← Crime & Justice with Donna Rotunno
Crime & Justice with Donna Rotunno
Alex Murdaugh Retrial: Court Clerk and 'Egg Lady' Juror Take Center Stage
00:35:51
Loading summary
Transcript45 lines
- [00:04]
A
This is Crime and Justice. I'm Donna Rotuno. Today, inside the legal fallout surrounding the decision to retry Alex Murdaugh. We're back with Valerie Borlein, who wrote the book on Alex Murdaugh, the Devil at His Elbow. If you love breaking down these cases as much as I do, hit the follow button to make sure you never miss an episode.
- [00:27]
B
Foreign
- [00:30]
A
let's get to my conversation with Wall Street Journal investigative reporter Valerie Borlein. Valerie, thank you for joining me today.
- [00:38]
B
Thanks for having me back.
- [00:39]
A
I'm so thrilled to have you back because there's been a lot of new developments and two cases that I've spoken to you about in the past, one being Alex Murdaugh, the other one being updates on the Camp Swamp Road circumstance in Horry County. So I want to get into Murdoch first. First, I would love to get your reaction on the decision by the Supreme Court in South Carolina to give Alex Murdaugh a new trial.
- [01:06]
B
You know, anywhere I go in north or South Carolina these days is the first thing that anyone comes up to me. I can't believe that we're having a new trial for Alec Murdoch in this massive, you know, cultural moment that we had back in 2023. So I think it's surprising to people who followed the case at the time. But if you follow the case really closely these past six months or so, the Supreme Court of South Carolina kind of telegraphed their sense the case. Back in February, they had a hearing where they interrogated the defense and the state on the request for new trial. And they were, they seemed, at the time, the five justices seemed very skeptical of the way the clerk of court handled the jury. So it was not entirely surprising that they came back unanimously and said, you know, the state tried a good case, the defense tried a good case, no knocks on them. But because of the acts of the clerk of court talking to members of the jury, he has to have a do over. His Sixth Amendment rights were violated to a fair trial.
- [02:05]
A
I really agree with the Supreme Court in South Carolina. I think that, you know, I've said it multiple times. I'll say it again, this whole issue was bigger than Alex Murdaugh. And no matter what you thought about his guilt or innocence, and I think the evidence was fairly clear and convincing and really overwhelming. But at the end of the day, that's not really what this appeal was about. And the appeal was about whether or not Becky Hill put her finger on the scale of justice, which she did. And I, I think it was the only proper decision given the fact that if, if you let that go, regardless of strength of the evidence, regardless of, you know, the, the overwhelming probably finding you could make heading in the direction of guilty, I, I just thought it would not sit well for our system as a whole if they let this go. And it.
- [02:55]
B
And you. I think that you're right based on what the justices said. It's also a different composition of the Supreme Court that made this decision other, that appointed Judge Newman, who was so beloved and popular and presided over that proceeding. It's a different set of judges, and three years has passed. And so with a little bit of distance and knowing a lot more than we knew In March of 23, it was not entirely surprising. But one thing, you know, I studied the family, the Murdoch family, very closely over the course of a century, the way they worked this legal dynasty in the South Carolina low country. And it used to be the case, you would hear people say, the case, the rules don't apply to Alec Murdoch. Meaning no one called, no one held him to account for anything because the rules didn't apply because he was a Murdoch. And the question in Columbia, in particular in the Capitol, became, is it the case now that the rules don't apply to Alec Murdoch? Is he the person that does not get a fair trial here? So in the end, I think the Supreme Court came to the same decision that you, that you did, that it was, it was egregious, I think they said, disgraceful and unprecedented actions. The way his civil rights were violated.
- [04:05]
A
There was, and obviously none. Nonetheless, still very frustrating because as you said, you have a defense that put on a trial, you have the prosecutors who put on a trial. The amount of money spent on these types of cases is very, very vast, very large amounts of money spent to the taxpayer. And so it's not fun.
