“Disgraceful": How Becky Hill Got Alex Murdaugh A New Trial

Summary

Podcast Summary: “Disgraceful": How Becky Hill Got Alex Murdaugh A New Trial

Podcast: Criminally Obsessed
Host: Anne Emerson
Guest: Charlie Condon (Former South Carolina Attorney General)
Date: May 14, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode dissects the stunning development in the Alex Murdaugh case: the South Carolina Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to grant Murdaugh a new trial, entirely due to the egregious actions of former clerk of court Becky Hill. Anne Emerson and legal analyst Charlie Condon unpack the court's strong language, the precedent set, the anticipated retrial dynamics, and the fallout for legal protocols in South Carolina. The conversation is rooted in deep courtroom experience and seasoned true crime reporting, with the tone alternating between disbelief, legal analysis, and conversational candor.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why Alex Murdaugh Gets a New Trial

• Becky Hill’s Conduct: The Supreme Court lashed out at Hill for improper jury tampering, shocking and disgraceful lies, and egregious conduct aimed at swaying the jury to a guilty verdict ([00:00–01:20]).

• Unprecedented Impact: The decision attributes the need for a retrial solely to Hill’s actions, not to prosecution, defense, or the judge.

  “The justices placed the blame squarely on the former clerk of court, Becky Hill. They call her actions and lies shocking, egregious, disgraceful, and unprecedented.”
  —Anne Emerson, [00:14]

• Legal Standard Clarified: The court’s opinion sets a clear precedent—any inappropriate contact between court staff and jurors now creates “a presumption of prejudice demanding a new trial unless the state can rebut it” ([08:15], [16:17]).

2. Court’s Unanimous and Blistering Opinion

• Unity of Court: All five justices joined in, with a “per curiam” opinion (no single author), underlining the decision's gravity ([01:20]).

• Sweeping Language: Terms like “breathtaking, disgraceful, unprecedented” rained down on Hill ([17:12]).

• No Blame on Judge or Prosecution: Court praised judge, prosecution, and defense—laying blame solely on Hill ([15:05], [16:02]).

  “They really do praise everyone else… The trial judge. The defense fault. It’s Becky’s fault.”
  —Charlie Condon, [15:47–16:03]

3. Practical Fallout: The Retrial

• Enormous Cost: Retrial is predicted to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and demand huge effort from the local and state government ([05:03]).

• Location and Timing: Likely to be back in Colleton County; anticipated court date is sometime in 2027 after a new Attorney General is sworn in ([10:09], [28:01]).

  “We're looking at a January 2027, at least in the 2027 calendar, when they can actually get this ready to go.”
  —Anne Emerson, [28:35]

• Jury Selection Challenges: With the case’s notoriety, it’ll be difficult to find impartial jurors—the standard moves from “have you heard of the case?” to “have you made up your mind?” ([06:23]).

4. How Retrial Will Differ

• Financial Crimes Evidence: The court’s opinion explicitly limits the scope—financial crime evidence admissible only in tightly focused fashion ([12:00], [19:54]).

  “We do intend to require, however, 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... For example, Satterfield's vulnerable status.”
  —Anne Emerson quoting the decision, [20:54]

• Tactical Shifts for Defense: Defense is “ecstatic” about new trial; expected to avoid past mistakes (e.g., Murdaugh testifying, tactical missteps), possibly gaining an upper hand ([07:24], [23:07]).

  “Typically, in my view, a retrial benefits the state...I think in this case… it might be just the exact opposite.”
  —Charlie Condon, [05:54]

• Possible Longer Trial: While financials may shrink the trial’s length, technical and forensic evidence (“boring technical things”) could take center stage ([21:35], [22:38]).

• Jury Tampering Going Forward: The precedent is now set—any future jury tampering or inappropriate staff contact, no matter how limited, means a new trial ([16:17]).

5. Reflections on Becky Hill and Broader Legal Implications

• Single-Handed Impact: Hill’s actions cost an enormous amount—money, time, and faith in the process.

• Sad Conclusion: Despite organizing the first trial’s logistics well, her final actions undid years of work ([31:30], [31:44]).

  “And of all the cases to take down, of all the cases… just have it end this way is really, really sad.”
  —Charlie Condon, [31:44]

• Possible Book Gag: There’s speculation whether Hill could write about the retrial; consensus is it’s unwise and likely prohibited ([30:47]).

