Will Anyone Be Convicted Of Killing Maggie And Paul Murdaugh?

Added: 2026-05-31

[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. This is Hidden Killers with Tony Brueski. Here now, Tony Brueski.

[00:00:16]>> [gasps] >> Why retrying Alec Murdaugh isn't optional.

[00:00:22]It is the only path to justice.

[00:00:25]You're going to hear a lot of people ask the question. Some of them already are all over social media and comment sections of the podcast. Alec Murdaugh, 57 years old, he's serving 40 years in federal prison for stealing approximately 12 million from his clients. He's got a concurrent 27-year state sentence for financial crimes.

[00:00:44]He's going to likely die behind bars if all that holds. That's the mathematical reality of his situation regardless of what happens in the courtroom from this point forward.

[00:00:58]Maybe.

[00:00:59]So, why spend millions of taxpayer dollars on a retrial? Why put families through another trial? Why drag the state of South Carolina through another 6-week media circus for a man who is never walking out of prison? Why even do any of this?

[00:01:16]It's a fair question on the surface if you don't understand a lot about the case.

[00:01:24]And I understand why people ask it, but the answer is simple and it's not complicated and it doesn't require a lot of degree to understand.

[00:01:31]Maggie Murdaugh was 52 years old. Paul Murdaugh was 22. They were shot to death at close range on their family's property on a June evening. And as of the moment the Supreme Court issued its ruling, nobody has been convicted of killing them because Alec is not convicted of killing them anymore.

[00:01:53]So, who did it?

[00:01:56]Do we just say, "Well, we're not going to try Alec again. We think he did it, but maybe he didn't. We don't really know. Oh, let's just leave it unsolved."

[00:02:07]No.

[00:02:09]The guilty verdicts have been erased.

[00:02:11]The life sentences have been vacated.

[00:02:14]The legal record says the question of who murdered Maggie and Paul Murdaugh is opened, unanswered. Not because there wasn't enough evidence to bring charges, not because investigators couldn't identify a suspect, because an elected court clerk decided her book deal mattered more than the actual integrity of the trial.

[00:02:38]That's the reality, and the only way to fix it is to go back into a courtroom and do it right.

[00:02:45]The he's already in prison argument falls apart the moment you think about it for, you know, really more than a few seconds. Alec Murdaugh is serving time for being a thief.

[00:02:55]He stole from his clients. He stole from his law firm. He stole from people who came to him at the worst moments of their lives. Families dealing with wrongful deaths, people dealing with disabilities, people who trusted him because his name was on the building.

[00:03:13]That is real. That matters. He's being punished for it, but being a thief and being a murderer are different things.

[00:03:22]Those are different words. They describe different crimes. They carry different moral weight, and they carry very different weight for the people who loved Maggie and Paul.

[00:03:34]A financial crimes sentence is not a murder conviction by proxy.

[00:03:40]It was never designed to be one, and treating it like one, saying, "Well, he's locked up anyway, so what's the difference?" tells the families of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh that the specific question of who killed their loved ones doesn't matter enough to answer. It tells them that the matter of Maggie and Paul's deaths is secondary to the convenience of the state. It tells them that justice has a price tag. And once you spend enough money, you can call it close enough and walk away.

[00:04:06]That's not acceptable.

[00:04:08]It shouldn't be acceptable to anyone.

[00:04:11]The state charged Alex Murdaugh with two counts of murder. The Supreme Court didn't say those charges were baseless.

[00:04:16]It didn't say the evidence was insufficient. It didn't say the state couldn't prove its case. It said the trial was unfair.

[00:04:24]The process was broken.

[00:04:27]And that means the state's obligation to pursue those charges hasn't been extinguished. It's been reset.

[00:04:33]The clock goes back to zero.

[00:04:35]And the state has to do it again.

[00:04:37]Properly this time.

[00:04:40]You can't charge a man with double murder, present 6 weeks of testimony, obtain a conviction, have that conviction overturned because an officer of the court committed crimes during the proceedings, and then shrug and say, "Well, he's in prison for other stuff."

[00:04:56]That's not how the justice system works.

[00:04:58]It's not how it's supposed to work. And if it ever became how it works, if prosecutors started treating financial sentences as adequate substitutes for murder accountability, the consequences go far beyond this case. Think about what it means for Maggie and Paul. If the state were to just walk away.