- [04:26]
B
A million dollars better than a million dollars, by any estimate, is how much was spent for that.
- [04:30]
A
Absolutely. And so you think about that and you think, okay, you can understand where people would say, well, wait, why have to do it again if the evidence is strong? And, you know, so what if the clerk talked to somebody on the jury or talked to the jurors? But I think at the end of the day, like I said, we have to preserve the system. And he's going to get a new trial. Now, in the new trial, Let me ask you this, do you think that he can get a fair trial in the county where his case is, is being tried?
- [04:57]
B
You know, there, there are different schools of thought.
- [04:59]
A
It's. Colton, is that how it's Pronounced Colton County.
- [05:01]
B
Colton County. So Colton county is right next to Hampton County. And as, as you know, Moselle is very vast where Maggie and Paul Murdoch were killed. And so Moselle is 1776 acres or so twice the size of Central Park. And a small part of it is not in Hampton County. It's the kennels where Maggie and Paul Murdoch were killed is in Colleton. So that's why the trial was there. You know, there's a sense that it. The law may require the parties to try and seat a jury to prove that they cannot get a fair jury. They can't seat 18, 20 people that can be impartial there. There's also a sense, and Descartelin has told me, and probably told you as well, they want a change of venue. Very much so. So we'll see where we end up. But the fascinating thing to me, though, Donna, is that both sides have said they would like to do this soon. And it's a hard thing to think that they'll get it done this calendar year, but I think within the next year, we will see a new trial for Alec Murdoch somewhere in the state of South Carolina.
- [06:05]
A
Yeah, it's going to be interesting to see what happens. And again, trying to find jurors that can be fair and impartial when there's so much information that's been out there, not only in the news, but in the podcast world and social media world. I mean, people watch this trial very intently at the very beginning and watched it all the way to the end and are still paying attention to it. Let me ask you this. Do you think Alex is going to take the stand in trial number two?
- [06:31]
B
Well, you know, that is the big question. I think it is most likely that he will not. I think it was a gamble in trial number one. And Dick Harpootleian and Jim Griffin, his lawyers told me so and many others. But in the end, they felt like he wanted to take the stand and they wanted to honor that desire because he was the only person that could explain away the, the big lie that, why he was down at the kennels. So I think it is not likely, given the fact that his, his testimony did not land well with the jurors that I talked to. And they, they, they, they all. It was a unanimous verdict of guilty with the jury that was sat. But I wanted to make one point about that jury in Colleton County. It is a small county of 19, 20,000 people. Right. So you're talking about a small pool to, to choose from to begin with. And I sat through voir dire every day and listened to all the jurors being interviewed by the parties. And you had the first cousin of Mallory beach, the young woman that was killed in the drunken boat wreck that started this whole kind of unraveling. You had the brother of the third deputy on the seat, on the. On the jury, actually get seated. It was not close enough to say, I went to high school with Alec Murdoch, and we were friends. It had to be a very, very close connection, a community that small. So, you know, it's not like seating a jury in Chicago or even Raleigh, where I live.
- [08:02]
A
Right. Well. And when you think about it, I guess you. You maybe would put yourself in the court's shoes and say, okay, maybe in a regular situation with people that weren't so well known, even if it was a second trial, we might be able to find a fair jury in this county. But I think maybe given the fact that this case is really coming back for a technical error, maybe the judge says, you know, going to err on the side of caution, and we're going to put this in a county that has a bigger jury pool and more people that may not actually have direct contact or knowledge with this family. They're going to know the case and they're going to have heard about it. But maybe it. It's, you know, kind of removes it a little bit. And maybe from the standpoint of being cautious, you may find a court that says, you know what, it may not be a good idea to do this here.
- [08:52]
B
I think. I think we'll. We'll know a lot more in a couple months, but we will see a new judge, Judge Newman. Clifton Newman has retired at the mandatory age of 72, so he's. He will not be presiding. So we'll have a new judge and a fresh start there. And there's some question about how far the venue can be from Colleta County. Does it need to be in same circuit, for example? Does it need to be contiguous? It's so rare to have a change of venue granted in South Carolina. So there's some unknowns yet, but it will be a fresh start. And I think both sides will have the lessons learned from six weeks and a different approach this time than we saw back in 2023.
