LIVE | Murdaugh Case BOMBSHELL: Conviction Overturned

Added: 2026-05-23

[00:00:11]Hi, I'm Kayla Brantley. Welcome to the Crime Desk Live powered by two-way. Alec Murdoch is the South Carolina attorney born into a prominent legal family who appeared to have it all. Then on June 7th, 2021, that world imploded when his wife Maggie and 22-year-old son Paul were shot dead at the dog kennels on the family's sprawling 17,000 acre Moselle estate. The grizzly double murder sparked a chain reaction that ultimately exposed Murdoch's scandal plagued double life. He allegedly orchestrated a bizarre botched murder for hire plot on himself. The spotlight fell on other mysterious deaths tied to the prominent family, including the family's maid and a teen girl killed in a boating accident. Alec Murdoch was convicted for the murders of his wife and son in a high-profile trial in 2023. And now, in a ruling just last week, that conviction was overturned, and he'll be granted a retrial thanks to the ke thanks to the court clerk who was found to have influenced the jury. Her name is Rebecca Hill. To help me break this down, I'm joined by Daily Mail crime correspondent Rachel Sharp and former federal prosecutor Nema Romani. So, Rachel, how did we get here? Who is Rebecca Hill?

[00:01:32]What did she say to this jury? Tell us all about it. So, this has been rumbling on since 2023. So just a few months after Alec Murdoch was convicted of the murders, his defense team first raised allegations of jury tampering. Now those allegations all centered around Becky Hill. Becky Hill was the Colton County Court clerk during the trial which meant that she had a big role in this trial which was you know the trial of the century in the Low Country. This meant she was responsible for looking after the jury, for assisting the judge, and she actually even delivered the verdict.

[00:02:12]So, this verdict that was watched by thousands of people all across the country, it was her who read that out inside the courtroom.

[00:02:19]>> Yeah. And Rachel, we actually have a video of Rebecca Hill reading that verdict out. If you want to play that now.

[00:02:29]Docket number 2022 GS15 000592 the state of South Carolina County of Colatin in the court of general sessions in the term of 2022 July the state versus Richard Alexander Murdoch defendant indictment for murder SC code 16-3-000010 CDR R code 0116.

[00:03:04]>> Okay. Guilty verdict signed by the four lady 3223.

[00:03:14]>> All right. Yeah, we see Rebecca Hill there reading out the verdict. Like you said, she was in touch with the jury throughout the entire thing, but do we know what her motives were? I understand she actually wrote a book, Behind the Doors of Justice: The Murdoch Murders.

[00:03:29]Was that part of the reason that she wanted this guilty verdict?

[00:03:33]>> Yeah. So, witnesses said that she wanted um she wanted the fame and she also wanted the money that came with the book. One witness said that she even told her, and this was a court clerk for a nearby county, said that she had wanted money from a book so that she could buy a lakehouse. Um, one of the justices, um, from a previous hearing said that, you know, she was attracted to the siren of celebrity, but this book, you know, does seem to be at, you know, the center of these jury tampering allegations, which is why she was so determined to allegedly get a guilty verdict. And, you know, she was, the juror said that she was saying things to them like, "Don't trust what Alex Murdoch's defense team is saying. Watch Alex Murdoch's body language as he takes the stand." So quite stunning behavior from the court clerk. Um but as well as the book I think it's you know it's important to note that actually it's not just the jury tampering allegations that the book surfaced. It was actually also she was also actually accused of plagiarism with this book as well. And so it was actually pulled from the shelves long before this has led to the overturning of his conviction. The book was pulled from the shelves because she'd actually plagiarized a BBC journalist as well in writing it. H I mean I guess a guilty verdict will sell more. I mean Nemo Romani, what are the duties of a court clerk? Is this something you've ever seen before? And how can one woman really make such an impact to have a whole conviction overturned?

[00:05:07]>> I've never seen this particular issue. I have seen convictions overturned on exparte communications. So what does that mean? Everything that happens in a trial really has to happen in open court with the lawyers and the parties present. Now sometimes they need to take matters outside the presence of the jurors but even then the lawyers are always there. You can't have a clerk or any court staff including the judge communicating with the law with the jurors directly. That's really the cardinal sin, right? Because everything needs to be transparent and open. And not only was Becky Hill communicating with the jurors, she was communicating with them about substantive evidentiary issues. And not just any evidentiary issues, the most important evidence.

[00:05:52]When a criminal defendant testifies in a case, the entire case really comes down to his or her testimony. So you have Becky Hill telling the jurors not to believe Alec Murdoch, trying to taint that jury pool. So there was a hearing with a new judge and the judge ruled that even though this was improper, there was no prejudice to Alec Murdoch because he would have been convicted anyway. Now I'm not so sure and at the time I thought even though this is someone who's clearly an admitted fraudster, maybe a murderer, he should get a new trial and I'm as prosecution as they come. But that request was denied which of course set up this appeal going all the way to the South Carolina Supreme Court. And it was a unanimous decision to overturn this conviction.