[00:05:17]The official legal record would say nobody was convicted of killing them.

[00:05:20]The murder case is still open, unresolved, not because there's a dead end, not because the trial went cold, but because the state decided that financial crime sentence was good enough.

[00:05:30]Close enough.

[00:05:33]And the question of who killed two people at close range with two different weapons on a summer evening in the low country didn't need its own definitive answer.

[00:05:42]That's an abandonment of the two people at the center of the case. The two people who cannot speak for themselves, who cannot advocate for their own justice, who are entirely dependent on the system to see through this.

[00:05:54]Jordan Jinks understood this. Jinks was Murdaugh's former client and childhood friend, one of the people Murdaugh stole from, one of the people who trusted him and got betrayed. During sentencing on the financial charges, Jinks stood in a courtroom and looked at Murdaugh in the face and asked him, "What kind of animal are you?"

[00:06:10]The people Murdaugh harmed financially showed up. They participated in the process. They confronted the man who stole from them. They believe in the system enough to go through it. The people who loved Maggie and Paul, the people who are still carrying the weight of those deaths deserve the same system to finish what it started. They deserve a verdict that addresses the murders specifically, not a sentence for something else that happens to keep the defendant locked up. The precedent question matters beyond this case, beyond this defendant, beyond South Carolina. If the state declines to retry a murder case because a defendant is already in prison on other charges, what kind of message does that send? It says the state's pursuit of justice has a a ceiling.

[00:06:53]It says there's a point where the cost gets just too high and the state says, "There's nothing to tell." Walks away. It says that if you're already in prison for something, the system might not bother holding you accountable for everything.

[00:07:08]Retrials are expensive. Nobody disputes that. There's There's also the grueling aspect of it for the families, for the witnesses, for the community.

[00:07:16]They force people to relive the worst moments of their lives. All of that is true, but retrials exist because the Constitution demands them. A fair trial isn't a privilege the state extends when it's convenient. It's a right. It belongs to the defendant, even a defendant as unsympathetic as Alec Murdaugh. It belongs to the families of those who were killed and it belongs to the public which depends on the system to produce reliable answers to the most serious questions a society can ask. Who killed these people and can it be proven?

[00:07:52]Letting a double murder case go unanswered because the retrial is expensive and the defendant is already incarcerated and sets a precedent that corrodes the foundation of what the justice system is supposed to do.

[00:08:05]It says accountability is negotiable. It says the system stops when the math gets inconvenient. That's not a message any attorney general really wants to send and it's not a message the families of crime victims anywhere in the state should ever have to hear.

[00:08:18]Alex Murdaugh has maintained his innocence since the night he called 911 and told dispatchers he found the bodies of his wife and son. He maintained it at sentencing when Judge Clifton Newman told him a monster lived inside him.

[00:08:30]Newman said the opioids may have turned Murdaugh into someone capable of killing his own family, that the person standing before the court was not the person who committed the crime, though is the same individual. Murdaugh looked at the judge and said, "I respect this court, but I'm innocent."

[00:08:47]He said he would never under any circumstances hurt Maggie or Paul.

[00:08:52]He has maintained that position through every processing, every appeal, every public statement his attorneys have made on his behalf. A clean trial, a trial without a corrupt clerk whispering to jurors, without the volume of prejudicial financial testimony the Supreme Court criticized is the mechanism the state provides to test that claim.

[00:09:14]If the evidence is strong enough to convict Murdaugh fairly, a second jury will convict him.

[00:09:20]And that conviction will be something the first one never was.

[00:09:24]It will be unimpeachable.

[00:09:26]It will be a verdict that no appeal can touch, not because of some technicality, but because the process was clean, because 12 jurors heard the evidence under fair conditions and reach their conclusion without outside interference.

[00:09:40]That's the kind of verdict the families of Maggie and Paul deserve. That's the kind of verdict the public deserves. A verdict that holds, a verdict that stands, a verdict that settles it.

[00:09:51]And if the evidence isn't enough, if a jury hearing the prosecution's case without the emotional weight of excessive financial testimony, and without a clerk's thumb on the scale comes back with not guilty, the public deserves to know that, too.

[00:10:05]That would be a painful outcome for a lot of people, but it would be an honest one.