- [09:31]
A
Yeah, I think we're all going to be really interested to watch what happens there. We all know that one of the most damaging pieces of evidence in this case in favor of a finding of guilty was the video down at the kennels. And obviously the defense needs to be able to explain that away. And I know you've spoken to Dick Harpoutian, I've spoken to Dick Harpoutlian and he has said that he has a new strategy there. Do you have any insight as to what that might be and how else you can explain away or deal with that very damaging piece of evidence that puts Alex Murdock right there?
- [10:12]
B
It is a very damaging piece of evidence because you remember that devastating timeline that the state presented, that when that video cuts off, that, you know, 90 second video cuts off, it is barely a minute or two that, that Paul Murdoch, who is a prolific user of his phone all day, every day, that his phone goes silent forever. So Alec Murdoch, if he wasn't still at the kennels, he was very close and that is very hard to explain away, especially when he's lied about it, which he's acknowledged doing. So I think it's going to be, you know, Dick Harpoutland is very savvy, he's that he is the extremely well regarded, very, very experienced, more than 50 homicide cases. I think he' I think when I spoke to him most recently in Columbia, one of the strategies they're going to try to put forward a little bit more is the idea if it wasn't Alec Murdoch down there, who was it? Judge Newman kind of shut down that idea of alternate theories, the case before. But I think there are some ways they might be able to approach it with witness testimony and things of that nature this time. And I think too just this, you know, they'll continue to make the point that, yes, he lied about being down there, but listen to the content of what was said. It was sort of a light hearted exchange between Maggie Paul and Alec Murdoch about the dog. And so it was not tense or angry. You know, it's just kind of a moment in the life of a family. So. So we'll, we'll see. We'll see.
- [11:38]
A
Yeah, I think that's going to be interesting because, you know, of course he explained that he lied, he explained why he lied. But I think it's very difficult for people to understand that in the moment when your child and your wife are murdered and the first thing you go to is, you know, to not be truthful with the police. I think that's really difficult for people to understand. If you weren't involved in any way, wouldn't you want to be as forthcoming and open as possible to give them all the potential information they may need to try to solve it? So I think that it wasn't just the video. But I think it was the lying about the video that was pretty damaging to him.
- [12:18]
B
And he and Alec Murdock testified, you'll remember, you know, his. To his lawyer. Well, the reason I lied was when I was in the, in that sled vehicle, you know, a couple hours after the homicides, I felt nervous. I, you know, had pills in my pocket. I thought this, this officer that was interviewing me had been kind of unfair to a friend and all these sort of reasons. But in the end, on, on, on Cross Creighton Waters, the prosecutor, was able to go back and play body cam that showed from the jump, from the minute and Alec's first utterances to the first officer on the scene, Daniel Green, was, you know, when's the last time you saw him? Well, it was an hour ago that he, it wasn't just that he lied when he started feeling nervous that he wasn't getting a fair shake, he lied from the jump. And there the statement at an effective case that there was a reason for it.
- [13:06]
A
Yeah, absolutely. I think, I think that's going to be tough to explain. We'll see if there was enough evidence the first time. We'll see if there's enough evidence the second time. And hopefully there's, you know, no clerks that are trying to affect that outcome because that was really awful. So now we've heard in the last couple weeks or so the attorney General, Allen Wilson, talked about the possibility of going for the death penalty. And talk to me about that here now that in the first trial that was not an issue. And now they're saying, you know, they're bringing this up now and I'm wondering, is this, you know, fair game? Is this sour grapes? Is this, be careful what you wish for, you know, tell me what you think about this, because I'm not so sure you're gonna get it after you didn't ask for it the first time. And you know how that looks. So. So give me your thoughts on that.
