Was Becky Hill Acting Alone During Alex Murdaugh's Trial?

Added: 2026-05-26

[00:00:00]This is the big breakdown. A long look [music] back at some of the biggest stories we're covering for you at the Hidden Killers Podcast and True Crime Today.

[00:00:10]This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brusky [music] and Robin Dreke.

[00:00:17]Well, here [snorts] we are again, square one, Alec Murdaugh land, the retrial of the century. It is coming to a device near you. And um we got a lot to talk about. Uh, there was a press conference just yesterday, Dick Harpootlian, talking about, "Okay, here's what's coming up. Here's what we got down the line. Here's who we're suing." It's like Becky Hill. The Murdaugh defense team announced a federal civil rights lawsuit against Becky Hill. We're going to break down that lawsuit, the damages they're seeking, and how they plan to use civil discovery to hold her accountable. And at the same point, uh, kind of a mechanism to to dig a little deeper.

[00:01:00]It's almost like you got your big old garden shovel. That's That's what you're going to be using here in the trial. But But before then, let's get Let's get to the more, uh, surgical type garden instruments to dig in. That's what they're going to be doing with this this civil case. Here to help us break it all down and what they may have up their sleeves, Bob Motta, uh, defense attorney host of the uh, podcast Defense Diaries, uh, is with us.

[00:01:25]And of course, Robin Dreke, retired FBI special agency for the counterintelligence behavioral analysis program. I don't know why I'm making garden references today, but uh, that's what's going on. So, um, yeah. Uh, if If Alec Murdaugh were a vegetable, what would he be?

[00:01:40]An eggplant. Obviously, an eggplant.

[00:01:43]>> [laughter] >> I'm going to go with like a like a really like a shitty uh, head of corn that you get out of a a corn maze where you're walking through it and you're like, "Look at this damaged head of corn."

[00:01:55]>> Oh, it looks like the insects got to that one. Yeah, I'm old I'm old soft tomato. Soft tomato.

[00:02:01]>> There you go.

[00:02:03]Tomato justice. Just keeps falling and collapsing more and more and just >> into itself. Just a ball of crap goo.

[00:02:12]I'm glad that we're here at uh True Crime Veggie Tales this morning.

[00:02:15]Um uh to uh to establish those but but yeah, let's let's start here. This was a uh a big deal yesterday of a press conference that was held. Uh Bob, walk us through the claim here that's been filed against Becky Hill so people can understand this. How does the South Carolina Supreme Court's ruling support the argument that she deprived Alex Murdaugh of his constitutional right to a fair trial before an untampered jury and and how how does this civil suit play into it? I know we'll get into the money on it but they're not necessarily seeking money for Alex but there's there's another mechanism at play here.

[00:02:47]Give us your insight. Yeah, it's a classic 1983 42 uh USC 1983 federal civil rights claim and essentially those are where you're suing the government or an official of the government who you are alleging has deprived you of your constitutional right while acting, this is the key part for Becky Hill, under the color of the law, okay? Obviously Becky Hill, the elected court uh the the elected uh clerk of court uh clerk of court, >> [snorts] >> that's clearly acting under state uh under under under color of state law. So she's that box is checked without question.

[00:03:27]And the fact of the matter is is that Hill, she was uh absolutely violating his his civil rights. A- and that interplay that you're talking about wherein the South Carolina Supreme Court really did the heavy the heavy lifting for this civil suit in their opinion. I mean, their opinion was as clear and concise as you can get and it was a absolute hammer drop.

[00:03:58]It was a a unanimous 5-0 opinion of the court and they said, and these are like quotes, well, I'm going to have to do them kind of like, you know, as best I can, but you know, they said that Hill had placed her fingers on the scales of justice. They said that her her conduct was shocking, egregious, and intended to push the jury to a guilty verdict. I mean, if you were writing up a script for a movie in which you were going to make the movie about suing somebody under a a 1983 claim and you wanted to have [snorts] the main character to have the best evidence possible, this would be it. I mean, there is there is no way that if this went to trial, as much as people might hate Murdoch, that a jury's not coming back with a with a a claim against her. I mean, she The damages are what they are. Sure. A- and yeah, go ahead.

[00:04:57]>> And we're there, obviously. Like, I I totally 1,000% agree. This this was the right call by the Supreme Court. I think Jean Toal should have been the one that did it initially, but she punted it.