[00:10:10]It'd be the system working as designed, testing the state's evidence under fair conditions, and letting the chips fall.

[00:10:17]Either way, the trial produces a clean answer.

[00:10:21]Declining to retry produces nothing.

[00:10:24]It leaves the question open. It leaves the families without closure. It leaves the public without certainty. It gives nobody anything except the vague sense that the system decided question wasn't worth answering properly.

[00:10:39]Uh Eric Bland, who's been on the show, the attorney who uh represents some of Murdaugh's financial crime victims, said something after the ruling that really did stick with me. He said his clients have forgiven Alex, but they've not forgiven what he's done.

[00:10:56]They will go through the process again.

[00:10:58]Think about that. People who were personally harmed by Murdaugh, who lost money, who were lied to, who were exploited by a man they trusted, are willing to endure a second trial, not because it's easy, not because they enjoy it, because they understand something fundamental about how the system works.

[00:11:15]The process matters more than the convenience.

[00:11:18]The answer matters more than the cost.

[00:11:21]If Murdaugh's own financial crime victims can commit to seeing this through, the state of South Carolina can do the same.

[00:11:29]The The was never whether retrying Murdaugh is worth the money. The question is what it costs if you don't.

[00:11:37]And the answer is clear.

[00:11:39]It costs Maggie and Paul a verdict.

[00:11:42]It costs people that cared about them closure.

[00:11:46]Of a conviction that can actually stand.

[00:11:48]It costs the public's trust that the system finishes what it starts and doesn't say, "We give up. We had somebody that screwed up and cheated, so game over." It tells every person in South Carolina that when the process breaks, even when it breaks because of someone else's corruption, even someone on your own team, even when the defendant is already locked up, the state's response is to shrug it off and move on. It should not be that. That's not justice, that's surrender. That's a system saying it did the math and decided accountability wasn't worth the invoice.

[00:12:20]Maggie and Paul Murdaugh were killed on their family's property. A jury convicted Alex Murdaugh of the killings.

[00:12:26]That verdict was thrown out because an elected official decided her personal ambitions mattered more than the integrity of the process she swore to protect.

[00:12:34]The state now has an obligation, legal, moral, constitutional, to go back and do a courtroom and answer the question the right way. Not because it's easy, not because it's cheap, not because it changes where Alec Murdaugh sleeps at night, because two people were killed, because their deaths demand an answer, because that answer has to come from a process that works the way it's supposed to work, and because a verdict that holds a verdict that no one can challenge, that no clerk can taint, that stands on its own merit, is the only thing that constitutes justice for Maggie and Paul.

[00:13:11]That's not a question, that's the answer.

[00:13:15]And it's not just the answer for this case, it's the answer for every case where the process breaks, every case where a conviction gets tossed on appeal, every case where families are told they have to go through this again because somebody somewhere failed to do their job. The system doesn't get to quit when it gets hard. The system doesn't get to treat a financial sentence as a consolation prize for a murder conviction it couldn't deliver cleanly. The system goes back in, does it right, and gives the people who need the answer the only thing that matters, a verdict that holds. For Maggie, for Paul, for every family that's ever been told the process matters because it does. Your thoughts in the comment section on Substack and YouTube. We will continue our conversation there. The links are in the description. Be sure to press subscribe wherever you're watching or listening.

[00:14:08]There's a lot more to come. Our coverage of the retrial of Alec Murdaugh it continues.

[00:14:17]We'll continue our conversation there.

[00:14:19]Until next time, I'm Tony Bruski. We'll talk again real soon.

[00:14:23]>> Want more on this case and others? Then press [music] subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true crime coverage from Tony [music] Bruski and the Hidden Killers Podcast.

[00:14:37]This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Bruski and Robin Dreeke.

[00:14:44]>> Let's go to another topic. Alec Murdaugh just got his convictions overturned and instead of sitting back and waiting for a retrial, his defense team did something a lot of people didn't see coming. Five days after the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that Becky Hill placed her fingers on the scales of justice, Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin walked into a federal court in Charleston and sued her personally. A 17-page civil rights complaint, $600,000 in damages, and Griffin openly admitted at a press conference that the money isn't the point. The point is to peel back the onion of Becky Hill. Subpoena power, depositions, the ability to drag people under oath and ask questions the state's own investigators never bothered to ask. To bring this down legally, strategically, and in the bigger picture of the retrial, Eric Faddis is with us to help us have this discussion. Eric, let's start here and let's walk people through the 1983 lawsuit to what it actually is.