[00:06:42]>> But wouldn't you think, you know, other people would be around? Aren't there ba baiffs and court reporters? How did it take, you know, 3 years after this conviction for it to finally get overturned? Why why weren't there any red flags raised when Becky Hill was speaking to the jurors? Well, the wheels of justice are slow and appeals are slow because there's briefing, there's oral argument, there's time for a written decision. So, this is how it works. The defense actually caught on to this pretty quickly. There was an evidentiary hearing and, you know, jurors came forward and they said that, you know, these are the communications that Hill had with us. So, you know, again, there's court reporters present in court, but not in that jury deliberation room, right? Anyone that served as a juror knows there's no court reporter there. It's really a black box. Um those deliberations and those proceedings are secret. The only people that are there are those 12 men and women who are the jurors. Now, if they need lunch, if they need a break, if they're done for the day, yeah, they communicate with the clerk. That is her job to, you know, maintain nonsubstantive procedural communication with those jurors, right? But definitely not to talk about the case. Now, so there was this motion for a new trial which was denied. There was an appeal to the intermediate court. Every criminal defendant in this country has one appeal as of right. So it goes to the appellet court. Now the Supreme Court, it could be the US Supreme Court or it can be the state supreme court in every state. They have discretionary appeal authority which means they can choose to hear an appeal or they can choose not to. And in this particular case, the South Carolina Supreme Court agreed to hear this case.

[00:08:26]And they agreed to hear it for really two important reasons. One is obviously these Becky Hill communications and whether that tainted the jury because the jurors needed to decide the case solely based on the facts and evidence in the case. Anyone who served as a juror knows you can't be, you know, watching podcasts, you know, the Daily Mail, uh, going online. I mean, they can't be watching this case as they're deliberated. But there was also a second issue that the South Carolina Supreme Court really took issue with and that's what we call prior bad acts evidence and I'm happy to talk about that as well.

[00:08:58]>> Okay. So what are those prior bad acts?

[00:09:02]>> So cases generally need to be decided based on the evidence in the courtroom.

[00:09:08]But what evidence is that? Those are evidence that's evidence that's related to the charges. Right? So this is a murder case, right? So obviously all the DNA, the ballistics, uh the cell site evidence, and I'm sure we'll talk about that as well.

[00:09:23]>> Yes.

[00:09:24]>> But Alec Murdoch was one of the most notorious fraudsters really in American history. He stole millions of dollars from injured clients, family members who had lost a loved one, wrongful death cases. And this is something that he admitted. I mean, he pleaded guilty in state court and in federal court. He's doing 40 years combined concurrent for all those charges of bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering. I mean, you name it. The prosecution had a theory in the murder case that the reason that Alec Murdoch committed these gruesome crimes was to sort of get sympathy and to distract from the financial crimes.

[00:10:06]He was trying to cover all that up with this murder. And the judge agreed. So there was a lot of testimony during the trial from victims that had been ripped off, accountants, CPAs from his law firm, other lawyers there about all these financial crimes. Well, the South Carolina Supreme Court said, "You know what? That was too much. That was prejuditial. These other bad acts, these other crimes really shouldn't have come into the murder case. So, we're going to get a new trial here. We're going to start all over. But expect a lot or all of that financial evidence not to come in the second time around.

[00:10:40]>> Well, that's what's so interesting because obviously the first trial was so high-profile. Everyone was watching and we all know much about the, you know, the evidence, the testimony from the first trial. So to not have that in the retrial, don't you think it's going to be kind of difficult to find a jury who hasn't heard anything about this, who hasn't heard any of the evidence of the prior bad acts? You know, when you think of the Murdochs, now there was a Netflix show and a Hulu series and documentaries. How does this impact, you know, finding a new jury for the retrial?

[00:11:15]>> Kayla, you're right. You'd have to be living under a rock, especially in South Carolina, not to have heard about this case. And, you know, the Murdoch family, they're legal royalty there. Murdoch's grandfather had his um portrait up in the courthouse's picture and that had to be taken down uh during the course of this case. Look, you're right. I covered this case live gavvel the gavvel on networks like Court TV and law and crime. I remember the verdict, you know, like it was yesterday. So, you know, it's tough. You got to find a fair and impartial jury. And of course, everyone's going to know that he was already convicted. And I can tell you this, the conventional wisdom is retri favor the prosecution. And this is why the prosecution knows what the defense is going to do. They're going to prepare their witnesses for cross-examination.

[00:12:00]They know what the defense arguments are. So, the defense typically doesn't have to reveal its hand in a criminal case. Discovery is one way the prosecution has to produce evidence with rare exceptions. The defense does not.

[00:12:12]And you see defense lawyers, skilled ones, really sometimes trip up witnesses and surprise prosecutors. Now, obviously, we know what the defense is going to argue here. So, I would expect the prosecution to be more prepared this time. And of course, you got to know that those jurors are going to know that they're there for a retrial and that he's already been convicted. Even though the judge will tell them, "Look, you got to decide the case solely based on the facts and evidence in this case. And don't be talking to anyone, especially the court clerk, about the evidence.

[00:12:44]It's your just your fellow jurors." But, I mean, look, jurors aren't, you know, they're not stupid. They're going to know that he was already convicted. And I think that they'll also know that he was a fraudster because that's going to come in as well. So they're not going to like him for the financial crimes even though a lot of that evidence won't come in during the retrial.