6. Open Investigative Threads & Media Aspects

• Unresolved Witnesses & Leads: Several people—like Curtis “Eddie” Smith (linked to the roadside shooting and insurance plot)—remain uninvestigated, suggesting more revelations could surface ([26:24], [27:32]).

• Anticipated Media Interest: Initial hype is expected, but interest may wane with technical focus unless new drama surfaces ([24:57]).

• Opinion Leak: The court decision leaked on X (Twitter) ahead of public release—a concerning echo of prior high-profile leaks ([28:43], [29:01]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Hill’s Conduct:
  “Hill’s egregious improper jury interference went to the heart of the case and unquestionably was intended to push the jury to a guilty verdict.”
  —Anne Emerson (quoting the opinion), [14:50]

• On the unanimous court:
  “No, all five… All of us agree that during the trial that the state went too far in some of the details.”
  —Charlie Condon, [13:22]

• On retrial prospects:
  “The defense is going to have a one up… In this one the defense has the upper hand.”
  —Charlie Condon, [06:23], [23:12]

• On Hill as the “villain”:
  “Becky Hill is the villain here, which I think is appropriate.”
  —Charlie Condon, [00:45], [17:34]

• On the case’s unique drama:
  “This was supposed to be a unicorn case… once in a lifetime. And here we are.”
  —Anne Emerson, [09:51]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [00:00–01:20] — Introduction, court decision, strength of language against Becky Hill
• [01:20–02:59] — Initial legal breakdown; unanimous per curiam opinion; retrial logistics
• [06:17] — Challenges of jury selection due to notoriety
• [08:03–09:51] — Detailed analysis of the opinion’s precedent and rules going forward
• [10:09] — Retrial timing and possible locations
• [12:00–14:50] — Financial crimes evidence: lessons, new rules
• [17:12–17:44] — Strongest condemnation of Becky Hill
• [19:54–22:38] — How trial length and technical evidence may shape retrial
• [23:07–24:57] — Defense strategies, media interest
• [26:24–27:32] — Unexplored witnesses (Curtis “Eddie” Smith) and remaining questions
• [28:43–29:59] — Supreme Court leak discussion
• [30:08–31:44] — Becky Hill’s legacy and possible future media role
• [32:08–32:57] — Will new evidence or strategy change the conviction?

---

Closing Thoughts

Anne Emerson and Charlie Condon’s discussion is a candid, thoughtful breakdown of an extraordinary legal reversal, highlighting both the human drama and procedural intricacies that will shape the next chapter of the Murdoch saga. The episode underscores that, while the evidence remains damning, the rules—and entire paths to justice—can be upended by the actions of just one individual in a position of power. With a retrial looming, new questions, strategies, and potential bombshells are on the horizon.

---

Upcoming: Anne and housekeeper Blanca Simpson will be hosting a Murdoch-saga panel at CrimeCon in Las Vegas, with the promise of further direct insights from the case’s inner circle ([34:09]).

Transcript

[A]

Alec Murdoch is getting a new trial. Hey, everyone. I'm Ann Emerson, and this is criminally obsessed. The South Carolina State Supreme Court's decision was unanimous. The justices placed the blame squarely on the former clerk of court, Becky Hill. They call her actions and lies shocking, egregious, disgraceful, and unprecedented. There is no excuse for my mistakes. I am ashamed of them. They say what Becky Hill said to several jurors unquestionably was intended to push them to a guilty verdict. So the actions of one woman who was supposed to uphold the law and ensure Alec Murdoch got a fair trial is responsible for this. Unbelievable.

[B]

Becky Hill is the. Is the villain here, which I think is appropriate.

[A]

I had to talk about this with our former South Carolina Attorney General, Charlie Condon. He sat with me every day back in 2023 during this trial as our legal analyst. Let's get into it. I am so pleased that you could join me. I mean, we spent six weeks together at Alec Murdoch's trial. Are you surprised that we are. We're getting this again and it's all been un.

[B]

Undone by Becky Hill, Right? All six. I'm not. You know, the Supreme Court telegraphed this opinion at. At oral argument. I am a. I am surprised, though, that it's unanimous. All. All five. But no, they all have gotten together in what's called a per curum opinion, meaning not one justice wrote it, but all five take ownership. And they have ordered a new trial for defendant Alec Murdoch and everyone running for AG and the AG Himself. My understanding, they're all saying that they're going to reprosecute this case. I can't see a plea bargain. I can't see the defendant wanting to plea bargain. I think we're gonna. We're gonna have a new trial. And I would think it'd be. It'd start off in Carlton at repeat. Here we go.