[00:15:45]This is usually a statute used against cops and prison guards. So, why is Murdaugh using it against the the clerk court and what does the defense have to prove to win going at her in this lane?

[00:16:01]>> Yeah, and and Tony, I've got to say I think we all called this where where as a lot of people didn't see it coming, but on a prior show we had discussed the responsibility and lo and behold, here we are. So, viewers need to need to tune in on that stuff.

[00:16:17]You know, for a 1983 lawsuit, what we're talking about is when the government deprives a person of a constitutional right and causes them damages. So, like you said, usually that's police. Usually it's police brutality, it's excessive force.

[00:16:33]It's it's something like that. But here, Becky Hill is still the government.

[00:16:38]She's She's a court clerk, man. And so, if she took actions that deprived Murdaugh of the right to a fair trial, of the right to an impartial jury, of the right to due process, and that caused damages, the causation piece a little more tricky, but he would have a valid claim and he he only has to prove it more likely than not that she deprived him of those rights and caused him damages. It's a lower standard on that civil side.

[00:17:05]>> What are they Are they I don't want to I don't want to use the word fishing expedition here cuz I don't think it is.

[00:17:10]I think it's more than that. I think it's it's a lake that's fully stocked and they know it.

[00:17:14]And and they have a fishing license to go fishing.

[00:17:18]Um so it's not it's not Scott Peterson out on a a nice, you know, drift away Christmas Eve morning.

[00:17:25]Um I'm I'm wondering what is the goal here? Cuz there's obviously there's a $600 that they're asking for and they're saying it's not going to Alec.

[00:17:36]Uh what is the goal here? Is this to get some sort of piece of information of evidence that they can then use in in the retrial, the criminal retrial of Alec Murdaugh? What do you see them looking at here? What are they searching for as the defense attorneys of Alec Murdaugh with this civil lawsuit?

[00:17:56]>> You know, anytime you have a chance as a criminal defense attorney to ethically argue that your client has been railroaded by his own government, that can be a compelling argument. And we have the retrial coming up. And so now we have this intervening civil lawsuit in which Murdaugh is saying, "Hey, the government violated my constitutional rights." And I think as one of the commentators put it, I think he's got a good shot on that on that case.

[00:18:24]Um and so is it somehow is he going to be able to somehow weave that case into the new trial to say, "Hey, look, I have been railroaded so badly but by the government that you this process is so patently unfair. You can't place any faith in it. You can't condemn this guy to prison for the rest of his life and and on top of that the discovery process in the 1983 suit, perhaps they get some new information that they can use in the second trial and perhaps there's a question as to, "Well, where did the information come from?" Well, it came from a civil rights lawsuit that Alec Murdaugh has against the government based on how they screwed him over before. So maybe they're angling in one of the one or more of those directions.

[00:19:04]>> Like a PR move more than anything else.

[00:19:06]I'm sorry. Go ahead, Ray.

[00:19:07]>> No, go ahead.

[00:19:08]>> So one of the things that I've been curious about as a potential defense on this cuz having lived in the government for so long, you have non-stop mandatory training. Matter of fact, one of the things they do, if an agent is in a shooting, is they they go back and look at your firearms qualification record, and you have to have been up on all your training in order for the government to defend you.

[00:19:29]I mean, they'll always step in, obviously, but your culpability will come down to also your currency in training, the quality of that training.

[00:19:35]Is there any way that part of her defense, whether whole or just a part, she can point to the lack of good indoctrination and training in her position, especially since she was only in the position about 3 years from when I I looked at and researched?

[00:19:50]>> I don't think so. I don't think that's going to save her. I think um >> Good.

[00:19:54]>> You know, in I think her her defense might be in a 1983 lawsuit, you have to show a violation of a clearly established right. And so, of course, there's a right to a fair trial. But, is uh a court clerk saying, you know, keep an eye on the defendant, or don't be tricked by the defense, is that a clear violation of a constitutional right, or is there some gray area there? Even in the appellate ruling, you know, I don't know that they come out and and expressly conclude that uh there was a violation of of certain constitutional rights, although that that actually I take that back. They They may have They might have. And so, that might that might actually be even more helpful for uh Alec Murdoch in that, and you know, her ignorance and and um you know, uh uh what's the word I'm looking for? Just carelessness and and how she handled that is and and lack of training because of that is not going to be a defense.

