DEEP DIVE: Murdaugh new trial ruling explained | FOX Carolina Investigates

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-15

[00:00:02]Thanks for joining us. We are about to do a very indepth deep dive into the Supreme Court's decision to grant Alec Murdoch a retrial for that double murder case that we all followed so closely for six long weeks back in 2023. My name is Grace Wrl. I'm the senior investigative reporter here at Fox Carolina. If you watched our coverage back then, I was the one who was in Walterboro in court every single day. But just as big a part of that coverage, you didn't see her because she was behind the scenes, but Katie Busman is also joining me. She's one of our investigative producers.

[00:00:35]Katie, um, pretty easy to picture what I was doing going in court every day, but what were you doing here at the station back in Greenville in 2023 to make sure that we were able to have the full coverage that we did?

[00:00:49]>> Yeah. So, you know, Grace was living in Walterboro for the full six week trial.

[00:00:54]Um, I was here at the station and I would basically my entire day for those six weeks would be listening to the trial. Um, I would get in, I would get logged on, I would plug in and just listen to the full um the full testimony each day. And then every lunch break, so Grace wasn't allowed to have her phone in court. So obviously she was inside listening. So during our lunch break, we would connect and kind of map out our coverage plan for that day, what Grace would feature in her hits, and then kind of what we would include in the newscast outside of her reporting. So we really did pretty in-depth coverage every day those six weeks um because Grace would have a component and then we would have our anchors, you know, go over some of the other elements because there was so much testimony, so much to get through and that was kind of how we presented it. So again, Grace lived in Walterboro, was there in person, and then I was here listening to the trial every day. So we both listened together to the testimony, the motions, everything for the full six weeks.

[00:01:56]>> Yeah. And even this is still just a fraction of our team that was working on the coverage at the time. So just like the prosecution, the defense, they're gearing up for the retrial, our team is getting ready, too. So, we're going to go more in depth on how you can get and make the most of all of our coverage at the end here. But first, we're going to recap. If you know you somehow managed to miss the Murdoch chaos that was 2023, we want to make sure that you know what happened, how we got here, and what's coming next. So, let's wind the clock back. Um, this all started back in the summer of 2021, June 2021. That is when um all of a sudden the quiet estate of Moselle became this massive crime scene.

[00:02:45]Of course um Alec Murdoch's wife Maggie and one of his sons Paul were found dead on their property and that is what got this whole story going.

[00:02:56]>> Yeah. And I think you know if you you know South Carolina we have a lot of new people moving here. If you're not familiar with the Colton County area, it's it's kind of um if you're driving to like one of the beaches in the Low Country like Edesto or Hilton Head, you might drive through it. It's a very um kind of picturesque rural area. So something like this, you know, when when it first happened, it even if you like removed the Murdoch family out of it, it's still kind of shocking for that area that you know, a mother and son were were killed in in cold blood on this kind of remote property. Um, so it really kind of like launched launched it into a national stage just because again it didn't really happen in this area super often. You know, Colton County is not a very populated area and that was kind of our too like what started like our suspicion that this was going to turn into something larger. Um, so yeah, and then of course, you know, fast forward, Alec Murdoch is arrested and charged and then the trial begins in 2023.

[00:04:00]six week long trial as we mentioned, longest in state history. Um, and I actually, you know, did some digging to try and find if there was another state level um South Carolina case trial that lasted anywhere near this long. And the the closest one that I could find just in an initial search was from like the early 1700s and it was about like a group of pirates that were being tried.

[00:04:25]So, six weeks was a very big undertaking for the prosecution, for the court, for the defense, for the entire state, truthfully.

[00:04:34]>> Yeah. And I mean, when you were in it day by day, I feel like you kind of lost >> the the context for the magnitude of it because you're just trying to get through every single day. Who's testifying? What are we going to be listening to? How can I prepare myself?