[A]

Here we go.

[B]

They can move for a change of venue, but what's going to change with the other 40 other 45 counties? Everyone heard about this case. And I did get the sense that Alec Murdoch, he really liked. And his family, I think they liked being nearby there, which would be nearby to their different homes. You know, they live either in Hampton or the Buford area or in the Dorchester County. I felt like Colleton was. Was a good, good, good spot for them. So my expectation would be that they'd start off in Colleton. In my wildest dreams, I really did not think we'd have an actual repeat of this trial because just again, because of the length of it. Of the strong evidence against the defendant. But, but yes, Becky Hill, single handedly, per the Supreme Court has, has engineered a new trial for this defendant.

[A]

You know, I thought that one of the first lines in it, and I'm, and I'm paraphrasing because I, I don't have it in front of me right now, but it was that she, she put her finger on the scales of justice.

[B]

When you saw that first line there, you knew, you knew it was coming.

[A]

This is all falls on the shoulders of one woman who was, had plans to write a book and decided to, you know, tamper with a jury that in possibly the biggest case we've ever had in South Carolina.

[B]

Yeah, you know, we know we've got, we got to know Becky over the six weeks. I still think, even though it's getting harder and harder to, to keep saying this, I think basically she is, is a, is a good person. I think she got caught up in the moment. But the kind of, the conduct that they do highlight and the, of course her perjury at that, the, at the, at the hearing before Justice Toll, it does, does wear on you a bit, doesn't it? And now that has this tremendous cost to really everyone involved. Everyone involved that they have to retry this case. That said, I do think the retrial will be probably not as long because the court made it very clear they didn't want to hear all that financial crime information to shorten that up. It was very clear message in the opinion. So I don't think it's going to be as long as six weeks, but it's still going to be a long, long trial. Now whether it's two weeks, three weeks or four weeks, it's going to be something. And of course the evidence that has to be produced and the technical information that sled agents, the people from all the different walks of life from, from, from the different experts that were involved. It, it's a lot, isn't it?

[A]

The witness list alone was inordinate and the, and the amount of money involved in, in retrying this case, Charlie, is, is pretty bad.

[B]

Yeah, it'll be hundreds of thousands of dollars that'll fall upon the local government to retry it. And of course the state government will bear the expense of the state side and on the defense side. Now they do have the notoriety that, that comes with defending this and I guess the free publicity. But I think from the economic standpoint, I would think this defendant would have little to no resources going forward. But I expect the defense lawyers will stick with him. But again, I'm thinking that from their standpoint is that we've gone this far, we've gotten a good result here with a new trial. Let's see if we can finish it with a not guilty verdict, which. Well, I thought about that too. You know, typically, in my view, a retrial benefits the state. I've had a number of retrials when I was a prosecutor here in the Charleston area, and I felt. Always felt like it benefited the state because you knew what the defense was doing. I think in this case, though, it might be just the exact opposite because there was so much technical information that came in that I think towards the end of that trial that they admitted really without much objection, I think they're going to rethink that. And also the defendant testifying, I think that was a mistake. Looking in hindsight now, even if they can talk him into not testifying, I

[A]

do think, oh, it's a huge mistake. Oh, my God, he was so gross. It was horrible, wasn't it? It was hard to watch.

[B]

Yeah, it was at points. But, you know, he's. He had their testimony under oath, subject to cross examination. So I think they could, they could read that testimony potentially at a retrial. So there's still this strong evidence against him. But I think the defense is going to have a one up, one up on this. And also in thinking about the jurors that might be there now, the standard isn't, have you heard about this case? Because everyone's heard about it. But the standard would be, have you made up your mind? And you know, after looking at all the evidence here, if you haven't made up your mind about this one, and if you're honest, I would think that would be a lot, if not most of the potential jurors. So who's left? It'd be people that haven't made up their mind based upon the evidence that that's out there in public, knowing that there's already been a guilty verdict of murder. I would think that those people might potentially be defense type type jurors. So it may be hard for the state to, you know, to get a. To get another conviction. We shall see.