[00:20:51]>> Peeling back the onion is going to be interesting because you have the statements that were made. You also have egg lady, which is a big deal. She wrote a book, too.

[00:20:59]Um and and egg lady is the other juror that was kicked off who had been there for most of the trial. And then, at the last minute, uh Becky gets her kicked off by basically presenting what amounts to, in my opinion, lies to the judge stating that her ex-husband posted this thing on a forum about talking with his ex-wife about the case. Turns out none of that was true. Turns out these posts were never actually made. But it was enough to get the judge to say, "Okay, we're going to remove you." for something they never had. They never investigated it on the fly. I don't know that they really could have adequately investigated it on that fly as well either. So, I'm not faulting the judge for kicking her off out of precaution.

[00:21:40]You have your alternate jurors, okay.

[00:21:43]But it it certainly shows that there was some motivation there to get rid of this juror that that truly has said that they were on the fence about Alec Murdaugh and that she is the catalyst that pushed them away. The question being, and I know Griffin brought it up or her poodle and one of them did in the press conference the other day, of was Becky Hill acting alone? Was she a lone wolf? She might have been. Just because she she basically offed two jurors figuratively from this trial doesn't necessarily mean, or at least one juror, doesn't necessarily mean that there's multiple people working as a conspiracy against Alec Murdaugh.

[00:22:22]But there's a lot of weirdness in this case. There's a lot of weirdness wondering did Alec act alone? And if he didn't, if he knew something, what Where do you think they're going with this?

[00:22:33]With with going after Becky? Are Do you think they're going to find that there was other people involved that had an interest in in getting Alec convicted and maybe also put their fingers on the scales of justice? But does it lead anywhere further than just someone's misguided ambition to for justice in what they they view as justice?

[00:22:55]Or or do you think that maybe there's there's more here? Or again, all PR makes it look a lot worse than it actually is.

[00:23:05]>> Well, [snorts] Tony, I can only speculate. I don't know. But, in term in terms of conjecture, you know, if you think prosecutors and the police don't have an interest in securing convictions, you're mistaken. The public is mistaken if they believe that.

[00:23:24]Because, you know, although a prosecutor's duty is to seek justice and not just convictions. That's in our ethical That's in our ethical code, actually. You better believe that they care about the outcomes of these case cases. And they have resources, and they have connections, and they have access, and they have abilities that the the normal person doesn't have. And have we seen prior corruption in in in cases like this, you know, trying to go after somebody unjustly or or or you know, bending the rules to try to put their finger on the scales of justice as the court expressly indicated in the in the Murdoch appellate order. Those things can happen. And and if there was something there, then in the retrial, Murdoch can be like, "Hey, there is a conspiracy against me. They're My government is biased against me. They are willing to go to these underhanded measures in in what amounts to criminal jury tampering.

[00:24:21]Becky Hill should be in jail."

[00:24:24]And and look, it's not only Becky Hill.

[00:24:26]If they're able to find some some something else, I think that that could be That could get some traction in the second trial to be to be like, "Hey, there is a consortium of governmental officials who are here to lock me up regardless of whether I did it or not. This process is patently unfair. You cannot place faith in it. You cannot convict."

[00:24:46]>> It's interesting.

[00:24:47]There's two to me, there's two different theories on it. I'm more of the I'm more of the the simpler explanation. I think Becky's attempt in getting people kicked off that jury was probably most likely tied to her greed for making that book and trying to get goodwill from the judge cuz she's trying to create a halo around herself from my perspective.

[00:25:07]She's trying to create a halo like you can trust me because look at I'm so vested in doing the right thing here so that don't [clears throat] look at my book over here. Um so I'm more of the the halo end of that but cuz I would think we'd get more leakage. You know, if it was if anyone else was involved, you know, prosecutors, you know, other people because it wouldn't be anyone on that investigative team or prosecutorial team that wouldn't be their first rodeo of having done this because again, the great ethical code you guys are sworn to. So I think at some point along their careers or at some point people would be looking at that and be able to expose it before now.