[00:04:52]But looking back on all of it, yeah, this massive, massive trial and ultimately at the end, Murdoch was found guilty of killing Maggie and Paul. And that verdict came for how drawn out everything else was in this trial. The verdict was very, very quick, only a couple of hours. And everyone, I can say everyone on the media side was very thrown off by this because when we finally got when we got the word that you guys need to get in the courtroom as soon as possible, I would say a good chunk of the people were at dinner because we were so confident that we it would at least be the next day. We were expecting there to be >> longer deliberations, but >> especially with how much like testimony you consider happened like we I mean back at the station too. I mean obviously our our crew stayed in house because we just we didn't know. Um but we were all you know shocked that it happened the same day just because there was so much >> so much for them to go through.

[00:05:53]>> So much for them to go through but they were adamant you know that they reached a conclusion pretty soon. But now, of course, here we will be doing it again.

[00:06:04]Um, and that's because, you know, something that we kind of wanted to do in this episode is talk about how the decision from the Supreme Court yesterday, it didn't really have anything to do with any arguments um from the state. Mostly it it came down to one person, and that person is Becky Hill.

[00:06:25]>> Yeah. So Becky Hill, the Colatin County Clerk of Court, essentially the person, >> the clerk of court is the administrator of a county's court procedures. You know, they are in charge of making the schedule um and making sure that things run pretty smoothly. So, there's someone that when everything's going right, you don't see them.

[00:06:48]>> Yes. You don't usually hear about them.

[00:06:50]I think for a lot of people, it's one of those offices on their ballot when they have to um go to election day and cast their vote. They're like, "Clirker of court?"

[00:07:00]I guess this person. But Becky Hill, who you're looking at right now, she probably became the most famous clerk of court in South Carolina for sure.

[00:07:09]>> Yeah. Overnight pretty much because, you know, we so the verdict happened in March of of 2023 and then the sentencing happened the next day. So again, that all happened in March of 2023. So, it was kind of like the murder case was was put to rest is kind of what everyone thought. But then not long after around the fall, there start to be, you know, these these allegations coming against Becky Hill from Murdoch's defense team. And they were pretty damning, I guess I would say. So Murdoch's defense team starts accusing Becky Hill of tampering with the jury and talking to jurors in ways that were inappropriate for a court official. Um so that starts coming out kind of around September 2023. his defense starts talking about how she was making inappropriate comments to the jurors about Murdoch and kind of implying that he was guilty, which again is not something that a clerk of court should be doing in their capacity. But in October, October 27th, 2023 is when Murdoch's defense officially files their motion asking for a new trial and it lays out everything against Becky Hill from their perspective. Um, so again, that was October 2023. Not long, not that long after the trial, I mean, that would be seven months.

[00:08:34]>> Yeah.

[00:08:34]>> So, >> and I think it if you weren't following this this part of it very closely, Becky kind of became like a media darling.

[00:08:45]>> She did. Yeah.

[00:08:46]>> Um, she got a shout out from Attorney General Alan Wilson the night that the verdict came down. Um, he called her, he said he likes to call her Becky Boo. We couldn't have done this without Becky Buu. And so to see her kind of fall from to be this elevated figure from the small town who stepped up and made sure that this trial ran well.

[00:09:09]>> Um, you know, she was in her first term as clerk of court. So, this is a crazy thing to be handed when you're brand new at your job. I can't even imagine. And so she was celebrated for pulling it off and even would go on to um at different clerk of court conferences that were held across the state would give seminars on how to handle highprofile cases like this. So very celebrated. And then we start hearing she was saying things to the jury. So some of the things that she talked about was not to trust Murdoch's defense team.

[00:09:47]>> Yeah. don't trust them. Murdoch, of course, famously testified. Um she told the jurors that this is going to be a big day.

[00:09:55]>> Yeah.

[00:09:56]>> And she told the jurors, "Watch his body language. Watch him very closely."

[00:10:01]>> Yeah. And it's very rare that you see someone testify in their own defense in in any case. That that does not happen super often. So, you know, when Murdoch did get on the stand, it was kind of a surprising moment for a lot of people.

[00:10:16]and she kind of used that as an avenue to tell the jury some things or some jurors things about, you know, like Grace said, like watch him closely, don't be fooled, that kind of those kind of comments to to some jurors.