[00:05:07]Uh but we got where we we should be. Not because I think Alec Murdaugh is innocent, because he was this was all done wrong. You can't have a trial like this. So, I think most What I'm I don't know. I'm I guess I'm a little bit surprised at that just how it seems most people are on the same page, even those who hate Alec Murdaugh, which is kind of funny. For so many cases that we cover when there's glaring issues, sometimes people still dig in, you know, on emotion, but really here, I think for the most part we can all agree, yeah, Becky screwed this thing up. Um so so that being said, uh they are there there's there's two things I want to talk about. The the $600,000 in damages uh that the team is seeking from the receivership for the first trial.

[00:05:49]What exactly that means and then I also want to get into this this was she a lone wolf was she acting alone? This is some of the the things that Dick is grandstanding on out in front of the law office but but let's start with the $600,000. What does it mean? It's not like they're trying to enrich Alec Murdoch here but but where does the 600,000 come into play from Becky if they were >> get it what would it do? Give us the the thoughts on that.

[00:06:17]>> Yeah, so that number comes directly from how much Murdoch's defense team drew down from his 401k okay in order to pay for the first trial. So like that that number didn't come out of thin air. It's exactly the figure that they pulled from his 401k and they're saying look that was his damages in it. It's very straightforward in terms of damages.

[00:06:39]Sometimes damages in a civil case can get super murky especially you know, you have your typical soft tissue case you know, where you're talking about a rear ender you know, you get rear ended you hire a lawyer cuz the insurance company for the tort fees or the person who hit you doesn't want to pay [ __ ] So you're like you're like I don't want to hire a lawyer but you know, I seriously have a neck ache every day that I wake up now and you know, they call that soft tissue which are hard to prove because you know, neck aches don't necessarily if you don't have something that has been shifted in your spine whether it be you know, upper or lower that you can see on an MRI or a CAT scan it's tough to prove it you know, it's kind of like that trust me bro [ __ ] like you got to believe me like I used to be able to turn my head like this real easy and now I can't. You know, so you go in on those types of cases and it's real murky what you're asking for you kind of you look at what your medical bills were and then you kind of have to try to to put in a number or a that goes for pain and suffering, which is tough. So, this isn't dealing with any of that [ __ ] We know exactly how much he used uh out of his 401k, and that's what they're asking for. So, the thing that I don't want people to get all worked up about, Alex obviously not going to ever see a cent of that money though.

[00:08:00]Like that money's never going to come to him. Is this more so so they can get paid? Y- Well, I think they already got paid. Um but, it'll you know, any money that he recovers will run through the receiver. Yeah. A- And And remember, I mean, he he was hit pretty heavily with uh restitution. So, I mean, it anything that that he gets ultimately, he's not going to be keeping the money. I can't remember what the restitution number was, but it was going to someone. I- It was substantial. And, you know, like I think everybody's feeling, and I know we're going to get to Becky Hill directly, but like Becky Hill, she is costing the taxpayers [laughter] of that county so much money.

[00:08:48]And And she really She walked on this. I mean, she pled guilty, but she got zero jail time. She did I forget what it was, like 100 days, 130 days of community, some [ __ ] You know, for a woman who was an elected official who just completely undermined the criminal justice system.

[00:09:07]And to your point that you kind of ended the last little segment we did there, Tony, where it's surprising that people are are, you know, "Yeah, you know, as much as I hate to see it, it was the right thing to do." Makes me feel wonderful. Yeah. Cuz it's it's not about how much we hate Alec Murdoch. It's about protecting the Constitution. And it was clearly violated. You know, and and in that situation, he has to get a new trial, as much as we hate to have to go through it. You know, but I mean to me it shows that that the American people are starting to understand that you have to be able to separate the person from the Constitution cuz the Constitution always wins. So, Bob, my question is I always got questions on a legal side cuz I don't know legal things like you do. But so, do you think that she's going to plead guilty on this one? Is there an opportunity to plead guilty? I'm definitely not as up on civil cases because part of my brain on this is thinking that if she doesn't make this go away quickly, there's a possibility cuz again, where there's smoke, there's fire and it's not like she went from never doing anything like this to all of a sudden to putting her thumb on the scale. I think most likely, again, conjecture, but you look at behavior patterns, you know, there was an escalation towards her being overly involved with juries. Is there a possibility that if they go to a trial where she's going to fight this that they uncover or would they in the civil suit past actions as well that could all pot potentially compromise past cases as well? Right, 100% man. I mean, that's the thing about civil [snorts] versus criminal in terms of trials. The discovery process in civil is a whole different beast.