[A]

So after the oral arguments, you know, we talked about this. It did not look good. It did not look good. I felt like they took the state to task. And just to be clear, I did not feel like, especially the way they just talked about it in the opinion that they gave, they were not going after, you know, the way the state handled the case at all. They weren't going after, you know, Clifton Newman, the judge who presided over Alec Murdoch's murder trial. They were going after Becky. But they went to. They went to task with the state saying, you can't defend this, but there's no way you can tell us he got a fair trial.

[B]

It's, it's a stunning, really, prosecution indictment of Becky Hill. But when you step back from it, I think your. Your observation is correct that, that they're in effect saying, why are you defending this state so. So hard? Because it's so egregious. I do think they gloss over. And there's a footnote at the end where they commend Justice Toll for presiding over the. Over the evidentiary hearing in a murky area of law. And so I do think you can make valid, effective arguments before today that the standard that we had had in South Carolina wasn't met in. In this particular case. That's gone now. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that this remmer versus the United States is a standard that if you've got this kind of contact with it, with, With a juror, that, that there's a presumption of. Of prejudice, demanding a new trial unless the state can. Can rebut it. And the state is now hamstrung the state. It made. The court also made it very clear that under our court rules, you can't get into what the jurors are saying during your liber relations. You can't have any testimony that we did have during the evidentiary hearing. So the state has to rebut it through other means. And so I think just in the future, if there's any sort of conduct like this that's anywhere close to what Becky Hill did, the defense is going to get a new trial. But at least. At least now the rules are clear. But again, I do think it's. I don't know if sad's the right word. I think it's a bit outrageous that we have to have a new trial here, given the expense, the amount of evidence against this defendant and just the. The hardship that it. You know, you were there in Carleton. I mean, the folks went out of their way to be polite and to provide things, but it was a tremendous expense to the local community. The food trucks coming in, the temporary bathrooms. We're going to have to go through that again.

[A]

Apparently it was supposed to be a unicorn, if I remember correctly, this was supposed to be a unicorn case. Once in a lifetime. We weren't going to see anything like this ever again. And here we are.

[B]

There we go. Probably next year we'll see it again.

[A]

Well, when, when do you think? Next year?

[B]

I think that'd be about right. You know, you'll have a new Attorney General in office, sworn in in January. I would think he's going to be champing at the bit to re prosecute this case. And so I think they'll get together and set a court date. I would think sometime in 2027. I would think on the defense side, I think they're probably ecstatic this has happened. I would think the defendant himself is, is going to be happy to be back in, out of his prison cell and in, in a courtroom. And, you know, we've talked about this before. I always did feel like he does not want to be labeled a murderer of his wife and son. That's his driving force. He pled to everything else. Even though he's going to be locked up for. I think the, I think the federal prison sentence is 40 years and the state prison sentence is 27 years, both of them to run concurrently, but it would still result in him dying in prison. Regardless of that, he will not plead to murder. He doesn't want to be labeled a murderer of his, of his wife and son in the state. Now, now has the, has made the decision. It's very apparent the states made the decision to go forward. So we're going to have a retrial.

[A]

Well, Charlie, what do you think Alec Murdoch is saying right now?

[B]

Oh, I think he's, I think he's saying that he's been vindicated, didn't get a fair trial. He's innocent. He really has not been vindicated. What's been, what's happened here is because of the actions of, of Becky Hill, the Supreme Court has decided to give him a new trial. But he's not been vindicated. He is presumed to be innocent under our standards here in America, which I think is good. But he'll get his day in court again. And the same evidence that they had before, it will not go away. That evidence is there. We can talk about that. The video at the kennel, all those sorts of things. The, the, Yeah, I mean, that was

[A]

the smoking gun, right? The kennel video.