[00:10:33]>> Yeah. And, you know, talking with some people on our staff, they're wondering, okay, is it the job of the clerk of court, was she maybe saying something more like, remember, like keep an open mind. Yeah. Don't be biased toward one side. Even if that is what she said, but according to the opinion that came down, they're basically putting on the record that she did say these things. They said that they have no reason to believe that she did not say the things reported by the jurors.

[00:11:00]>> Yeah.

[00:11:01]>> Even if she did say those things, it's not the place of the clerk of court. The only person who instructs the jury is the judge. So really, there should not be any communication. Typically, it's the baiff in the room with the jury. If the jury has a request, a question, even if they just are putting in their orders for lunch or dinner or what have you, goes to the baiff and then the baiff will pass that along to the clerk of court or the judge, whoever needs it.

[00:11:28]So, any communication is kind of questionable.

[00:11:33]>> Yeah. And so we want to kind of get into some of the more, you know, narrow details of this order because it was, as we reported yesterday, it was a pretty long decision. Um, and it again really hones in on >> Look at that.

[00:11:46]>> Becky Hill. Yeah, it was >> annotated.

[00:11:49]>> It was I think my printed out copy is close to 40 pages. So it's it is a a long decision. And of course, you know, when you're over the air, you don't always get the time to really go in depth on a lot of the details in it. we kind of have to boil it down to the need to know information and that's what we did yesterday. So today now we're going to be taking this time and this opportunity to go more in depth on some of those quotes, pull out some of the information, kind of contextualize it for you and that's what we're going to be doing.

[00:12:17]>> Yeah, I was a little um like how much reading am I going to have to do like for our very first breaking news hit to get this on the air? And I was pleasantly surprised when I opened it up. And in the first paragraph, they just kind of expertly lay out >> their entire stance. And that's one of the that's the first quote we want to read you to kind of >> get you into the mindset that these justices had. Um because honestly, they really let Becky kind of have it. And that's you're going to see that in these quotes that we've pulled out for you.

[00:12:54]So, one of I think it's the second or third line in this opinion, um, they say both the state and Murdoch's defense skillfully presented their case to the jury as the trial court deafly precided over this complicated and high-profile matter. However, their efforts were in vain because Colatin County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill, also known as Becky Hill, placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdoch his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. So, as soon as I read that, I was like, "Oh, >> I know what they made it very clear."

[00:13:33]>> Um, and really, I think, you know, we've had a lot of good quotes come out of this case.

[00:13:39]>> Yeah. At the post-trial hearing where the defense team first tried to get a retrial granted, we heard former Chief Justice Tol say that um Becky Hill fell for the siren call of celebrity. We We're getting a lot of good quotes out of this and >> they don't look great for Becky.

[00:14:01]>> No, they don't. And I think it it again I think it shows and reinforces we kind of talked about how a lot of people probably don't even know what a clerk of court is or their function. And I think it reinforces how important that role is to our court system because they have to stay impartial. They have to ensure that every defendant is getting their fair trial and this was a case where that didn't happen and now again the state >> is going to be doing this all over again. It it denied a defendant a constitutional right. It's a really important role and I think the the decision and what the justices wrote really reinforce that part of it too.

[00:14:45]>> Yeah.

[00:14:46]>> Now, once we kind of got past that first opening statement, they dive right into what the jurors said that they were either overheard from Becky or were told directly from Becky. So, um Katie, do you want to read this is if you read through this opinion, you're going to hear a lot about Jersey. So, this is a little more about Jur's experience.

[00:15:09]>> There we go.

[00:15:10]>> So, again, this is a quote from the decision. Um, it reads, "Jur Z testified that when the jury began deliberation, so this was after all the testimony, Hill told the jury, this shouldn't take us long." In addition to referencing Hill's statements, juror Zeared in her affidavit, I had questions about Mr. for Murdoch's guilt, but voted guilty because I felt pressured by the other jurors. Um, and Jersey kind of goes on to talk about some of the other comments that Becky Hill made again like watch his body langu body language. Another quote in the decision was that she also stated jurors she would give them a quote little talk instructing them to pay attention and that the day was a big day again referencing when Murdoch testified in his own defense. So, I think it really just kind of goes back to what's appropriate and what isn't from a clerk of court. And this this is >> textbook not appropriate.