[00:10:52]>> She's screwed.

[00:10:53]>> Yeah, I mean, she's in deep [ __ ] and cuz there you have subpoenas, you have depositions, you have what they call interrogatories which are written questions and the deps and and the and then the production request which is where you're asking for anything that you can think of that will help you prove your case as the plaintiff and they have to turn it over. She's going to have to submit to a deposition. You know, she's going to have her lawyer in there. Her lawyer's going to be able to object to certain questions and you know, like typically what I would do in a in a civil dep if if I was plaintiff's counsel and and the defendant's attorney objected, I'd say, "Okay, well, you know, I want it I want it marked and then if if they but she could still answer. Usually the lawyer will say, well, we object to it, but you can still answer the question. If they're adamant about their client not answering the question, then you go up in front of the judge and then you argue it out and you say, well, this is why she has to answer the question. It's relevant. Whatever their objection was, you literally go into court much like you do during a trial when you see somebody object and if they allow talking objections and make a little argument as to why it might be relevant or irrelevant or whether it's inadmissible for various reasons and then the judge is going to decide and if the judge decides, it's a fair question.

[00:12:09]It's a relevant question. You're going to have to answer the question. Then she's got to answer the question. So they're going to be able to dig into everything.

[00:12:17]Everything that they think is relevant.

[00:12:19]It's it's civil civil discovery is where you get the real dirt because you don't have those constitutional protections as being a defendant in a criminal case.

[00:12:30]It's just different. They they they were hinting. Harpootlian was was hinting a little bit and Griffin was too. You know, was she was she a lone wolf? Was she acting on you know, her own reconnaissance of her hate for Alec Murdaugh and it was her just you know, personally putting her finger finger on the scale of justice.

[00:12:52]We had the egg lady Myra Crosby who was booted off the jury and and really under circumstances that were fraudulent. She didn't really need to be booted off the jury in my opinion. I mean the way it's looking for posts that really weren't exactly accurately portrayed to the judge by Becky. So was this a campaign of Becky using her power, getting rid of Myra and and her her comments to the existing juror members. Was this all just Becky or or are they you know, I suppose they're They're to look for whatever they can find, but is is there the thought here that there was a concerted effort that Becky was more so the operating tool being used by someone else to try and make sure Alec Murdoch didn't get a fair trial. Is that what they're they're they're contemplating here or that they're they're saying they're they're looking for evidence of that? I I think they're they're going to dig into all that. You know, there were I mean, we know for a fact that you know, her son worked in the courthouse as well. Yeah. And his name I think is was like Jeff something.

[00:13:56]>> Yeah, I forgot about that.

[00:13:58]And he was separately indicted. Yes, he was.

[00:14:01]>> and computer some computer >> Oh, yeah.

[00:14:04]And you know, and also her her co-author Neil Gordon cuz remember that was what she was claiming was her impetus as to why she did this horrible thing. And she was new to the position. I did I did just look it up. Um so, she was voted in. She took office in 2021. So, she was uh she's in position roughly 2 years. Um so, there's not a huge amount of potential cases in that time frame. So, she you know, she stands a better chance of fighting it um maybe. Again, that's that's your area, Bob, but again, it wasn't like a lifetime or generational of all these cases that got examined.

[00:14:40]It's only a 2-year period. Yeah, this isn't like a you know, a 30-year cop who turned corrupt. Right. And then you're like, "Oh my god, everything's being reversed." We got to look at it all. Oh.

[00:14:50]Is anybody surprised? Bob, are you surprised that in this 3-year period since kind of all this went down that there hasn't been any any other cases that have come to light yet? And maybe it's just cuz it hasn't risen up out of the the filing stages yet and and people doing the investigative work that they're doing. But are you surprised that there hasn't been any other cases that have been pointed at at Becky and going, "Yeah, we're going to have to revisit this one, too."

[00:15:15]Yeah, you know, I think that kind of goes back to what Robin pulled up in terms of it was just a lack of time in the office, really. And you know, I I think Rob could also pull up like how many cases actually went to trial. You know, there's no public record of it. I tried.