- [13:57]
B
Well, I think, I think the fundamentals are the same. And you'll talk to the state at the time. They know in a circumstantial case where there's no video evidence, there's no confession, there's no guns even, it is very hard to get a jury to convict on a death penalty case. There's more procedures involved, It's a lengthier process. That's part of it. But in the end, this is a very conservative part of the country and a lot of the people in the jury knew one another from church or from Bible Study. This is a very Christian environment. And for a lot of believers to vote to convict on a death penalty case would be a lot to ask. And there was at least one juror on the case, the jury in 23, who said she would not have been able to convict if it had been a death penalty case because the lack of guns and things of that nature. I took it, you know, a message, rhetorical message for sure. Be careful what you wish for. I should point out, too, that Alan Wilson, the attorney general, is a leading candidate in the gubernatorial primary. And the primary is June 9th. And this is a big issue for his, the biggest case of his 16 years in office to be reversed a couple weeks before the primary is significant. And I think that much was made by the court for reasons that this is not the fault of the attorney general. We cast no aspersions. They ran a great case. But it still doesn't help that the biggest case of Alan Wilson's career was overturned right here as we get to Election Day.
- [15:31]
A
And I guess you're right in terms of thinking about the process itself and, you know, whether jurors would say that, that the death penalty aspect itself would keep them from rendering a guilty verdict is a really interesting point. And I'm not so sure that analysis changes the second time after it's been widely reported why this second trial is happening. So no matter what you think about him, you can say, look, this is a pretty unfair deal that he got, and now we're going to have to go through all of this again. And so I think you're right. I think that the commentary about maybe seeking the death penalty may be more performative than actually coming to fruition. But I guess we will see and
- [16:14]
B
we'll see if he wins an election. And I guess, and I don't, I don't know, but I took it to, I read it to say the fundamentals here have not changed. And if anything, we see it in our own hand at all times with our devices. Technology has changed so much in three years. My strong sense is we will have more technological evidence than even we had in terms of the, the movements of the vehicles, for example. So, so there'll be. It doesn't get to be an easier case to make for, for either side, you know.
- [16:46]
A
Yeah, I think you're right. And anytime by. There's always things that potentially come up or things that are helpful. Let me ask you, there's now been another new development here on the civil side, and Alex Murdaugh and his lawyers have let us all know that they are filing a civil lawsuit against Becky Hill, the clerk that spoke, clerk of court that spoke to the jury, and they are now suing her civilly. So talk to me about what, what you thought about that when you, when you heard it.
- [17:16]
B
Well, I think I've, I've known Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin a long time. They're, they're, they're excellent lawyers. I think one of the things that Dick will tell you he does is he is very wary of the court of public opinion. And I think he was able to get out kind of quickly in the wake of that bombshell hearing. I mean, the bombshell ruling from the Supreme Court, their argument for the reasons that Alec should maybe have a, you know, have some sympathy here, that, that his civil rights were violated. There's a practical reason as well. His defense in just in terms of time and lodging and experts in the first case, those six weeks was better than $600,000. And they argue that that was the, that was the remainder of Alec' after all the penalties and things that he's broke. So is this a way to, does it open up a mechanism where if she was acting in her official capacity as clerk of court, is a local government on the hook to pay some of those fees? So I think there are a number of strategies at play here, but I think fundamentally they, the defense feels strongly that the clerk of court was so out of bounds. They want to hold her accountable because she is, I should say, she's not been charged criminally in the jury tampering matter. So.