[00:25:42]>> Yeah, and clearly that that would be the remote exception and not the general rule. General rule is that those folks are just out there seeking justice.

[00:25:49]>> I just think she's greedy.

[00:25:51]>> [laughter] >> So if I'm reading the tea leaves right, um tell me from your perspective as an attorney, Eric. It seems like there's two areas that the Murdoch defense are going after. One is is the reasonable doubt area, obviously, but if you're not going to have the cornucopia of financial crimes being able to be brought in, what do you replace that with?

[00:26:16]>> Well, well, we we we let's go to the the actual architecture of of what happened here. Let's focus on the corruption of the system. Let's get that brought in as it's its replacement substitute, if you will, since that's no longer on the menu and the timeline. We've already seen Griffin or Harpo or one of our members somebody was saying the other day at the press conference talking about the the way that they identified time of death and and and identified the bodies by sticking their they criticized the coroner or somebody sticking his hand under the arm and saying, "Okay, this is when it happened. It wasn't done scientifically. It wasn't done with a thermometer. It wasn't done anally. It wasn't I mean, these were things were actually brought up."

[00:27:03]Um So, I'm going to guess they're going to be questioning timeline here because the big question is going to be if Alec had nothing to do with it, then why is he on the video at the kennels and these people were killed like within minutes of that video. They're From what it sounds like, they're going to try and point, "Well, it wouldn't have to have been within minutes of that video. It could have been hours. They didn't actually test for time and a long time occurred between that video and when the police were actually called. A lot of time passed there. And if Alec had just been down there and the dog was barking and then he went to go see his mom, they got killed right after that, right after he left. Maybe they saw him leave the property and thought, "Okay, it's time for us to come in and do our work." I'm guessing this is going to be what we're going to hear in Alec Murdaugh trial number two. Your thoughts?

[00:27:50]>> Uh yeah, it's totally with you on that and at least in my experience, usually coroners and medical examiners cannot pinpoint like the the minute that a person died.

[00:28:01]Usually oftentimes cannot pinpoint the hour at which a person died and using some sort [laughter] of you know, just putting your hand on them, they feel kind of cold, it must have been 7:36 p.m. That's ridiculous.

[00:28:15]So, so yeah, I think they're going to attack it on those grounds.

[00:28:18]And then also the this sort of larger governmental corruption thing going against the big head honcho in the small town. They want to take him out and they didn't have an alternative suspect, so it had to be this dude. They foregone conclusion, things like that. I think we're going to see a lot of fireworks in the second trial, things we might not have seen in the first.

[00:28:35]>> They're going to have to compete though on that argument though with the the not so scientific death timing that the coroner looked at using his hand with the digital timing, with the phones both going silent about the same time and not moving for a period of time. Although there's some argument there, too, about how SLED processed the devices and when they were last accessed. So, they got some of that to to hang their hats on. It's a lot of pieces that that have some meat on the bone, but it's not a full piece of meat.

[00:29:08]Where it's like, but but if you can just just satisfy the jurors enough that they got something in their snack box, maybe they will say, "You know what? We did good fed here." And he's he's a free man.

[00:29:20]I don't know where I come up with these bizarre analogies. I I feel like I'm I sometimes I summon the ghost of Dan Rather, even though he's not dead. Um, you know.

[00:29:28]>> [laughter] >> Yeah, those little pieces of meat can make for a really good stew at the end of the day.

[00:29:33]>> Exactly.

[00:29:33]>> um, yeah, so we'll have to we'll have to see if that's the direction it goes.

[00:29:38]>> It's going to be fascinating. Give us your thoughts in the comments section on Substack and YouTube. Uh, and and and let's weigh in. We'll continue that conversation in the comments section.

[00:29:46]Eric Faddis, defense attorney, former prosecutor. As always, thank you so much for being here. Robin Dreeke, retired FBI special agent. Uh, and his latest book, It's Not All About Me, available wherever you get books. Go and get it right now. Until next time. For Eric, for Robin, for Todd, I'm Tony. We'll talk again real soon.

[00:30:04]>> Want more on this case and others? Then [music] press subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true crime coverage from Tony Bruski and the Hidden Killers podcast.