[B]

Oh, gosh, wasn't it very. He, you know, he lied and said he wasn't there. Then he said, well, you know, I was there. Once he heard about the video, that was very, I think, very, very much, very strong evidence against him. But again, having said all that, as I said earlier, I do think that the defense is going to rethink financial crimes. You know, the Supreme Court also made very clear in this opinion, it's given, it's given the road map to the state saying, if you put all that stuff in again, we're going to reverse it. Here's how you can do this. And it's going to be really toned down. So I think instead of weeks and weeks of financial crimes, we're going to have maybe a day or two of it at most. So I do think that the trial will be shortened quite a bit. I was thinking about this as well,

[A]

to the financial crimes. I mean, for our viewers to understand as well. I mean, these financial crimes was, was considered a trial within a trial. Right. So we had, we had two weeks worth of financial crimes, which he admitted to later on. I mean, he's, he's in, in prison forever based on, you know, what he did with vulnerable clients. Right. So just to set the table, like these financial crimes were introduced because he was admitting to being a liar and a thief and insurance fraud and all this. But they're saying he spent, they spent too much time talking financial.

[B]

Yes, the court, Court ruled that. And it's unusual because they gave, in effect, some, some, some advice on something that really wasn't before them, since they were reversing. Reversing it based upon Becky Hill's conduct. But they were sending the opinion saying, we all agree that you can let the financial crimes in. Now, some of us had different opinions about that, but we're agreeing. You can let it in. Different opinions about the extent of it. You can let it in. But all of us agree that during the trial that the state went too far in some of the details. And it gave a very specific example. It was the one where, I believe it was Creighton Walters making it very clear that the personal representative was appointed for. I think it was Tony because he was mentally disabled. And the court said that that has nothing to do with the purpose or the allowability of the evidence here. That was obviously prejudicial to the defendant. So this is an example of you're just going too far. So I think the state's going take that. I certainly would look at that and say, all right, we need to be very tight on our presentation on financial crimes. Let's not let it go forever. Let's keep it tight. Let's keep it relatively brief. It'll still take several days, probably a couple days of, of testimony outside the jury and then a couple days with the jury jurors there. But, you know, you were There, along with yours truly, it, what, two weeks or so, I felt like, for the financial crimes.

[A]

Now, in the opinion. I want to talk about the opinion for a minute, because in the opinion, it says Hill's egregious improper jury interference went to the heart of the case and unquestionably was intended to push the jury to a guilty verdict.

[B]

I know. Wow. Very strong language. Very strong language against her, isn't it? And they're. I mean, there were just paragraph, line after line about how bad Becky Hill behaved, and they did hang their hat on that. And I did think, in looking at it, since it's a procurement opinion, I think, given the notoriety of the case, that the court felt like it was important for our legal system here in South Carolina for them to speak with one voice and to say very clearly why they're doing it. So the bottom line on the opinion, we're doing this because of the improper, egregious conduct of one person, Becky Hill. And they basically, if you, you know, read the whole. Whole opinion, they really do praise everyone else. They praise the. The trial judge. They praise former Chief Justice Toll. They praise the. The defense fault.

[A]

It's Becky's fault.

[B]

Becky. Becky. Becky.

[A]

I was saying, it also says a limited number of jurors who acknowledged hearing Hill's improper comments did not reduce their prejudicial effect. Right. That it was heard at most by three jurors.

[B]

I know that's the other thing that. That struck me about. I would have thought that maybe one justice would say, hey, most of the jurors, the vast majority, say there was no improper conduct. It was just to a couple of them, and the weight of the evidence was just so strong that. That. That we. We would. I would vote to uphold the verdict, but no, all five. And so I would say that I think the. The one positive aspect about this development is that in future cases, there's not going to be. There's. There's not a murky area of law here. Now, it's very clear if you have anybody similar to Becky Hill, a bailiff, saying these types of comments to even just one juror, the defense gets a new trial. So I'm thinking all the clerks of court here in South Carolina should very, very strongly throw away their staff just. Just to keep it. What's for lunch conversations, period.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, they wrote Hill clearly advised the jurors to find Murdoch and the evidence he presented not credible and essentially urged them to render a guilty verdict. I mean, they called Hill's efforts to undermine the jury Process as breathtaking, disgraceful, unprecedented.

[B]

Yeah, they did, didn't they?

[A]

Have you heard, have you ever heard of justice coming out with this level of like, I mean this, this feels sweeping.

[B]

It is. No, I, I have not. For them to really target one individual, I'm thinking that it's probably really good that Becky Hill has, has all her prosecutions behind her because if she still had pending charges, I would think that it could possibly result in a prison sentence in light of the kind of language that they're using. You know, of course you can't use that in a sentencing, but just the atmosphere that would be created by the damage done that the court is assigning to her, I think is monumental. So here we are, new trial. Becky Hill is the, is the villain here, which I think is, is, is appropriate. And everyone looks like they want a new trial and we'll be there sooner than later.