[00:13:02]>> Yeah. And unless this jury is sequestered, I really imagine just how hard that is to, you know, get a notification on your phone and not look at it, especially when this is again such a high-profile case. But Rachel, I understand that the defense was teasing some new evidence. Can you tell us about that? What might we see in this retrial?

[00:13:24]>> Yes, so the defense has made it clear that they do expect this trial to be very different. So, as well as the scope of the financial crimes being a lot different to how it looked last time, they've teased that they've had new evidence and new information since the um first trial happened. So, they haven't really given away what exactly that is. And it's unclear if that's going to be, you know, concrete evidence that could actually be, you know, shown in a courtroom, but they've suggested they do have new evidence. They've also hinted that there was DNA found belonging to an unknown male on Maggie's fingernails and that that was, you know, not presented in the first trial. So, that's definitely something they seem to be pushing that they that they're going to be exploring. But they've also said, you know, that they, you mentioned sequestering. They said that they want to do that and that they also want to move the trial to a different location.

[00:14:24]You know, this was a huge high-profile trial. And as much as it's going to be difficult to find anyone across the country who doesn't know who Alex Murdoch is, this was taking place in Colton County, which is, you know, a small county, a county where everyone knew the Murdoch name before the murders. So, you know, there seems I mean it's up to obviously the it'll be up to the judge presiding over it whether that is allowed, but you know, that's something that they seem to be pushing for to kind of and you know given the issues with the first trial, it'll be interesting to see if they are allowed that as well.

[00:15:00]>> Yeah. And Rachel, can you bring us back to the first trial? You know, a lot of the evidence was circumstantial. You said that there might be some DNA evidence in the retrial, but it's what we didn't see in the first trial. So, what were some of the key points of evidence that led to this guilty verdict?

[00:15:18]>> Yeah, so you're right. So, there wasn't DNA evidence. There wasn't witnesses.

[00:15:21]And this is something the defense has hammered home and did try to hammer home during the first trial as well, but there was some really key pieces of evidence. The piece of evidence that was perhaps the big smoking gun was the kennel video. So, this was a video taken at 8:44 p.m. on the night of 7th of June, 2021. So, the night of the murders. And this was captured by Paul on his cell phone down at the dog t dog dog kennels, sorry, where the murders took place. He was taking a video of a dog um a brown Labrador dog that he was looking after on behalf of his friend.

[00:16:01]And that video was played in court many, many times. It was very crucial because what it did was it set up um Alec Murdoch's alibi for that night to be a lie. Witness after witness was asked, "What do you hear in that video?" And witness after witness said, "We hear the voices of Paul, Maggie, and also Alec Murdoch." Alec Murdoch has said >> of course Yeah. Alec of course said that he wasn't there. And this video you said exactly >> took place about 20 minutes before the murder. Is that right?

[00:16:33]>> Earlier than that. So around just 5 minutes before the last movement on both Maggie and Paul's phones. So that is the timeline that the prosecution laid out was the time of the murders. So with that video, the prosecution placed Alec Murdoch at the scene just moments before his wife and son were shot dead. And obviously not only did it place him at the crime scene, but it also showed that for the last year and a half he had lied about being there. He up until that point had been adamant that I did not go down to the dog kennels that night. I was up at the house. I fell asleep. I then got up. I went to visit my mom. I came back, noticed Paul and Maggie were not at the house. So then I went down to the dog kennels and discovered the scene. So his alibi was in tatters. And you know, I think it'll be interesting to see how that plays out in the second trial because while that is still crucial evidence and you know, we assume that will still be presented, whether that moment that his alibi falls apart on the stand lands the same way, I think will be interesting to see because he was forced, you know, when he took the stand, he was forced to admit for the very first time that he had lied and that was something that, you know, was a shocking moment as well, >> right? And we actually have that video.

[00:17:53]So, I just want everyone to listen. You know, you hear Maggie's voice, you hear Paul's voice, and then listen for that third voice, which all the witnesses testified was Alec Murdoch's voice.

[00:18:05]We're going to play that now.

[00:18:09]>> Get back. Get back.

[00:18:19]>> Quit, Cash. Come on. Quit.

[00:18:22]Come here.

[00:18:24]Come here.

[00:18:26][ __ ] Come here.

[00:18:30]>> Hey, he's got a bird in his mouth.

[00:18:34]>> Damn, Bubba.

[00:18:38]>> It's a guinea.

[00:18:39]>> This is a chicken.

[00:18:42]>> Come here, Bubba. Come here, cat. Come here, Bubba. Catch.

[00:18:49]>> Yeah, there you go. You heard three voices there.

[00:18:55]And Rachel, when this was presented in court, Alec Murdoz found to be a liar.

[00:19:01]He clearly was there. What was his defense?

[00:19:05]So, when he took the stand and testified, he claimed that, you know, he had a 20-year opioid addiction. He was addicted to opioids for such a long time and that had led to him suffering from a lot of paranoia. Then on the night of the murders, he is obviously, you know, beside himself that he's discovered his wife and son's bodies. So the paranoia and the fact that he's not thinking straight led him to lie. And then in that moment, he just kept lying and lying and lying for the next year and a half that, you know, on all the occasions that he could have then said, "Actually, I was there." He kept up the lie. Um he actually made quite an interesting statement. He said, "Oh, what a tangled web we we weave." And it was quite an statement that sort of came back to haunt him a little bit.