[00:16:07]>> Yes. Yeah. And that's what the justices really outlined in the in the decision.

[00:16:12]And I think another interesting thing that kind of um came up in this decision that I that I didn't know about before because again we had kind of heard that like she'd been making these comments because that was a big part of what Murdoch's defense was arguing. I didn't know this part. um involving another clerk of court who was brought in to help Becky Hill during this because again it was her first term as clerk of court a massive case. So the clerk of court for Barnwell County came in and helped Becky Hill with this and this is a quote from the decision. Rhonda Mlevine, the Barnwell County Clerk of Court, who assisted Hill with the trial, testified that Hill repeatedly told her she wanted to write a book so she could buy a lakehouse and a guilty verdict would be the best way to sell books. Um, so that was, you know, another thing that kind of came up in the aftermath of the trial. Becky Hill co-authored a book and it was published very quickly. Um, and she did a lot of press on that and then it comes out press with us. We did we did do an interview with her when the >> either when the book was released or around the time it was released and then it comes out that she plagiarized parts of it. The book was pulled from circulation or publication. It it wasn't available to buy anymore. And um so the book part of it, you know, we knew about that and I think it ended up playing a bigger role than I expected >> from conversations behind the scenes.

[00:17:50]>> The book was almost like the first red flag for a lot of people >> because it came out so soon after the trial. Like the dust had not settled. So then you're like, okay, when was she writing this? Like, how did she have time to put this together? Why would she want to get it out so fast? Um, and it was called Behind the Doors of Justice.

[00:18:14]So, it was kind of like a memoir slashinssiders look at the Murdoch trial. Um, like Katie said, kind of the first real ding against Becky Hill was that it came out that it was plagiarized. Yeah.

[00:18:32]>> From a reporter, I believe from England who worked for the BBC. Yeah.

[00:18:36]>> Um from some notes um and maybe some scripts that she had sent Becky.

[00:18:41]>> And I think that was when people first started to be a little huh maybe maybe some of what the defense is saying has some validity, >> right? Because I remember too like when the plagiarism accusations first came out, I we actually took that BBC article or script, I can't remember exactly, and cross referenced it with the opening of the book and it was almost like word for word the same. So again, that kind of >> put like a dent in her reputation, I think. And some of the other interesting things that that clerk of court overheard and and told the Supreme Court was that she overheard that Becky Hill gave a juror a ride home. And actually she told Becky Hill that that was not an appropriate thing to do. Um and she says that Becky Hill then told her, "Well, a baiff was in the car with us and we didn't discuss the case at all." Um, again, it's just kind of one of those things that you can't do.

[00:19:50]>> Yeah. And I I think Walter Bro, small town, I think you see someone who needs a ride home, you're like, "Sure."

[00:20:00]>> Yeah.

[00:20:01]>> But again, it's especially when it's a trial of this magnitude under such an intense microscope. Yeah. You got to be extra extra careful. Um, and what I thought was interesting because Hill denied some of the things that people were saying, the justices in their opinion wrote specifically, and I think I already mentioned it, but they they said they have no reason to believe that those comments and those actions didn't happen. Um, because Hill's credibility was called into question so so much. And that was a question too that you know some of my friends like after the decision asked me they're like well how do they know for certain that what you know this juror another juror is saying is true. How do they know? I think they did a lot of due diligence and interviewing multiple people who were involved in the process and when you have that many people all saying the same thing it it kind of you know leaves little room for for doubt. And the clerk of court also said that while she didn't hear anything inappropriate said to jurors from Hill, she did hear Hill make very similar comments to her court staff and then members of the media.

[00:21:19]>> Yeah. She was very chatty with the media. Yeah.

[00:21:22]>> And you know, another thing to kind of add a little bit more weight or credibility to some of these things that these jurors were saying after the fact, no one made money off of coming forward and saying that Becky Hill said these things. No, I mean I I know a lot of the >> I know one of the jurors in particular received a lot of threats from people for speaking out because people were like, "We don't want to do this again.