[A]

The defense has already sent out a statement about this. They said, we respect the decision that made clear that the retrial must look very different. The initial jury heard more than 12 hours of testimony about Alec's financial crimes. The court held that this evidence went far beyond what was necessary and gave rise to unfair prejudice on retrial. That will not be permitted. Alec has said from day one that he did not kill his wife and son. We look forward to a new trial conducted consistent with the constitution and guidance this court has provided. I mean that, you know, it reminds me, Charlie, like when we were going through the trial, the actual six week trial, I feel like we came out every day and I'd look at you and you'd look at me and we'd be like, did that just happen? That's unprecedented. There's another bombshell. Here we go again.

[B]

Yeah, it's very true, isn't it? The Murdoch saga continues. The defense is obviously putting down their marker that they expect the state to have very, very limited financial crime. So I think that will benefit them. And whoever prosecutes this case in the future, I'm assuming it's going to be Creighton Waters again.

[A]

Really?

[B]

Attorney General's office, I'm assuming. And we'll have another Attorney General who I would assume would, would be active in this case as, as Attorney General Wilson had been. So here we go. It's going to be.

[A]

Well, do you think, you know this last trial that we had was six weeks now. Yes. The financial crimes could still be presented. You know that I've got a question about. Just because we understood that Jim Griffin, who was the defense attorney for Alec Murdoch actually introduced kind of what they say opened the door to the financial crimes. That's not even what they're worried about this time. They're not even talking about the door opening. They're saying the door's open. The door's open. And should. Should have some say, just not as much. Right. It said, as a matter of the financial crimes. We do intend to require, however, that if the trial court decides to admit evidence of Murdoch's financial, financial crimes on retrial, the state must complete its introduction of that evidence efficiently, without the lengthy presentation of inflammatory details with low to no probative value that was permitted in the first trial. For example, Satterfield's vulnerable status.

[B]

Yes. Yeah, It'll be brief. And I'm sure the. I don't. You know, Judge Newman's retired, so I don't. I guess he won't be the. The trial judge, but whoever. The trial judge is going to be very, very strict on financial crime. So that will shorten up the trial quite a bit. But remember, towards the end of the trial, how much technical information was introduced through that very long, really folder that the state introduced? You had the. The video at the. At the. At the kennel, things like that. But all the small details about where the car was and the speed and the phone being flipped over. Remember that? I guess, yeah. Testimony.

[A]

Right.

[B]

All that stuff, I think, really hurt him in the end. So I'm really wondering if we're gonna have a different kind of trial in that. Yes, we'll have shortened financials, we'll have the video at the kennel, but it could possibly be extended even more on the technical side, if you really get down to it. A lot of that stuff can take days and days per. Per information.

[A]

Well, and Charlie, I mean, their. Their cards are on the table, right? I mean, we've got cards on the table from the state. So that. It's like. What you're saying is, like, some of the things that the defense was like. I don't know. Like, hold on. Like, what are you worried about? The phone was facing the wrong way when it fell out of the car. You know, things like that. Like coming up with all of this sort of technical information about how. How the crime occurred. I mean, that all of those. All the technicalities of that could actually make this just as long.

[B]

Yeah. I'm thinking possibly, depending.

[A]

And of course, look at me. I'm just like this.

[B]

Yeah. A couple of defense experts, they might rethink how they were presented. They might get new ones. Ah, it May be another six week trial but just very, very boring technical things. We'll just have to see how it goes. But I think that's a distinct possibility. It won't be the day to day drama that we had before, but more of a kind of a scientific trial once we get past the hardcore evidence. Again, typically, I think a retrial benefits the state. I think in this one the defense has the upper hand.

[A]

Can you tell me you think the defense has the upper hand on retrial?

[B]

I think that, I think there were some tactical errors that they're not going to commit again. And I think the state sort of locked up. You know, I suppose they can read this testament. But remember the, the defendant testified about the dogs when I remember the jurors gasp at this one when this defense theory was that there were a couple of shooters by the kennels and the defendant testified when the dog was down there. Did you hear the dog bark? He said no, the dog was quiet. So all the jurors knew that. Wait a minute now, if there had been somebody by the kennels other than Alec, the dog would be barking at this person.

[A]

Right.