[00:19:54]>> Yeah. But and yet within those five minutes between that video and the time of the murders, he claims he didn't see anything, >> right? Yeah. He claimed that, you know, he was there only briefly and that he still, you know, went back to the house, still fell asleep, still, you know, left the house at 9:00 a.m. So, we're talking sort of 15 minutes from when he was placed at the kennels. He left the house just after 9:00 a.m., drove to his mom's house, came back, and placed a 911 call less than an hour later.

[00:20:24]>> And Nema, the attorney general said that he could seek the death penalty in this retrial. We've learned that South Carolina brought back death by firing squad. Is this something that's actually a possibility for Alec Murdoch?

[00:20:40]>> It is. And the South Carolina AG did say that this case may be a death penalty case. And when you start over, you're really starting from the beginning so they can file their notice of intent to seek the death penalty. Obviously, that would bifurcate the trial. And people are asking, look, why are we even retrying this case? I mean, Alec Murdoch is going to die in South Carolina State Prison because of the fraud guilty plea and decades he's getting.

[00:21:07]But obviously, look, you have, you know, victims in this case and his wife and son and and they deserve justice. So that's why this case is being tried.

[00:21:15]Similar to, you know, Harvey Weinstein, his ca his conviction was overturned on prior bad acts as well by the New York Court of Appeal, which is their version of the state supreme court. and he's just finished his third trial and the jury hung. So, when you have a sexual assault victim or a murder victim, those are the types of cases that prosecutors do want to retry. Even though in both of those cases, it's not going to have any practical effect in terms of the sentence. Now, of course, if it's a death penalty case, that is a very different story. But a death penalty trial has two phases. There's a guilt phase. You got to get past that first.

[00:21:52]Then you go to the penalty phase, right?

[00:21:54]In the penalty phase, you start looking at the aggravating and mitigating factors. So, the jurors have to unanimously decide in the penalty phase whether to put someone to death. Now, if you do believe in the death penalty, killing your wife and son to cover up your fraud does seem to me to be a death penalty case if the prosecution can prove it. So this might be one of those situations and we've seen it cases like Brian Cobberger for instance where prosecutors will put the death penalty on the table to try to coersse some sort of guilty plea a life without the possibility of parole type p. So it still remains to be seen whether they're actually going to move forward with a death penalty trial or this is strategy and gamesmanship by the prosecution to leverage some sort of deal.

[00:22:44]>> Yeah. And I do wonder, especially if it's not just the death penalty, but death by firing squad on the table, if something like that would coers some type of confession or guilty plea. But like you said, either way, Alec Murdoz is going to spend the rest of his life in prison. He got 40 years for these financial crimes. So is this just purely symbolic even though it is costing taxpayer dollars?

[00:23:11]>> Yeah, it's going to cost millions of dollars. And you're right, you know, he's doing 40 years and it's not like he's going to get out anytime soon.

[00:23:19]Generally speaking, under federal law, you have to serve about 85%. You get a little bit of a discount if you're a model inmate, but he's no spring chicken and, you know, he's not going to survive. I think given the fact that it is a murder case, we are going to see this trial move forward. again, uh, we might not if it were a different type of case, but look, it's gotten so much attention, right? And we've talked about sequestration and moving the jurors, but there's a whole political angle to this as well. I always say every prosecutor in this country is either elected or appointed by someone who is, and you don't want to be known as the prosecutor that gave Alec Murdoch a free pass and decided not to retry this case. So, believe me, we're going to have a second trial. And of course, he's a lawyer. He has very good lawyers on his side as well. So, expect to see a very robust defense whether or not this is a death penalty case.

[00:24:17]>> Yeah. And they've actually said that they want to expedite this and have this retrial, you know, start before the end of the year. So, we should definitely expect a retrial. But even if this trial happens, we haven't even spoken about all of the subcrimes that have come from this from these two murders. Where do we even begin? There is a botched murder for hire plot. There was the death of 19-year-old Mallalerie Beach. That was a teen who uh died on in a boating accident and the boat was driven by Paul, who again is Alec Murdoch's son, who was killed. Uh, you have a housekeeper's death. Um, Rachel, where would you like to begin with this? Um, may maybe we start with the botched murder for hire plot.

[00:25:07]>> Yeah, I mean, as you say, where do you even begin? This is the the case that has got the biggest amount of twists and turns, >> which is why it's the Netflix film and Hulu show. You know, you have Patricia Arquette playing Maggie Murdoch.

[00:25:23]>> Exactly. because you can't even fit it into one show. You have to do a whole series. Um, so yeah, so the the botched Hitman plot, so that took place three months after the murders. So this was a time when there was no suspects, no arrests, just this horrific double murder of a mother and son in South Carolina. And I remember it was um it was September 2021.

[00:25:50]And I remember it. I I remember working that day and I remember the that Saturday it was we got word that Alec Murdoch had been shot by the side of a road in Hampton County. And you know I think the instant reaction from people was what is going on here? Is you know is someone actually targeting this family? And then that story quickly unraveled and he then claimed that he'd actually paid his distant cousin um Curtis cousin Eddie Smith to shoot him by the side of the road so that he could get a life insurance windfall for his surviving son Buster.