- [18:31]
A
Right. Which I, I don't blame them because I do think that had the investigation and I know they claim that an investigation happened on the state level and they just determined that there wasn't enough to charge her criminally. But I, you know, I, I do think that it's fair to think, whether you're Alex Murdaugh or a member of the juror or a member of the community, that she really didn't get punished adequately for what she did here. And the fact that now it has this ripple effect of new trials and what this does to involved. I do think that there needs to be some level of accountability paid by her, given the fact that this really happened because of, of her action. So I, I liked it when I heard about it. I thought, you know what? And I also have a lot of respect for Dick. I think he's a great lawyer. I, I know him a little better than his partner, but I know that they both do amazing work. And I I have to say I was, I was Team Dick and Alex Murdoch on this one, because I felt like there does need to be some account, not specifically to Alex personally, but I feel like to the system as a whole. It's sort of unfair to all of us that this took place. And so I, I kind of like the idea of having her be held to account. And now she's going to have to sit for depositions and she's going to have to give answers that maybe she was a little bit more protected in during this investigation that happened in the state where she could kind of sit behind her, her Fifth Amendment rights. And I think now she's going to have to answer some questions in a deposition. Not that she can't take the Fifth, but taking a Fifth, taking the Fifth in a deposition obviously shows that she has something to hide and there's an inference of guilt there. So I think one way or another, this kind of takes her to task.
- [20:19]
B
Well, and I think, you know, I saw a picture and we all know Becky, I was in court every day for six weeks is a lot of, a lot of the players were. She was the principal of the elementary school of that courtroom. You've sat in court many times. And that clerk of court role is so important in a high profile proceeding. So I know her and I, I like her personally. I think this is, I have not spoken with her, but. And you remember, like Dick stood up in court and said, I just want to praise Becky. She runs a great courtroom. Creighton Waters stood up and said the same. So this is a very familiar case. But I saw a picture today of her sitting, you know, on, you know, a paparazzi picture where she was sitting on a bench. She has, her life has forever changed and she pleaded guilty to a number of related charges, I should say, including perjury related to some of her official acts. So, so there has been, I totally hear you. There's been some, some accountability on the, the criminal justice side, but not for this specific allegation of jury tampering.
- [21:22]
A
And she wrote a book here, too, so, you know, we can all assume that she made some money on that book and maybe she shouldn't be entitled to keep it given the fact that she had a. Maybe played here.
- [21:35]
B
Well, and the book, as you may remember, was pretty quick. It was published in August of 23 and it was pretty quickly withdrawn from publication because of some plagiarism issues on her part, which she has apologized for. So if there was money coming in at one point, my understanding from her co author is not. Any proceeds that have come in since then have gone to charity.
- [21:56]
A
That's at least a positive. Let's talk about this egg juror. And for the listeners and the viewers, the egg juror was the juror that was basically let go before alternate, I'm assuming, before deliberation started. And her one question was, can she go in the back and get her eggs in her purse? Because one of the jurors would bring eggs for all the jurors. So the egg juror wants a probe into the jury tampering. Tell me about that and what her rights would be for that to happen. Obviously, Dick and, you know, his law firm are doing that also, but they're doing it because they're filing a civil suit. So tell me about the differences there and tell me what you think about.
- [22:39]
B
Sure. And the egg lady juror, you're right, she was removed from the jury on the last day. I mean, after Creighton Waters, after the prosecution's closing, but before the defenses, really as close to the 11th hour as you could get. She was actually the first juror who was seated. Both sides agreed that she was a, could be a good juror. And she sat, she was in that, like, catbird seat right by Alec Murdock. She actually passed him a box of tissues when he was on the stand, when he was so demonstrably upset about his wife and son's death. So she was very memorable. Part of what I did every day in the court was one thing that I could see that my, that my readers couldn't was what was going on with the jury. So I, so I noted very copiously what they were, their body language, what they were doing. They all wore pink on Valentine's Day, so you could tell they, they bonded, that kind of thing. But no, there's, there's sort of two things happening here. The Supreme Court was very specific that the reason that Alec Murdoch deserved a new trial was remarks to the clerk of court, from the clerk of court to other, to members of the jury. When, when Alec takes a stand, watch how, watch how he acts. Don't listen to the words coming out of his mouth. Don't be fooled, things of that nature. So they, they, they, they specifically, there's a separate question that the egg lady juror raises very pointedly in a book that she published. And as well in some, some new legal filings. She says it wasn't just that she was removed from the jury for making offhanded remarks, which is the, what the judge said his reasons were but actually targeted by the clerk of court to be removed because she was. She was the only or one of the lone noes back in the jury room. And in fact, she has said that she would have had a hard time voting guilty because she had real qualms about the guns and other evidence. So. So, so the Supreme Court said, yes, we find that the clerk of court made these remarks to the jury about his testimony that were completely prejudicial, and he gets a new trial. What the egg lady juror is saying, yeah, she said those things, but further than that, she tried to get me thrown off and ginned up a case against me to. So they would throw me off. So it is pretty serious allegations that. That is really starting to be aired, you know.