[00:15:32]>> [laughter] >> That I could find. Right. You I mean, you'd have to really really dig on that one, probably deeper than just kind of like a cursory review to see how many cuz you know, I mean, most cases settle, whether it's civil or even if it's criminal, they plead out. The vast majority do. So, trials are rare. They are. They are very very rare. So, I wouldn't be surprised if there's not other things, but what's more interesting from the angle of of Murdaugh and his lawyers is that you've got just a a treasure trove of people that are going to be deposed. We're talking about her co-author of the book, her publisher, jurors, alternate jurors, SLED investigators. They're all going to be pulled in to to dig around for exactly that thing that you're talking about, T.

[00:16:22]Was there something else going on here?

[00:16:24]Were there other buttons that were being pushed, or was she that lone wolf? And they're going to be able to get into it.

[00:16:31]They're going to be able to subpoena phone records, text messages, emails. Is What a strategy. I'll tell you what, that's a that's a brilliant strategy.

[00:16:40]This is the impetus for the new trial, isn't it? It's look, everybody had it out for Alec Murdaugh.

[00:16:45]>> Yeah, no kidding. Reasonable doubt.

[00:16:46]>> don't even have to like even like really prove it. You just have to introduce it as reasonable doubt.

[00:16:51]And and if he I mean, you already got Becky, that's proven, but if you can insinuate that there's been that there was more people because other people had shitty opinions about Alec Murdaugh, because you naturally would, that makes a lot of people look like, oh, well, because you didn't like him, you wanted like, no, he should be going away for his crimes.

[00:17:10]Me not liking him has nothing to do with it, but but there is that that if it looks like, oh, people did a little bit more than they needed to to let him to help him burn. It's yeah, it kind of just goes back to when you have folks like that, you just you just kind of let them go. Let them let them do their thing. Let them drown. Let them burn themselves. They will do it without you pouring gasoline on them. But it is difficult. As human beings, we certainly have that urge to that [ __ ] needs to burn. Here's a cup of gas. Just like just let him go. Just let him go. And and Bob, with with all if they uncover a lot of other things that they can poke at for reasonable doubt in all these different areas because of the civil suit, is there a possibility that could bleed over then into them doing something with the financial crime suit? Nah, he's done on that.

[00:17:56]No, yeah, like he's locked in on that.

[00:17:58]He pled on that. Um It's like it's fun to do this experiment as long as he stays in jail. That's why yeah, I think that's why people are are okay with, you know, and standing by the criminal justice system because this is mistrial and and all that because of Becky Hill because he's already in jail and he's staying in jail. I think people wouldn't be feeling this way and like oh you know, I think there'd be a lot more uproar about this had he not had the other conviction. Yeah, and you know, but like that conviction was really born out of the decision by Judge Newman to allow all that financial crime [ __ ] to come in. Yeah. It it the volume that it did. You know, it really put him in a position where he's basically on the stand under oath. Not basically, he was admitting to the crimes. Like there's there's no backing out of it. I mean, it was it was a brilliant move by Creighton Waters and the prosecution team in terms of really saying, all right, here's what we're going to do. We're basically going to we're going to nail him on the financial [ __ ] without ever having to go to trial because we're going to introduce it all and he's going to have no choice but to admit to it on the stand. And it which is exactly what he did. He owned all his financial [ __ ] You know, he admitted to doing it, which really it you You unring that bell. You can't unring the bell. It's It's under oath. He's done. Which is why he fled out on that [ __ ] And you have to wonder, you know, in light of the the Supreme Court of South Carolina's opinion, if there's some kind of maneuver there where they could try, maybe on a post-conviction petition, to undo that?

[00:19:33]I don't know, man. It's a It's a really, really like intertwined, twisted-up thing.

[00:19:40]>> It It is. Because you cannot ring the bell. He's already admitted to it. He's already flat-out said, "You know, I should be in prison for these crimes, for those ones." I mean, it's hard to But But But would he have ever gotten there had the judge not admitted all the financial crimes into the trial? If he could have still I'm not trying to, you know, pro-Alec Murdaugh here, but it's If he's playing his cards right, and he never had to admit all those things in the murder trial, would he have been as forth- coming in the the financial crimes trial? I mean, that's That's That's it. That's That's exactly nail on head, or hammer or hammer on nail, man.

[00:20:20]I mean, like that That's That's what it boils down to. And And ultimately, cuz you can't forget like the Murdaugh family for generations had ruled that county with an iron fist. I mean, [ __ ] Murdaugh was being tried in the courtroom with like the the paintings of his grandfather and father in the courtroom where he's sitting on the witness stand. I mean, that family just ran that county forever. They were that family there. And man, you know, people are going to feel a certain way about folks in power, you know, that have been kind of running [ __ ] for a long time.