[00:26:29]And you know he claimed that he'd done this. He was in the throws of opioid addiction. Alec quickly checked into rehab. this story has been disputed um by Curtis Smith um who says you know he he didn't agree to do any of this anything like that. Um but yeah it really sort of showed how the case was totally unraveling and at that time as well it was also when Alex financial crimes were still coming to the four. So at the time he was being disbarred. He'd been pushed out of his law firm. So all of this was all happening at the same time. So it was this big melting pot of this absolute saga that was going on.

[00:27:08]Alec checked into rehab after the shooting and when he left rehab he was instantly arrested for the financial crimes first and yeah that was just one of the obviously huge twists in the case and you know it would be it would be several months later before he was then arrested for the murders.

[00:27:29]Do you think that it was the murder for hire botched job that really alerted authorities, you know, maybe we should look into Alec?

[00:27:40]The fin the financial crimes being the motive. Um, you know, I think it was it all kind of it all kind of unraveled from there. It doesn't seem to be that there was, you know, anyone else ever really on the radar for the murders. You know, Alec was the one who found the victims. He had this at the time of the murders. That day, he had actually been confronted about stealing money from his law firm that very morning. And that same day, he also found that his out that his father's diagnosis was terminal as well. His father who then died a couple of days after Maggie and Paul.

[00:28:19]And he was also about to have a hearing in Mallalerie Beach um lawsuit. So, Malamu Beach is the 19-year-old girl who was killed in a boat crash. Um, and Paul was actually facing criminal charges for causing her death in that crash. Alec was being um civily um taken to court over the um over her wrongful death and that was also exposing his finances. So this is, you know, where the the financial motive really came into play in that, you know, all of this was happening at the time of the murders.

[00:28:54]And, you know, once I think all of this started to unravel, these all the pieces of the puzzle started to sort of come together. And Nema, I want to know, you know, Mallerie Beach, the murder for hire. Uh, you have the maid who, you know, also mysteriously died at the home and then there was money to the family that eventually Alec Murdo was accused of stealing from. Will all of these stories be presented in the retrial?

[00:29:24]>> Potentially, yes. And look, the question is, how much of it relates to the financial crimes, right? So, if you kind of go into the housekeeper, the argument was, at least according to prosecutors, that she dies in the home.

[00:29:40]She's it's a slip and fall. Uh Murdoch represents the family in a wrongful death suit against his own insurance, right? And he keeps the money. So, if you're the prosecution, obviously, you're going to try to get this in to show that this is someone who's a liar. I think the trial judge is going to be a lot less uh inclined to admit this evidence because look, it's not just about getting a conviction.

[00:30:09]It's about a conviction that withstands appeal and the South Carolina Supreme Court has been pretty clear on this prior bad acts evidence. I think that's probably the most likely. I think the boating accident uh with Paul, I I don't think that's going to come in. It's not relevant. He's the victim and that's another victim.

[00:30:26]And then the question is, you know, is the sort of, you know, fake suicide, murder for hire, is that going to come in? I think of the three, it's probably the most likely again, especially if Murdoch testifies to sort of cross-examine him because look, his whole argument here is a third party culpability defense, right? It wasn't me. There's two individuals. The defense is arguing it's two different individuals cuz there's two different murder weapons that were used for each victim. They're going to say, "Look, there's no DNA, there's no blood splatter, uh you never found a murder weapon, even though the ballistics seem to sort of match the family's firearms."

[00:31:08]So, to the extent that Murdoch takes the stand again and he kind of tells this story, I think maybe, just maybe, the suicide murder for hire may come in. I think the boat one almost certainly will not. And I think given the Supreme Court's ruling, South Carolina Supreme Court, I think the Housekeeper death probably won't either, >> right? As long as >> I think No, go ahead, Rachel.

[00:31:33]>> Oh, sorry. I was going to say just to just to add to that, um, so one of our one of our colleagues actually spoke to um Curtis Smith this week. Um, and he sort of hinted that, you know, I think I could make or break this case. Um, and I think it's important to note that, you know, during the first trial, he was one of the most hotly anticipated witnesses that we were kind of all waiting to hear from >> and he was never called, >> of course. Yeah.

[00:31:57]>> Yeah. And he was never called to testify. So whether he is this time, I think is, you know, the one of the big questions about the case and is, you know, someone that people do want to hear from his case and Alec Murdoch's case for the roadside shooting. those are still bumbling through the courts and that's obviously been you know 5 years and you know he said he doesn't have a trial date he doesn't have charges um you know trial or court hearings in the pipeline so it's definitely an interesting one there's definitely still questions about what really happened that day and you know what what he possibly has to say yeah so we definitely anticipate maybe seeing cousin Curtis on the stand in the retrial we're Now going to go to our Daily Mail and two-way community members. Um, producer Oliver, I believe we have a question from Elise.

[00:32:51]>> We do. Let's bring Ely on here.

[00:32:53]>> All right. Hello, Elise.