- [24:57]
A
Yeah, absolutely. I, I'm interested to see what they do there. I know I read and correct me if I'm wrong, but they're trying to block this. Right. They're trying to say she does. She shouldn't have access to these documents.
- [25:09]
B
Correct. So she's asking for some. There's some sealed documents that the court allowed to be sealed while the. The new. The request for new trial was pending. Right. So there was the investigation into the removal of this juror, the notes from the transcripts from the jurors, the judges asking questions of her and those sorts of things. That was all sealed. And so her lawyer is a guy named Joe McCulloch. And Joe has been an ally of Dick Harpootlian's for decades. They don't practice in the same firm, but they're very close allies and are working quite in tandem on this. But Jim McCulloch says, why. Why should they be sealed now that we already, you know, that we. The cat's out of the back. She. There was jury tampering on her part. Open the records and let's air it all out. What happened to this egg lady juror and her name is Myra Crosby. She's given a number of interviews and has been very forthright about what she says happened in a book that she published called Enough Is Enough. So.
- [26:13]
A
Well, we'll see what happens on that front because I think whatever's in those documents will be very interesting to hear and. And find out about whether or not that is true and that Becky did try to get her removed from the jury because that would be even more egregious, frankly, than even trying to talk to them. So since we last spoke, Valerie, you have published new episode of Camp Swamp Road, and on this noticing, you are a 20, 26 Pulitzer Prize. Finalist for your work, Swamp Road, which I found fascinating. I continue to follow it. And let's talk about the updates there since you were last with us. So when you. The issue of immunity was being litigated. We now know that neither people, Williams or his passenger, are not granted any immunity in this case and therefore they will either stand trial in a criminal were indicted and they can be. So talk to me about where we are now, what things look like, how Mr. Spivey's family is faring and just give us the latest updates on Camp Swamp Road. Sure.
- [27:28]
B
And it's a, it's a significant turnaround. I mean, you remember that Scott Spivey was a. A young man that was killed September 9th of 2023 in a road rage encounter that was immediately deemed a stand your ground case. The two shooters in the, in the other truck that night, Weldon Boyd and Bradley Williams said they were standing their ground. That really wasn't questioned for a couple of years. And until the sister, her name is Jennifer Spivey, Foley filed a civil lawsuit and was able to come up on a huge amount of discovery that the shooter, Weldon Boyd, had recorded all of his phone calls. And so we heard all these incriminating evidence that kind of flipped the story on its head a year or so ago so that the judge in the civil case held a hearing in February to determine whether the shooters enjoyed a stand your ground. Could they really. Did that really still apply? And it was four days, it was a civil hearing, but it felt, sure felt like a criminal trial. There was a lot of, lot of ballistics evidence, a lot of tapes that were played. And in the end the judge said, no, this is, whatever it is, this was not standing your ground. This is a civil matter. So he didn't call it. He didn't say this is homicide, murder, manslaughter. He didn't specify. But he said it's not stand your ground. And that opened the door. And we're waiting for the state grand jury, which has been convened many months ago to consider criminal charges in this case. So we expect this summer that some of the police officers were involved. And you remember there was a. The Weldon Boyd was very, very close friends with the deputy chief of the or county police department. And he was forced out for promising to help make this problem go away for Weldon Boyd. So I anticipate we'll see criminal charges this summer, possibly involving some of the police officers, possibly involving the shooter. But it's a tough question. It's still, we don't Know, and the state grand jury in South Carolina, a black box to their credit. I've, I've tried very hard to find out what the latest is and it, there's not a lot of information coming out of there. But I do anticipate that especially since this very high and you know, very high profile case in South Carolina was live streamed, a lot of people were watching it. The judge says, yeah, you weren't standing your ground and you know, furthermore, you acted the fool. And it applies a lot of pressure to the prosecutors to bring some sort of charge to just. So that's happening on the one, that's the criminal side but the, but the civil side. The other development there has been that the judge, his name is Eugene C. Bubba Griffith, Judge Griffith set a time for the civil trial. So we will have he, he's, he blocked two weeks in December, the weeks of December 7th and December 14th in Ory county, which is Conway Myrtle beach area, to have the civil trial and just air all the evidence and in front of a jury jury and let a jury decide if, if, if Scott Spivey's family is entitled to a civil judgment in the case which could be in the millions and millions of dollars.