[B]

That was a big mistake I thought. But it was kind of a happenstance. Now that won't happen again by the defense. Now whether the state will try to get that in there, they probably will through, through reading the transcript. But it'll be very flat. It'll be, it'll be different. As I said, if I'm prosecuting this, I, I, I just, I would, I would acknowledge that. Whoa. They're probably not going to let us get away with some of these things. Certainly not the financials. And they're probably going to have different experts out there. And let's see if we can find out who their experts are so we can get, get a beat on what they're going to say because they know what our experts are going to say. And also I did think they didn't spend that much time on jury selection. Remember how fast that went? I think on this one, given the publicity that has been out there, I think they're going to spend a lot of time on figuring out what jurors are willing to serve on this jury either in Colleden county or in one of our other other 45 counties that are out there if an indeed gets, gets transferred. So it'll. Now do you think question for you, being a noted member of the media, do you think the media interest will be as strong?

[A]

Oh, I don't know. I think, I think initially it will be. But if it drags on into technicalities, I think that the interest will wane to some degree. But I think, Charlie, I think there's a lot of stuff that still needs to be investigated on this case. I've spoken with Blanca several times. Blanca Turabate Simpson, Blanca, the housekeeper for the Murdochs. She is very clear that there was a lot that she was not asked about and that is very public now about where trucks were, where where people were and if there was anybody else that could have known about this crime being committed. So I think there's a lot that the investigators need to look at very carefully. There's going to be a lot of navel gazing at sled I think on this case because, because any, anybody that has followed up on this case like us knows that there's more that was not used by the prosecution. And I think the defense is going to drill holes in those places where maybe the media or people have now come out over the last few years and talked about it. What do you think?

[B]

Yeah, I thought you. I think. I think you may. You're right. And Eddie Smith, wonder where he is.

[A]

Well, Eddie, I actually reached out to Robert Kittle last week about this. Robert Kittle runs the runs comms for the AG's office and asked about that because he, his case is still pending. Now Curtis, Eddie Smith for everybody to know. Curtis, Eddie Smith was the one who was allegedly at this roadside shooting with Alec Murdoch. Right. After he finds out his. His number's been pulled. They know everything. He's coming. You know, every. His law firm's blown up. Right. Everybody knows everything. And, and Eddie Smith's on the roadside and supposedly part of this, this elaborate plot for insurance to get to. To buster Murdoch, this $10 million insurance policy that he's going to give to Buster and give up the ghost. Right. But that TR. All of his misdoings, all of Eddie Smith's stuff that he sat him in jail forever and ever. That's still pending. So we haven't even. He was on the witness list. He never got called.

[B]

Still pending.

[A]

So I mean people like that, Charlie, they need to be fully investigated. Right? We've got to know what happened.

[B]

There we are.

[A]

But you know, the. You think that this could be as long of a trial Just to kind of sum it up here, it could be just as long of a trial. We don't think it's going to happen before the new year. Right. We don't.

[B]

We don't expect how they could get it together in a few months. I don't think that would be realistic,

[A]

you know, and, and, you know, if that's not going to happen. So we will have a new ag. We're looking at a couple of different guys who are, who are running right now. I've, I've personally contacted all three. There, there were, there were three that I was speaking with. David Pasco, Goldfinch and Stumbo. Somebody I don't think got back to me, but Pasco and Goldfinch both told me that they would retry it. So we're looking at a January 2027, at least in the 2027 calendar, when they can actually get this ready to go.

[B]

Wow. Wow.

[A]

You know, Charlie, there was a leak last week that this was coming out and that it was unanimous.

[B]

No kidding.

[A]

Yeah. We were on X. We were seeing this all over the place. Do you think, do you think it'll be investigated, the leak? Yeah, I mean, it was, it was on X. Like people were reporting it, that it was a unanimous decision and he was getting a new trial.

[B]

Wow. It strikes me sort of the same scenario as the. Remember the leak on the overturning Roe vs. Wade from the U. S. Supreme Court. That's still. I don't know where that investigated. End. Investigation ended, but no one's been named. So this, this is very similar. That's disappointing to hear that, that that might have occurred, but how you effectively find who did that is probably going to be very, very difficult, I think.