[00:32:56]>> Hi, guys. Um, happy to be here. What a cool show. Um, love to see the two-way network expanding conversations like no other in all sorts of genres. So, um I want to think about the court clerk in all of this and we've talked a little bit um in kind of the last round of discussion on um the Hulu show, the Netflix show that came from this. So, I'm thinking a lot about the commercialization of true crime, but also I think we can think about poly markets and how do you guys think courts or governments can can keep people like this court clerk from taking advantage of their role in these proceedings.

[00:33:44]you know, to try and score a book deal or license rights to part of the story to Netflix or make money on poly markets. What is the role of court oversight in all of this to make sure that court staff aren't taking advantage of their position so they can, you know, line their pockets for lack of a better word?

[00:34:07]>> Elise, that is a great question. I'm going to give that to Nema. I feel like you'll have a a good response for that one.

[00:34:12]>> Yeah. No, I thought about this all. I'm sitting here in Los Angeles, right? And I'm kind of in the middle of Hollywood and obviously I remember OJ and the coverage of that trial. Look, we have, you know, free and open courts in this country and there's cameras in the courtroom in most courts and it, you know, I brought up some high-profile trials, but I mean, there's no doubt when Tyler Robinson is tried, and he absolutely will be tried because it's a death penalty case, people around the world are going to be watching, right?

[00:34:40]There's not a whole lot that you can do because there's so much interest in true crime, right? It's one of the the biggest blowing genres. I do a lot of TV and true crime is up there with politics and entertainment. Sometimes it even exceeds that in terms of the requests on my time to talk about different cases.

[00:35:02]And of course with all the streaming platforms doing whether it's micro dramas or docky series or documentaries that just adds to it. And then you have the whole reality TV kind of component as well. You know I I can tell you it's not Alec Murdoch but I think one of the reasons Tom Gerardi who's the equivalent sort of fraudster you know got in all this trouble was because his wife was one of the real housewives of Beverly Hills. So, you know, it's going to be difficult to get people to not be interested in this because whether it's fiction or non-fiction, true crime sells. And this is a huge business and it's just going to continue to grow.

[00:35:44]Especially have a case like this.

[00:35:46]Someone who's one of the biggest lawyers in the country is accused of shooting and killing, you know, his wife and son, right? I mean, those types of cases, it can be the Mendez brothers, it can be Nick Reiner, any type of family homicide does get a lot of eyeballs. The poly market question is also a very good one.

[00:36:04]And look, you're seeing not necessarily in the true crime space cuz I got to tell you, juries are unpredictable, but we're seeing a lot in u the kind of political arena, right? Where you have individuals that are placing huge bets, right, on our government going in and capturing Nicholas Maduro, right?

[00:36:22]shortly before it happens or when you know bombing is going to happen against Iran right or a ceasefire and I think what you're seeing right now even though it's not a security and I've had a lot of securities fraud cases it's considered a commodity but you have algorithms right now that are checking look it can be a college basketball game it can be a cowi or poly market bet someone is betting a lot of money on an event and it is outside the norm both in terms of their betting pattern or the market itself a huge bet on something that's considered sort of a fringe issue. So when you start seeing that, well look, these algorithms, they're going to flag it and the FBI is going to start investigating.

[00:37:09]And you're already seeing right now, at least in the military classified information space, people that are being prosecuted by the Department of Justice and the FBI is investigating individuals that are betting on nonpublic information. It's a form of insider trading.

[00:37:26]>> But Nema, is there a way to prevent this? Is it up to judges to or is it up to, you know, the legal system to train clerks and train baiffs and train those people within the legal community on, you know, proper acts or, you know, maybe changing the rules on how on how they do things.

[00:37:47]>> You know, training is great, but I can tell you there's three things that end up being the motivation for a lot of crimes, and we're talking about two of them here. Fame.

[00:37:57]>> Mhm.

[00:37:58]>> Greed. The third is sex. I don't think that's going to apply. But look, when you're talking about people being famous and making money, I don't know any amount of training that's going to stop them. Look, and and again, the example I give is just, you know, sports betting, right? You know, you have all these scandals because sports betting has just blown up, right? You can bet online, you can use VPNs, you can bet in many states, and now you can bet on individual players, right? So you have people that are taking a dive. They're taking themselves out of games and all of a sudden people are are betting tens, hundreds of thousands of dollars. You know, if you have some inside information that a jury is going to go a certain way, I mean, absolutely. Because these betting markets are completely unregulated because they're overseas. So like typically here in the United States, you cannot bet on an election.

[00:38:46]That's unlawful. But you can, you know, place a bet overseas or you can, you know, buy a commodity or future or the way that these sites are structured as a workaround. This is certainly one of those areas where the law hasn't kept up the technology and it needs to be regulated. It needs to be stopped because I agree at least it's a big problem.

[00:39:06]>> Yeah, I can only imagine, you know, within the next few years we see new laws coming into place to try to stop this or to have really strong penalties if you do. some type of insider trading when it comes to true crime. We now have a question from Elena.

[00:39:28]>> Okay, we're unmuted.