[00:20:57]And you know, Alec made it so that the chickens were able to come home to roost finally by his own doing. You know what I'm saying? But people were more than ready to come after his ass and and take that family down about that.

[00:21:11]>> even more so now in the second trial because now that they everyone feels even safer that he's not getting out no matter what, that they're going to I still I think they're I think it's going to be a much more interesting trial this time around because of what we're going to learn about what was going on behind the scenes. Also because of the civil case as well. I think they're going to do a lot of rooting around as well as the prosecution's going to be able to do a lot of rooting around. I think it's going to be uh my conjecture is a lot more in-depth on personalities, people, family arcs and all these things this time around because >> And the murders. Yeah.

[00:21:40]>> like don't forget, man. Like we were 3 weeks into that trial before we heard a damn thing about murder.

[00:21:46]>> Yeah. Yeah. It was a murder trial. You don't make no bones about it. It was three you know, I kept saying, "Man, like we covered it on our channel." I'm like, "What are they ever GOING TO GET TO the murder?" I'm like, "We're literally watching a financial crime." It was like the Reed thing, you know, like first trial there where Lalley put on this whole case that had nothing to do with the car thing and it was everything to do with him trying to get in front of the the people that were in the house that night because he knew that's where the defense was going. This was kind of the same [ __ ] where Creighton said, "I'm going to go and and Judge Newman gave him the rope." You know, he's like, "Have at it, bro." You know, you're like, "You go, kid." And you know, the the Supreme Court South Carolina Supreme Court they they had to address that, you know, they're like it it was it was it was a bridge too far, you know, so that's going to get real dead. So, it's going to force Creighton and the team and I'm assuming Creighton's going to retry it that you know, they're going to have to reel that in and really kind of focus on on the murders and that's going to bring us right back to SLED because that investigation was not great. Yes.

[00:22:50]>> it just wasn't. There's and there's a lot that we're going to get into in that. Your thoughts in the comments section on Substack and YouTube, uh be sure to drop them there and we'll continue our conversation there. Want more on this case and others? Then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment [music] of true crime coverage from Tony Brewsky and the Hidden Killers Podcast.

[00:23:13]This is Hidden Killers with Tony Brewsky. Here now, Tony Brewsky.

[00:23:20]Dick Harpootlian, that's Alec Murdaugh's attorney if you're playing the game at home, the home version of the trial of the retrial of Alec Murdaugh.

[00:23:30]He He stood outside the courthouse after the Supreme Court's ruling just this last week and said something very VERY SPECIFIC. Very very specific. He said, "We're relieved."

[00:23:44]He didn't say justice was served. He said the retrial must look very different from the first. And then he laid out exactly why, citing the court's findings on financial evidence, citing the language about prejudice, and then landing on the line that his team has repeated since 2021, "Alec has said from day one that he did not kill his wife and son. We are back there."

[00:24:08]That is where we are at right now. He's making the claim, "We can't technically go and say anymore Alec Murdaugh is a murderer. That is not a a fact anymore because he's no longer convicted of it."

[00:24:27]It has been thrown back to the courts.

[00:24:29]He allegedly is a murderer.

[00:24:32]That's what that Supreme Court ruling has done.

[00:24:37]And now all of the hoopla of the biggest trial I think that we've probably ever covered here on this show, going all the way back to the beginning of the 2000s, is going to have a sequel.

[00:24:51]Your thoughts in the comment section as we work through this on Substack and YouTube, those links in the description.

[00:24:56]This is not a man reacting to news, that's a man announcing a strategy, and the strategy is already in motion.

[00:25:03]And it will be, and you will see it, and we will cover it going forward. When a defense team loses at trial and wins on appeal, they usually get one advantage.

[00:25:11]They know what went wrong the first time.

[00:25:14]They have the transcript, they know which witness hurt them, they know which arguments the jury found persuasive and which ones fell flat. That is valuable.

[00:25:25]But what Harpootlian and Jim Griffin got from the South Carolina Supreme Court goes beyond a second chance. They got a road map.

[00:25:34]The court told them exactly where the prosecution overstepped.

[00:25:43]They know it. They have a huge advantage going into this trial.