[A]

So. I think that what, what's interesting to me is that it. When the leak came out, the way it was kind of substantiated in my head was that they said, yeah, it's going to get overturned. I'm like, okay, you know, you got a 50, 50 shot at being correct on that one. But when they said unanimous and then it turned out to be a unanimous decision, I thought, oh, God,

[B]

yeah, that's disappointing to hear.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Who would have seen the opinion, you know, at the court itself, the law clerks and everyone else involved. Yeah. That a number of people.

[A]

As far as Becky Hill goes, yeah. She's lucky she got, she got kind of sorted out before this happened. Right.

[B]

I think she's still on probation. Right. So she gets to finish her probation. And wow, if she reads this opinion, which I suspect she will at some point in her life, it's just not going to be a happy reading because as you've noted, they really, really, really do take her to task. It's not undeserved not to. Not to try to defend her. I do think that we spent a good bit of time with her. I just think that she didn't meet the moment. I think it just went to her head. And then she went down this horrible, horrible path of lying about what she did. And here we are.

[A]

I mean, could Becky write a book about the retrial?

[B]

Wow. Now, wouldn't that be something?

[A]

I. I don't think she can. She's probably, like, gagged on anything like that now, wouldn't you think?

[B]

I would think. Well, I would. Even if she legally could, I would hope wiser counsel would prevail in that situation. But we'll see. You know, the. It was such a media firestorm there in Walterboro. It sounds like you think it will be the same again. And if we do have, indeed the same sort of media entourage coming there, really around the world, I guess, buckle up, Baltimore, because it's coming to you soon.

[A]

You know, the actions of one woman was supposed to uphold the law, who was supposed to be there to oversee this whole.

[B]

I know.

[A]

Court proceeding was the one that. That basically took it down.

[B]

I know, I know. And of all the cases to take down, of all the cases. And she did such a good job, I think, of getting the trial going. The logistics, having the portable bathrooms, the whole thing, and just have it in this way is really, really sad. And I could see why a lot of folks would be angered by it. Understandably so.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

But it sounds like, though, that the defendant, even though he gets a new trial at the end, we'll see how this all ends. He may not benefit from it all. We'll just have to stay tuned on that, because there is evidence there that. I think that anyone looking at it from a reasonable standpoint would say that it's very clear that he murdered his. His son and his. His wife. But we'll have to see how the trial goes with the actual evidence that gets produced, and the jurors will make the decision.

[A]

Yeah, I was gonna say. I mean, the. The evidence was. You know, as we watched it, it was damning. It was damning evidence. It just was. But with all of the poking at all the holes, it will still be anybody's guess what ends up happening with this. With these convictions. Is that what I'm hearing?

[B]

I agree. I agree. I wouldn't predict right now for sure he gets rec. Convicted again. I do think that. That he should, based upon the evidence that I'm aware of. But things can change. There could be different evidence produced in court that we hadn't seen before, but based upon the evidence That I. That. That I sat you. You did as well, for six solid weeks. It was really, a really, really, really strong case. And, you know, the court did not really address any of that, which probably was wise, because had they addressed that, I think it would leave you scratching a little bit, like, well, since the evidence is so strong, even under the Rimmer analysis that you've adopted, that's one of the factors that you could consider. But they did not go through that part of the analysis. And so here we are. He gets a new trial.

[A]

Now. They just said Becky screwed up and we're retrying this case. There's no way we can live with this decision.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And it was a fair trial. And here we go. Okay, Charlie. Okay, Charlie. We're on year five. We are. We are headed into year six of this. It sounds like year six.

[B]

Who would have thought that'd be possible? But the Murdoch saga continues.

[A]

It does. It does. I hope you'll be there right next to me through the whole thing, because otherwise, it's hard for everybody to believe that we have another trial coming for Alec Murdoch. But it's on the cards, y', all, and we will be there every step of the way. If you haven't already, now is the time. Be sure to like and subscribe to Crimly Obsessed. Turn on your notifications. I am going to have the latest information on this case and all the cases that you're obsessed with. And guess what? I'm headed to CrimeCon in Vegas at the end of this month, and a major player in the Murdoch saga is going to be there with me, and we can ask questions to her about all of this. Blanca Simpson, the Murdoch housekeeper. We are hosting a panel together. You don't want to miss this. And if you still want to go, there are tickets available for the end of this month. Just go to the CrimeCon website and put in crimly obsessed. One word, you get 10% off, and I will see you there.