- [30:28]
A
Well, and the, the defense attorney mind that I have says, says, you know, it's really a difficult position that Boyd and Williams find themselves in as defendants in, in a potential criminal case and defendants in a civil case because obviously you know, they have these rights and I know that they've testified already. They testified in the hearing to determine whether or not this immunity applied. But you know, now anything that they've said before can be used against them and if they are charged criminally, they get on the stand in a criminal case and you know, so it just makes it much more murky than it would if this was just a criminal case that you were fighting and then the civil case comes later. But really this was a circumstance where the civil case started to, to sort of roll down the hill. And now based on this immunity decision now there's a real possibility that criminal charges are going to come. So from a like logistical and procedural courtroom perspective, this is an interesting one to follow. Just merely based on that alone.
- [31:34]
B
It really is, it's a chicken and egg situation because in South Carolina, like a couple of states that have these first iterations of stand your ground laws, these self defense laws passed in the the mid 2000s and in South Carolina, if you're found to be standing your ground self defense in the criminal context, you enjoy civil immunity. And this was the first case anyone is aware of in South Carolina where the, the plaintiffs tried to test that and, and bring this lawsuit. And it was a, it was a gamble on the parts of the defense team to hold the hearing in the civil context, where the standard is lower, preponderance, that sort of thing. It was, it was a gamble for them to hold that hearing in the civil context. And, but they were the ones that asked to do it there rather than wait and see whether the criminal courts ever acted on, on, you know, they wanted to assert self defense and they did.
- [32:25]
A
Yeah, right. And they figured they had a better chance if immunity was granted, then they wouldn't be even facing the criminal charges to begin with. So definitely a tough call. We'll definitely be watching what happens with this case moving forward. We'll be watching trial number two of Alex Murdaugh. Valerie, thank you for joining me. I will see you at CrimeCon. What are you most looking forward to in Las Vegas?
- [32:49]
B
Oh, my gosh. Well, you know, I think I. You went to CrimeCon before? I've been one time before in 23, when Creighton Waters, the prosecutor, his band, his band Sole Purpose, had the opening night concert and Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin were featured guests there. So I've been one time. I think what surprised me so much is that I knew it was like a true crime convention. Convention. But true crime is really, I've come to think, just a word for good story. And there are just so many good stories to play out there. So there's several sessions that I'm planning to go to, including yours. So I'll, I'll be, I'll be there in the fangirling, so.
- [33:26]
A
Well, thank you. Well, we look forward to seeing you and to anybody who's listening, if you have any thoughts or questions that you would like us to talk about at CrimeCon, or even if you want us to just do a quick video and answer a question, drop it on one of our social media platforms and we'll do so. Valerie, I look forward to finally meeting you in person and I will see you in Las Vegas.
- [33:46]
B
Thanks so much for having me.
- [33:49]
A
Thank you for joining me for another episode of Crime and Justice. Remember, we want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts, questions or theories, and we will answer them on air.