[00:25:47]It identified the specific testimony that shouldn't have been admitted. It criticized the volume and depth of financial evidence, and it established a legal framework that shifts the burden on key evidentiary questions. That's not just a new trial, that's a new trial with instructions. The financial evidence firewall is the first and most obvious advantage. The Supreme Court expressed clear skepticism about the volume of financial testimony in trial one. The defense doesn't need a formal ruling excluding specific evidence. They have something almost as powerful, which is the court's published opinion saying the last judge let in too much. Every financial witness the prosecution tries to call in trial two, every bank record they try to introduce, every piece of testimony about Murdaugh's schemes, the defense challenges it.

[00:26:37]And they challenge it with the Supreme Court's own words as their authority.

[00:26:41]The defense doesn't need to win every motion. They need to win enough of them to prevent the prosecution from rebuilding the cumulative emotional case that turned the first jury against Murdaugh before they ever got to the physical evidence. Every financial witness who gets excluded is a brick removed from the prosecution's foundation. Every hour of testimony the judge doesn't allow is an hour the jury doesn't spend learning to despise the defendant.

[00:27:15]And then there's the corruption narrative. In trial one, the defense didn't know what Hill was doing behind closed doors. They didn't know she was telling jurors to distrust the defendant. They didn't know she was steering the jury towards guilty to help sell a book.

[00:27:32]They found out after the verdict. And by then the damage was done. In trial two, Hill is a convicted criminal.

[00:27:39]That changes the dynamic entirely of all this. In the first round she wasn't. She was just She was a clerk of court. She was there to help. She had There was nothing even Nobody even looked Nobody knew she existed other than those jurors and the people in the courtroom.

[00:27:55]The name Becky Hill didn't mean anything throughout that entire trial. Now it is the linchpin.

[00:28:03]Right next to the name Alec Murdaugh, Maggie Murdaugh, and Paul Murdaugh. She is one of the most important names in trial two because she's the entire reason trial two is happening.

[00:28:15]The defense can reference the corruption of the first trial in opening statements, not as an illegal technicality, but as a a story. That's going to be important. They can't be like, "We don't even know why we're here. They already You already threw out the first one." This is a way They can't do that. But they can bring up "This ain't round one."

[00:28:36]That immediately puts some doubt into any juror's mind. Well, the first one didn't stand up. What is this all about?

[00:28:43]Why are we here?

[00:28:45]The state had its chance and officer of the court corrupted the process, the highest court in South Carolina threw out the verdict, and now the state wants you to convict him again.

[00:28:54]The unspoken message is powerful. Be careful.

[00:28:58]The system got it wrong once.

[00:29:00]Make sure you get it right this time.

[00:29:03]Be a justice warrior.

[00:29:06]People like being justice warriors. They do. It's kind of like everybody's side hustle, if you will. [laughter] For the stupidest [ __ ] sometimes.

[00:29:16]And sometimes things that go against their own self-interest, their best interest, or the interest of common sense.

[00:29:23]That can work to the advantage of Alec Murdaugh here.

[00:29:28]You're not setting Alec Murdaugh free.

[00:29:31]You're not finding him innocent. You're standing up to power.

[00:29:37]And if they can get that narrative in the minds of the jurors, you have an Alec Murdaugh that may not be convicted in round number two.

[00:29:46]That right there should be the goal of the defense. You're welcome. The system got it wrong once.

[00:29:54]Make sure you get it right this time.

[00:29:56]It's not evidence of innocence.

[00:29:57]Harpootlian knows that, the jury will know that, but it's a framing device that puts the prosecution on defense from the very first minute. It creates a posture of skepticism towards the state that the defense doesn't have to build from scratch. The Supreme Court built it for them.

[00:30:17]But the biggest strategic question, the one that both legal teams are already gaming out, is whether Alec Murdaugh takes the stand again.

[00:30:26]Here's why that question matters.

[00:30:28]On the night of the murders, Paul Murdaugh was at the dog kennels on the family's Moselle property. He pulled out his phone and recorded a short video, a Snapchat of a dog at 8:44 p.m. In the background of that video, you can hear voices. Multiple witnesses at trial identified one of those voices as Alec Murdaugh's.

[00:30:46]He's talking about the family's yellow lab, Bubba, catching a chicken. It's mundane. It's casual. It really means nothing until you discover, oh, they died a few minutes after that. And it destroyed Murdaugh's alibi because Murdaugh had told investigators, family members, and friends consistently from the night of the murders forward until the very moment snot started flying out of his face on the stand that he was not there.

