are on it.But the attorneys in this case, Jim,
your work on this case, Dick'swork on this case. Creighton Waters,
(56:43):
I mean, let's give him credit. I mean, he did a
phenomenal job. It was very impressiveto watch the councils on both sides litigate
this case. Just some very skilledlitigators. Thank you. I mean,
I'm very impressed by the handful oflawyers that I've met in South Carolina.
(57:06):
I'm not impressed by where's Jim's bobblehead? That's what I want to know,
Jim, if you get a bibblehead, I'm in sign me up. You
know, I've just a cross dressfor that, though not quite there yet.
I am I had a bobblehead yearsago from a personal injury lawyer.
(57:28):
You had a case with a keeamAnastapulo. So I think he was the
first lawyer in South Carolina to comeout with a bubblehead, but and then
it broke after. I mean,I think it's okay to have a babble
head that you keep in your Idon't know, I know it's not.
I'm sorry, I take it back. I was just thinking like maybe if
(57:52):
you just kept it somewhere behind thescenes and didn't, you know, actually
advertise it. But no, it'snever okay to do a bobblehead. I
think Jim and I would have greatbobbleheads. I mean, come on,
look, we've got a lot towork with here. I mean, yeah,
just an acorn is all I need. You know. That's holiday gift
(58:13):
was a him and his girls,his daughters. What are those those those
are better than bubbleheads. I can'tremember the name now, Jim, what
are those little characters? You know, the little Funko, the Funko Have
you seen those? Will the funkcharacters that come from like Marvel series and
all the different movies. Anyway,you can some of these? Yeah,
(58:37):
I think I know what you're talkingabout. Yeah, it has to make
funkos for you know people. Ithink that's way better than a bubblehead.
Anyway. Well, thank you somuch for giving us your valuable time.
Today, and I want to inviteour viewers and listeners to follow fits News
(58:58):
and their podcast and they're on xwith a lot of posts and links and
also prescribe to our podcast, ThePresumption wherever you get your podcasts and also
on YouTube. And until next time, Jim we rest we Rest
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
The Herd with Colin Cowherd
The Herd with Colin Cowherd is a thought-provoking, opinionated, and topic-driven journey through the top sports stories of the day.