[00:21:49]He's behind bars. Leave him there." So again, >> the justices are taking their word for it and that's that's officially the record now at this point. Um but more in the vein of they really just let Becky Hill have it in this opinion. Um this was a footnote going back to the book.

[00:22:10]Um the justices wrote as her book title suggests. It turns out Hill was quite busy behind the doors of justice thwarting the integrity of the justice system she was sworn to protect and uphold. The book was pulled from publication because Hill plagiarized portions of it. So again, >> they're not mincing words. Um, and they're making it very clear who they're essentially blaming for having to redo this trial.

[00:22:36]>> Yeah. And again, I think to make comments of I want to sell a book so I can get a lakehouse, a guilty verdict would help me sell more books. It It just damages credibility even more, I think, for sure. And one thing I will say as someone who was in the courtroom, I mean I know you heard it over the the stream, there were multiple points where um Dick Harbutley and one of Murdoch's attorneys moved for a mistrial and everyone in the room would freeze as like the media members especially because we've already spent so much time down here. We've gone through so much testimony, some of it pretty tedious.

[00:23:19]We're like, "No, we don't need to do this again."

[00:23:23]>> Right?

[00:23:24]>> And I think that's the way a lot of people feel, and we'll get into this um with one of our last quotes, but these actions meant from Hill that we have to do this again because someone's rights were violated, >> right? Um something that too, so that the justices kind of addressed was an argument from the state. So when the state is kind of arguing against a new trial, something they brought up was that well the jury was given, you know, the very specific instructions of what they need to consider in their deliberations and that that would have made clear to the jury what they were supposed to do and that it kind of would have wiped away what Becky Hill may or may not have told them. Um, so that was kind of an argument from the state that they were given these clear instructions. And so what Becky said didn't matter, shouldn't have mattered.

[00:24:14]Well, this the Supreme Court addressed that and it it made they made it pretty clear that no, it it did what her comments, they did still have an impact on the jury. And this is one of the quotes. Um here the trial court gave the standard instructions and admonishments to the jury, none of which provided guidance on what to do when the Colton County Clerk of Court, an officer of the court, made comments disparaging Murdoch's credibility and urging the jury to reject his defense. The trial court never had the opportunity to even attempt to cure the prejuditial effect of Hill's comments because they did not come to light until months after the trial. Um, I think that is a very, very damning statement to make against Becky Hill because it's basically saying the instructions to the jury. How could they have told the jury to disregard Becky Hill's statements when no one really knew what she was doing >> until after?

[00:25:17]>> Yeah. If you haven't been a part of a jury before or watched a trial, um, one of the last thing the last thing that happens before a jury deliberates is that the judge gives them instructions.

[00:25:32]There's is more or less um kind of a template standard instruction that the judge gives the jury. Uh e both sides can file motions and to have specific things included. Um like make sure you tell them this is the definition of murder and make sure you tell them >> certain things remind them to disregard anything that was wiped from the record.

[00:25:58]That sort of stuff. So had they known about Hill's comments I think they would have moved for a new trial or a mistrial in that moment. But in theory, they could have said, "You've we've you've been told these things by the clerk of court. You are to not include them in your deliberations." We hear things not necessarily about the clerk of court, but you are not to include this in your deliberations. Pretty, it's pretty standard. Um, and this was an argument that the state made over and over, both at the post-trial hearing with Chief Justice, former Chief Justice Gene Tol and at the Supreme Court hearing. And I mean, I think no matter what, it is kind of shocking that we're going to be doing a retrial on this, but if you followed along, >> I think it the writing was on the wall a little bit, >> especially coming from the Supreme Court hearing, the state really got grilled and especially when they were arguing this point that the judge's instructions to the jury would have handled anything that was not supposed to be said. And I agree with Katie. I think it is very interesting and very telling that they specifically call out that argument.

[00:27:09]Yes. In their opinion.

[00:27:11]>> For sure.

[00:27:13]>> So, of course, the big focus in our coverage and, you know, at the hearing was all about Becky Hill's comments and her actions, but the defense did also ask the state supreme court to look at a couple other things. The biggest one would have been the financial evidence.