[00:31:12]He had not been at the kennels that evening.

[00:31:15]He said he was at the main house. He said he hadn't seen Maggie and Paul in the 45 minutes before he left to visit his mother. Why? Why would you say that if you weren't there and you had nothing to do with their murders.

[00:31:35]The kennel video proved he was lying.

[00:31:38]He was there a minute before prosecutors say the shootings happened at the location where the bodies were found.

[00:31:44]When the video became public, it forced Murdaugh's hand. He had to take the stand to explain the lie, and he did. He testified that he lied because of paranoid thinking. That's how he sounded. I'm going to use that every time I'm quoting Alec Murdaugh for dramatic effect stemming from opioid addiction. That's what the paranoid thinking was about, and it might be, honestly, completely true. He said he wasn't thinking clearly. He said he distrusted the investigators who were swabbing his hands for gunshot residue.

[00:32:12]He maintained that Maggie and Paul were alive when he left the kennels and walked back to the house. The jury didn't buy it. Jurors said afterwards that his testimony felt performative.

[00:32:22]That he could turn the emotion on and off. They said they read right through it.

[00:32:30]The video hasn't gone anywhere.

[00:32:32]That lie hasn't gone anywhere.

[00:32:35]And the pressure to testify hasn't gone anywhere.

[00:32:39]Murdaugh almost certainly has to take the stand again in trial two because the kennel video demands an explanation and only he can provide one.

[00:32:48]But here's where the calculus changes.

[00:32:52]And this is critical.

[00:32:54]In trial one, Murdaugh took the stand after the jury had spent weeks absorbing testimony about his financial crimes. By the time he sat in that witness chair, the jury already knew he was a pathological liar. They knew he'd stolen from disabled clients. They knew he'd cheated his own law firm. They knew he'd manipulated every person in his life.

[00:33:15]His credibility wasn't just damaged, it was demolished before he opened his mouth. When he said, "I lied about the kennels because of my paranoid thinking from my addiction." Yeah.

[00:33:27]The jury heard it through the filter of everything they already knew about him.

[00:33:32]Of course he's lying again. That's what he does.

[00:33:36]In trial two, that filter is dramatically reduced. With financial evidence limited by the Supreme Court's guidance, Murdaugh takes the stand in front of a jury that knows far less about who he is. They'll know about the murders. They'll know about some version of the financial pressure motive. But they won't have spent weeks absorbing the full catalog of his deceptions. He's still explaining a lie. The kennel lie is a fact that can't be wished away. But he's explaining it to jurors who haven't been conditioned to assume everything he says is another con. That is a meaningful difference. Whether it's enough of a difference to change the outcome is what trial two tests.

[00:34:18]Beyond the testimony question, the defense's physical evidence argument gets its moment. This is the argument that got overshadowed shadowed in trial one by the financial crimes narrative and it's the argument Harpootlian has been making since the beginning. No DNA was found on Murdaugh or any of his clothing. None. Despite two close-range shootings with a shotgun, one with a rifle, using weapons powerful enough to cause catastrophic wounds, there was no blood spatter on Murdaugh's body.

[00:34:49]Both murder weapons are still missing.

[00:34:52]They have never been recovered. There are no eyewitnesses. Harpoolein said at trial, "There are no eyewitnesses. There is nothing on camera. There is no forensic tying him to the crime scene.

[00:35:02]None." And the crime scene itself was compromised from the start. Vehicles and people flooded the Mozelle property in the hours after the killings. Murdaugh's friends, family, law partners, they all showed up. First responders walked through taped-off areas. Paul's body was covered with a sheet instead of a tarp on a night when the rain was misting in and water droplets from the kennel roof went onto the body.

[00:35:26]Murdaugh's form former law partner testified about the chaos at the scene.

[00:35:30]The chain of custody on the physical evidence has issues that the defense will hammer in trial, too. And hammer harder than they did the first time.

[00:35:42]Because this time the financial narrative isn't drowning out.

[00:35:50]Then there's the timeline.

[00:35:53]Prosecutors argue that Murdaugh had roughly 77 minutes to commit two murders using two different weapons, dispose of both firearms in a way that no one will ever find them, clean himself up, change his clothes, leave the property to visit his mother, and return home before calling 911 after 10 p.m. The defense challenged that timeline at trial.