[00:39:29]>> Hi there. I I my question is definitely not as interesting as your first question, but it took me a little while to get on and and I might have missed the beginning and so I apologize for this, but I I think I've seen both of the I mean I'm remembering visions of the boat and the whole thing and and the So the issue is how long did it take Murdoch's um attorneys to to allow them to have another trial. And second, where in the world are they going to have this trial where they're going to get a a jury that doesn't know anything? I mean, maybe maybe we can ask Elon if he can go to Mars and get some people. I mean, I don't know where they would find anyone.

[00:40:17]>> Elena, that was a great question. I'll give that one to you, Rachel.

[00:40:21]Um so first part um sorry remind me the first part was so >> how it was how long um do do >> before the >> yeah before you can turn it into like a movie and Netflix and things like that.

[00:40:39]>> Oh so right. Okay. So, so the so this with this um with this case um it I mean it seems like the defense realized quite quickly that there's something going on behind the scenes. So they first um they first actually raised the issue in September 2021. So very quickly after Alec Murdoch was convicted, they raised the issue of jury tampering and a lot of that was in relation to a juror who became known as the egg juror. And so that was, you know, it's been on the radar since then. It's taken, you know, almost another 3 years before the conviction was overturned. And now we could have a trial by by the end of this year. So the prosecution is pushing for it to be by the end of this year. The defense is saying no, it will take longer than that. It could be next year.

[00:41:30]Um, so it remains to be seen, but it seems like it will be quite quick. Last time it was also quite quick as well.

[00:41:37]So, it was um it was it was all it was all very expedited. Where the case will be held, that is the kind of million-dollar question. You know, the defense has already said they wanted to be moved, but you know, as you say, where could you possibly move this jury is not going to have known about this case, is not going to have heard of the case, hasn't seen possibly the Hulu show. You know, I mean, we've got people all over the world who are watching have seen the Hulu show and have seen the Netflix series. So, it's not even just, you know, as you say, Mars could be a good shout because everyone in the US knows about it. Everyone in the UK knows about it. So, yeah, that's that's a really good question.

[00:42:18]>> We now have a question from Haley.

[00:42:23]>> Hi guys. I love the true crime uh the two ways getting into this. Think this is awesome. Um I do want to just know generally what do you guys think makes um you know stories like Alex Murdo and like other you know big um sensationalized stories um over the years what makes those like so you know get such a national level rather than like other stories that don't get mentioned like what is it about this true like what is it about this story specifically or or any other ones over the last you know decades that we're all obsessed with like what why is what what makes them so nationalized do you think?

[00:43:04]>> I'll answer that one. Thank you, Haley.

[00:43:06]I'll answer that one just to start based on this case specifically. I mean, we didn't have an arrest for about a year.

[00:43:13]So, at first it was a mystery. You know, you have this family, this high-profile family. So, just to start there, you know, this is this legal family who's very popular in South Carolina. Um, and then you have not only one person murdered, but it's a mother and her son.

[00:43:32]Then there's the big mystery of, you know, who done it. Then you have a few months later, the father is shot on the side of the road, almost killed, which brings renewed attention. Then not only that, you find out that he hired the hitman himself. So with just that, I mean, that itself is a Hollywood movie.

[00:43:54]Then going forward, just so much more is uncovered. You know, the financial crimes and you find out that there were previous mysteries with, you know, a man who was uh found dead on the side of the road. You have a housekeeper who mysteriously died in the house. You have a 19-year-old girl who was killed in a boating accident. So I think specifically with this case, there is just so much that any of those stories in and of itself would have been enough for national attention. Add on to that that this is already a prominent family, it's just a recipe for, you know, eyes to be all over it. But if uh Nema or Rachel have a broader, you know, why are people so fascinated by specific stories, please feel free to answer.

[00:44:42]Um, I think you've hit the nail on the head there. It just has all of those different elements combined and just so many twists and turns in the case. So, you know, you had one incredible shocking twist and then another, but I think it's also it's this toppling of a powerful figure as well. You know, it's often described as, you know, this spectacular fall from grace because this was a man who had so much power and prominence in the Low Country and, you know, his family was well known. His family ruled over the local prosecution for almost a century. He had a reputation of, you know, making problems just disappear because he did have that power. And so to see someone from such a pinnacle fall to, you know, a convicted fraudster who owes millions and millions to victims, a murderer of his own family members and also be involved in all of these other scandals. You know, it is the, you know, the pinnacle of that kind of fall from grace.

[00:45:47]And Rachel, you had uh we were talking about this earlier and when I was talking about the death penalty, you said that it's in the same courtroom that members of, you know, Murdoch's family have sentenced other people to death. So, there's absolutely an an irony there.

[00:46:06]>> Absolutely. I mean they even had to take down a picture of one of his ancestors from the walls of the courthouse because of you know how prominent his family was. There was a picture of his grandfather in the courthouse they had to remove. And so then there was just this square of different shaded paint which still kind of symbolized how much of a presence they had within you know the judicial system there. Um yeah, and as you mentioned, obviously his family um did send people to the firing squad.

[00:46:39]And you know, I think it was interesting to know that during his sentencing, the judge said, you know, your own family sentenced people to death for a lot less, but you're getting life without parole here. So whether that's also, you know, something that's played on the minds of prosecutors in seeking the death penalty this time around, who knows? But it's definitely something to that, you know, it's definitely something that um stirs up emotions.