[00:27:35]Yes. And if you watch the trial, you know that was so so much of the trial.

[00:27:40]Yeah.

[00:27:41]>> The state said it was necessary to include all of this evidence of Murdoch's schemes from over the years to defraud and steal money from his clients. Um, their argument for motive was that that scheme was starting to come to light and Murdoch was essentially freaking out, wanted to get the attention away from himself and so he murdered his wife and his son to point everyone in a different direction.

[00:28:07]>> Yeah. And I think, you know, I get questions about the length of the trial.

[00:28:12]The what made the financial evidence take so long is the judge had to hear it all himself and then decide if it was something the jury should hear. So we went through all of the exhibits, evidence, testimony for the judge and then repeated it all again with the jury present. So that that took up a significant portion of of the trial and I think the length of it is what the justices kind of took issue with.

[00:28:45]>> Yeah. Because the the defense they their argument was you can't include this because evidence of one crime can't be used to prove the likelihood that someone would commit another crime. you can't use it >> um to attack someone's character. So, they didn't want it in at all and there was a lot of back and forth, a lot of different um motions filed before court.

[00:29:10]So, we had already seen so much of the financial evidence.

[00:29:14]>> Yeah. And at that point, too, like that the financials were still pending. Like that entire case was still pending. I mean, of course, now >> it's resolved, but at the time it was still pending. So, that was another kind of layer to the argument, too, is that well, he hadn't even been convicted of the financial crimes yet, >> but um Judge Newman decided to allow it in.

[00:29:36]>> Yep.

[00:29:36]>> And in the opinion, the justices make it clear that they think moving forward that as it was that was done right. It was under the discretion of the circuit court judge to make that decision. And at the retrial, it will again be the decision of the circuit court judge to decide whether or not that financial evidence and that testimony will be allowed in. However, they then say, quote, "We unanimously hold that the trial court allowed the state to go far too long and far too deep into aspects of Murdoch's financial crimes that were not probitative of the state's theory of motive, which gave rise to considerable danger of unfair prejudice and therefore should have been excluded." So, a very wordy way of saying you guys did too much. Yeah, you went too far.

[00:30:30]>> It's a fancy way of saying exactly what Grace just said. It >> cut it out.

[00:30:35]>> Yeah. It and I think that, you know, if you're watching and you and you're not super familiar with with criminal proceedings, it can it can seem like, well, if he did it, he did it. And if it was the motive, it was the motive. But I think where it kind of went into this character assassination territory is that they kept bringing people on the stand who would talk about how Murdoch betrayed their trust. You know that he was kind of a a very they had a lot of faith.

[00:31:12]>> How hard my life has been since I didn't get the money. Yes. Which >> you know all those people rightfully have their day in court and they did and they all were able to speak but >> the argument that the defense was making and ultimately the justices kind of agreed with the murder trial was not the place for that.

[00:31:30]>> Correct. Yeah. And I think that that was, you know, their way of kind of addressing the whole financial motivation and and that part of the argument that was brought up as well and during during all of this truthfully.

[00:31:46]And to put it in context for you, the justices did some math here and they tallied up how much time the state spent on the financial testimony before the jury was even allowed to hear it. So again, what Katie was talking about them laying out their arguments so that the judge Newman could decide whether or not it was relevant.

[00:32:10]>> 12 and a half hours over 10 days. Yeah, that's >> that's a lot.

[00:32:16]>> That is longer than most defendants entire trials.

[00:32:22]>> Yeah.

[00:32:22]>> Because I mean, if you look back at so, you know, Grace and I have done coverage on a lot of big cases in South Carolina, the other one that of course comes to mind for a lot of people is the Susan Smith trial. Her entire trial was two weeks. And so in this case, just the financial evidence. So take out all of the, you know, cell phone DNA, take out all of that, it was already longer than most people's entire trials for just the money part of it, which again at the time was still a pending case, too.

[00:32:56]>> Yeah. Yeah. And you know, we've kind of already talked a little bit about this, but they say flat out, we do intend to require that if the trial court decides to admit evidence of Murdoch's financial crimes on retrial, the state must complete its introduction of that evidence efficiently without the lengthy presentation of inflammatory details.