[00:36:12]At least trial one. In trial two, they'll challenge it with better prepared experts, new forensic analysis.

[00:36:18]In 3 years of studying the prosecution's reconstruction of that evening, they know every prosecution witness. They know every exhibit. They know every argument the lead prosecutor made and which ones the jury found persuasive.

[00:36:31]That level of preparation is rare going into a retrial. The prosecution is building a case inside new constraints.

[00:36:38]The defense is refining a case they have spent 3 years studying.

[00:36:43]And all of it funnels toward the simplest and most powerful argument in criminal defense, reasonable doubt.

[00:36:51]Harpootlian and Griffin have never needed [clears throat] it to prove Murdaugh didn't do it. That's not how the system works.

[00:36:58]They need 12 people to say they can't be certain beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the bar.

[00:37:06]And look at what they have to work with in trial two.

[00:37:10]Limited financial evidence, which means less emotional ammunition for the prosecution, a prior conviction thrown out because a court officer corrupted the process, no DNA, no blood, no weapons, no eyewitness, a contaminated crime scene, a 77-minute window that has to account for two murders, disposal of two weapons, a cleanup, a clothing change, and a round trip off the property.

[00:37:33]And a defendant who, whatever the jury ultimately decides, takes the stand knowing every question the prosecution will ask because he's already answered all them once before. Reasonable doubt gets easier to argue in trial two, not because the evidence changed, it is the same evidence, but because the emotional scaffolding that made the circumstantial case feel airtight won't be there the same way it was in round one.

[00:37:58]The prosecution's job is to make the evidence feel overwhelming. The defense's job is to make the jury pause, and the Supreme Court handed Harpootlian and Griffin every tool they need to create that pause.

[00:38:13]There's also the jury selection advantage.

[00:38:15]I know the hits keep on coming, don't they? The defense gets to talk about what happened in the first trial during voir dire.

[00:38:23]They get to ask potential jurors how they feel about the fact that a court a court clerk was convicted of tampering with the last jury.

[00:38:32]They get to identify jurors who are skeptical of institutions, who believe in holding the government to a high standard, who are troubled by the idea that the system failed. Those jurors exist in every pool and in this case the defense has a factual bias, not speculation, not theory, but a Supreme Court ruling and criminal conviction to find them and seat them.

[00:38:55]The prosecution has to build inside constraints. The defense gets to build on advantages that didn't exist 3 years ago. Every limitation the court imposes on the state is an opening for the defense. Every word of criticism in the opinion is something Harpo Dylan can use. And there's one more advantage the defense has that that doesn't get talked about really very much. The burden never shifts.

[00:39:18]In criminal trial the prosecution carries the burden of proof from opening statements to closing argument. The defense doesn't have to prove really anything. Certainly it's helpful. A jury would like that to connect the dots, but they don't have to present a single witness. They don't have to offer an alternative theory of who killed Maggie and Paul. All they have to do is create enough uncertainty that 12 people can't say guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[00:39:43]In trial one the prosecution overcame that burden by building an overwhelming emotional case alongside the circumstantial physical evidence. In trial two the emotional case is constrained. The physical case hasn't gotten stronger in 3 years and the defense walks in knowing exactly how to attack every piece of it. The defense lost the first trial in 6 weeks. They've had 3 years to figure out why.

[00:40:07]Whether they can translate that understanding into an acquittal or at minimum a hung jury is the question trial two answers. The Supreme Court gave them the road map. The courtroom is where we find out if they can follow it. Your thoughts in the comment section on Substack and YouTube. I'd love for you to weigh in and give me your thoughts. We'll continue our conversation right there. There's more to come in our Alec Murdoch series this week getting ready for the next trial.

[00:40:33]Albeit, it's going to be a bit down the road, but let's let's ground ourselves in where it stands as the coverage and the conversations begin.

[00:40:51]We're back at square one. We are where we were in 2023. [music] Before the trial. That's how far back we are.

[00:41:00]Back to the future. It's like quantum leap without Scott Bakula.

[00:41:04]All right.

[00:41:06]If you got that, >> [laughter] >> uh let me know in the comments. All right. Until next time.

[00:41:13]I'm Tony Bruski. We'll talk again real soon.

[00:41:17]Want more on this case and others? Then press [music] subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true crime coverage from Tony Bruski and the Hidden Killers [music] Podcast.