[00:47:07]>> We have our next question from Emily.

[00:47:15]>> Do we have Emily? There she is.

[00:47:17]>> Yes. Can you hear me?

[00:47:18]>> Yes, we can hear you.

[00:47:20]>> Okay. So, I have followed this case a a little bit. Um, and I have listened to the podcast. Um, and one of the questions I've had is why was Dick Harpulan allowed to be Murdo's defense attorney? I know they were friends and colleagues and I joined a little late, so if you've already answered this, just ignore me or whatever. But that's the one thing that I've the biggest question I've had is why was that allowed? And I know you can, you know, everyone has an right to an attorney. you can, you know, pay for one if you can or if you want, but that is just like the biggest like red flag in this case for me.

[00:48:02]>> All right, Emily. Um, we actually did not answer that. So, Nema, do you want to >> take a stab at that one?

[00:48:08]>> Yeah, Emily, you answered your own question. Under the Sixth Amendment, with very few exceptions, a criminal defendant has the right to choose his lawyer. Obviously if can't afford one uh one will be appointed form a public defender but in this case obviously Murdoch has money he has connections so he can choose the lawyer of his choosing. Now if there's a conflict or other ethical issue then the court may not allow it but it's very very rare for a judge to say no you can't have a particular lawyer because if a judge says that guess what you're creating an issue on appeal a constitutional issue and an unnecessary one. So within reason, most criminal defendants, almost all criminal defendants for that matter can choose their lawyer.

[00:48:53]>> So in that case, it doesn't matter that they were friends. You know, you can choose your friend, you can choose your family member.

[00:48:58]>> Yeah. You can choose your friend, you can choose a family member, you can choose yourself, you can represent yourself, right? So you can do whatever you want. It is your life on the line.

[00:49:07]So as long as you're making a knowing and voluntary decision, the judge will inquire. And assuming that's the case, then you're going to really choose that lawyer.

[00:49:15]>> Okay. Thank you. And that's why we have you, our legal expert, to let us know. I hope that answered your question, Emily.

[00:49:21]And now we have our final question and it is from Rey.

[00:49:27]>> Hi everybody. Can you hear me? All right.

[00:49:29]>> Hello Ry. Yes, we can hear you.

[00:49:31]>> Yeah. I wonder what's the judge's discretion on telling the clerk of courts that she cannot participate in a particular courtroom proceeding. Becky Hill, for those of people who have been paying attention, has a checkered pass.

[00:49:46]She gave herself a couple of bonuses in 2023 uh or 2003, I forget which year it was, and got called out on it. Then back in December of 25, she apparently showed some exhibits to photographers and got in trouble for that. This woman has been nothing but trouble after trouble after trouble. Why hasn't anybody flagged this?

[00:50:08]>> All right, thank you, Ray. Who wants to take that one? I can take this one.

[00:50:12]>> All right, Ne. Ray, I think these are all valid criticisms. A lot of this came out immediately after the trial during the evidentiary hearing. And for folks that don't know, Becky Hill was actually prosecuted for this and she pleaded guilty. Um, to answer your question, and I say this respectfully as someone who's worked for the Department of Justice and the city of Los Angeles, I could tell you that it's hard to fire government employees. I mean, that's just the political reality of it all. Um, some of them are great, some of them are not so great, and they have a lot of protections, both civil service and union protections that makes it difficult to remove those that aren't so good. And that's just my experience working for the government, both US government and local, for many years.

[00:50:59]>> Yeah. And Rebecca Hill was actually elected into this position. and she was a court reporter in the past, then got elected by the people to be the court clerk. And I do want to just go over, you know, what exactly is Rebecca Hill facing? Um, do you want to answer that one, Rachel?

[00:51:18]>> The charges against Rebecca Hill.

[00:51:20]>> So, yes. So, she has already um pleaded guilty to four charges. She was not convicted um she was not charged, sorry, with jury tampering. So prosecutors said there was not enough evidence to bring charges of due tampering, but she was instead charged and pleaded guilty to four other counts, including misconduct in office. Within that, she admitted that she had shown jurors graphic crime scene photos during the murdock case, that she had also used her from Alec Murdoch. So he filed a lawsuit. He is now seeking $600,000 in damages from her. And he's also saying that he is seeking accountability. His lawyers are saying that, you know, there has not been a full investigation into her actions, that she needs to be held accountable.

[00:52:28]And, you know, they plan to subena evidence from those criminal proceedings to see what exactly she did because they're saying that, you know, the the ruling from the Supreme Court saying that she tampered with the jury and the prosecution saying that there's not enough evidence to bring charges for jury tampering, they're saying those two things don't align. So, they are looking at further investigation into that.

[00:52:53]>> All right. And any final thoughts, Nema or Rachel, before we sign off, >> you know, thank you for having me. So excited to be here on the crime desk.

[00:53:03]Thank you, Kayla. Thank you, Rachel.

[00:53:05]It's good seeing you guys both again and thank you for everyone who participated.

[00:53:10]Amazing questions. Thanks everyone.

[00:53:12]>> Yes, thank you for all your questions.

[00:53:14]This was the Crime Desk Live powered by 2A. We'll see you next time.