[00:33:18]Um, so again, there are so many unknowns about this retrial.

[00:33:22]>> Yeah. But this kind of indicates to me maybe it will be shorter.

[00:33:30]>> Yeah, >> knock on wood. But >> if they have to cut that down and that's what the justices are saying, that truly was so much of the trial. And I think a lot of us thought that deliberations would go on longer because they essentially had two different trials that they were looking at. They had the financial trial and then they had the murder trial. Of course, it didn't end up being that long of a deliberation, but um it it was so much information >> and I can understand, you know, why the state would want to include all of that testimony because I think it's about, you know, if if we're taking the perspective of the prosecutors, as the justices point out in this decision, this was a case that was pretty much entirely based on circumstantial evidence. And when you have something like that, I think what the prosecutors wanted to do is paint this very clear picture of a motive. And you know, I I can't put words in their mouth, but I can speculate that in their eyes, they were probably laying this all out to show how much of his life was crumbling.

[00:34:39]Yeah. and to show how much he wanted that other distraction to just take away from the financial crimes that he had been doing in the background. So, I think that's kind of where that lengthy testimony probably came from is that they wanted to show to the jury really in depth just how deep the money crimes went and how much that meant his life was falling apart before the murders of Maggie Aal. I think they really hit that hard also because there are still some unanswered questions.

[00:35:20]>> Yeah.

[00:35:22]>> No one ever found the 300 blackout.

[00:35:24]Yeah.

[00:35:24]>> We don't know where that weapon is.

[00:35:26]>> And we see I mean we see it in our Facebook comments too. People speculating >> I don't think he did it or I still have a lot of questions. And so it's it's something that a lot of people >> because it is even if you know they've laid out all this financial testimony, >> it still is hard to believe that you don't you don't want to believe that a father would do that.

[00:35:55]>> Yeah.

[00:35:56]>> And I think that's kind of the mental hurdle that they were trying to get the jury past.

[00:36:03]>> Yes. Um, >> for sure. Because I mean, I even have conversations with some of my family members and they're like, "Well, I just can't get past how a father could kill their own child." I think that is a very big hang-up for a lot of people. Um, because, you know, unfortunately, we do see a lot of cases where, you know, intimate partner violence is it it happens unfortunately >> and it happens more than people want to acknowledge. But you know, parent killing child is not something that happens at the same rate. And for that reason, I think yeah, the state was for sure trying to get past that for a lot of people and for the jurors, you know, who might also have that question or speculation.

[00:36:48]>> So, you know, long trial, six weeks. Um, we've we know that the attorney general's office spent about half a million dollars on the trial alone when it comes to salaries, travel and lodging, you know, paying for their expert testimonies.

[00:37:07]So much money, so much time. And I think that we we've heard some people asking, okay, well, what's the point? Like, he is still going to be behind bars as >> for the rest of his life for his financial crimes. And this was one of the first lines in the the justice's opinion, and I think it really sums it up. Although we are aware of the time, money, and effort expended for this lengthy trial, we have no choice but to reverse the denial of Murdoch's motion for a new trial due to Hill's improper external influences on the jury and remand for a new trial.

[00:37:47]I mean, I this just sums it up for me.

[00:37:50]>> Yeah. I think because I think what sometimes people, myself included, can forget is how decisions like this will set a precedent for future cases. And a lot of this decision too, several pages of it reference older cases as examples for how the law works and how it applies in this situation. And so, you know, the Supreme Court has to be very careful in making a decision directly about this case, but they also have to consider the precedent it would set for any future criminal case.

[00:38:26]>> So, if a case is this expensive, then we're we're just not going to redo. Like for them that's not and and frankly shouldn't be >> a factor because at the end of the day someone's constitutional rights the justice is found were violated. And you know something I do like want to add on to when it comes to the money and the fact that he already is in prison. He he is still in prison. Like that was a question you know that we've seen kind of asking. It's like, well, does this mean that he will get released from prison because he was found, you know, we have to redo this whole thing again?

[00:39:04]No. The answer is no. He has to serve 27 years in a state prison and then 40 years in a federal prison. That's not going to change because that is all for the the financial crimes and that will remain. Um, so then of course, you know, the next question that a lot of people ask is, you know, again, why? What's the point? I think what we just kind of touched on answers that question is that it's it's about someone's right to a fair trial, but also I think it >> while we can't again put words in the mouth of people involved in this case, I think it's it's the principle of it.

[00:39:41]Yeah. Too, for sure. So he it won't affect, you know, >> the prison sentence he's serving for the financial crimes. Yeah. Is that he's not going to, you know, be released from the Department of Corrections at the state level. Yeah. And we've already heard from the attorney general's office that they want to push this retrial through basically as soon as possible. Their goal is before the end of the year.

[00:40:06]talking with other experts, they think that's going to be very hard to pull off because it I mean the logistics of doing this trial again from every level, the schedules of the the prosecutors in the attorney general's office, if they're going to have a change of venue, the attorney general said they don't want to, but the defense could file a motion working with other calendars. They need to find a new judge. Like there's so many things that need to happen. Um >> that is it's an ambitious timeline.

[00:40:38]>> It is.

[00:40:38]>> I mean we're not attorneys like we're not you know legal experts but just knowing like I had reached out about a completely different case here in the upstate the other day and the court official who I reached out to told me that their trial rosters for the rest of the year were set. So and of course you know deadlines change in court all the time. You know we cover court hearings very often. It's not unusual for us to show up and find out that, you know, a defendant the date got moved. Um, that's just kind of how court works. But when I heard that they hoped it will be by the end of the year and then again knowing that some of our circuits here have their trial roster set for the rest of the year.

[00:41:23]>> I don't know. Yeah, >> it's going to be it's going to be interesting. Of course, we are going to keep you updated every step of the way.

[00:41:30]And if you want to go further into this deep dive, if this wasn't enough for you, we've got you set. We've got a whole landing page for you at foxcarolina.com.

[00:41:41]You can see right there, we've got the latest updates. We can walk you through it from the start, a full timeline.

[00:41:47]And of course, that court decision. And as more news comes down, this is where we're going to be putting all of that.

[00:41:53]You can even go back and you can watch all six weeks of our coverage. Y >> from the trial >> if you've got nothing else going on.

[00:42:01]That's a great way to fill your time.

[00:42:03]You will be totally caught up and up to date for when the retrial date is announced. But of course, as we've been staying on top of this, we're going to continue to do that. And of course, foxcarolina.com is going to be the best place to do that. We've got so much content on here.

[00:42:21]Even if you want to show them the interactive timeline because this is just so cool and so much work was put into this.

[00:42:29]>> Yeah. And I think it helps because again there's so much to this case that you really kind of have to refresh your memory. I mean even we have to refresh our memory.

[00:42:40]But you can come here. Let me close out this ad. And like >> this is an entire timeline of the night of the murders. And >> yeah. So our colleague Amanda Shaw did a great job really helping put this together in a easy to understand, easy to refresh way for everyone who because again I mean it's been more than three years since just the trial coming up on five years since the crime. So this is a way that you can really go in depth. These were a lot of text messages that you know came up several times during the trial to kind of timeline out when things happened.

[00:43:19]because I will say sitting in that courtroom once they started going through this cell phone data >> it it can get >> it got to be a lot >> but this is a great way to break it down and really understand um everything that the state laid out for what happened that night. It's going to be really interesting to see the what happens at the retrial because the justices even say in their opinion that retrials often look very very different.

[00:43:49]Yeah.

[00:43:50]>> From the first trial. So >> all of this background will be super helpful if you want to be following along. We know so many of you watched um live with us what happened back in 2023.

[00:44:02]So again, this is your one-stop shop for everything Murdoch. We're going to be here the entire time to walk you through what happened in 2023 and what's going to be happening in the future as we get closer to the retrial. So, if you have any other questions, we love to hear them. We love to answer them.

[00:44:22]>> And this is of course going to be Murdoch Madness once again. Yep.

[00:44:28]>> And we'll be here to kind of guide you through it all.