← Criminally Obsessed
Criminally Obsessed
"I Don't Want a Murderer to Go Free" Attorney Believes Alex Murdaugh Conviction Will Be Overturned
00:36:32
Loading summary
Transcript100 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey everybody.
- [00:01]
B
Welcome to Criminally Obsessed.
- [00:02]
A
I'm Ann Emerson and Alec Murdoch, the South Carolina lawyer turned convicted murderer was back in court a few weeks ago for his appeal. I was there for the trial in 2023 when he was convicted of murdering his wife Maggie and son Paul. And I have to tell you, it is completely surreal to think that he may be getting a new trial. I've been talking to others and we are eagerly awaiting to find out what's
- [00:28]
B
going to happen in this case to
- [00:30]
A
Today we're hearing from attorney Eric Bland. He represented several of Alec Murdoch's financial victims. I had to ask him, is there any way that Alec could walk free? And his answer shocked me. It's more complicated than you think.
- [00:44]
B
He is not, not in his natural life expected to get out of prison for, for these crimes.
- [00:52]
C
Maybe we don't know what's going to happen 30 years from now, 25 years from now.
- [00:56]
A
Right now the South Carolina Supreme Court justices are the ones deciding whether to over Alec Murdoch's double murder conviction. It could come any day. If they do decide to overturn his double murder convictions, it will then be in the hands of the next South Carolina Attorney General. There are three candidates right now vying for the position of top cop in South Carolina. There are two main issues that the justices are weighing right now. Number one, how to handle the allegations of jury tampering by the former Clerk of Court, Becky Hill. She was a clerk of court for Colleton county in South Carolina during Alec Murdoch's double murder trial. And number two, the issue of Alec Murdoch's financial crimes that were introduced during the trial. Be sure to like and subscribe so you never miss an update. And if you can, please leave us a five star review. It goes a long way to help others find this podcast. Now let's get into it.
- [01:56]
B
Eric Bland, thank you so much for joining me today. Today. I really appreciate it. I you had my ears up. I was looking at your X account and I'll share it with our viewers. Throwing out a question that I have about the Murdoch appeal so I'll read
- [02:13]
A
what you wrote on X for our audio listeners. In light of the oral arguments in connection with Alec Murdoch's double murder conviction appeal before the South Carolina Supreme Court last month and the likelihood that it appears he may be getting a new trial based on the Justice's questions, here is a very relevant question that needs to be asked of the three Attorney General candidates for the upcoming collection. These candidates are Davis Sumbo, David Pasco And Stephen Goldfinch Jr. Here's the question they should be asked and that they should answer. If Alec Murdoch's double murder conviction is reversed, will you have your department retry him for the murders of Maggie and Paul? I reached out to these three candidates too, and I'll let you know at home when I hear back from them.
- [02:57]
B
What was your takeaway on this, on the oral arguments?
- [03:00]
C
It was very enlightening and surprising for me. One I did not foresee the entire court criticizing former Chief Justice Jean Toll in the manner which they did. It's clear that they, they obviously have high regard for her, but maybe there is some hard feelings left over from when she was Chief Justice. Not sure. But they were highly critical of how she held the hearing in January of 24 into February of 2024 to determine if there was juror interference and a new trial was warranted. I was also extremely surprised that they were very critical of Judge Newman and how he dealt with the admission of the financial crimes to show that there was motive for the murders of Maggie and Paul as well as the decisions he made with juror and discharging them. I originally thought that Alex would not be granted a new trial by our Supreme Court and it would have to take place on the federal level. We had talked previously about the constitutional issues, the Sixth Amendment right to a fair jury trial, and that I believe a federal court possibly would apply the federal standard. Yeah, which would show only you have to articulate your interference and show it to the court.
- [04:28]
A
Right.
- [04:29]
C
But at this point I can almost see a 50 vote in granting him a new trial because the constitutional right to have that fair jury trial is so profound. As I've told you before, the reason we have the greatest system in the world, it has to work for the worst of us, not just for the best of us. And it does. The worst of us should be treated the same way as the best of us. And I believe it's either going to be a 50 or a 41 vote for a new trial. And so while I was listening to the oral arguments and processing, wow, this looks like it's going to be reversed. Looks like there's going to have to be a new trial. And if there's a new trial, most likely it's going to be in the summer or fall of 2027 or in the winter. I think we'll get a decision early summer on this case. It's going to be a very detailed, long decision. And so while I was listening, I started to think to myself, well, what's a retrial going to look like, obviously it's not going to be Judge Newman. It's going to be a different judge. And that judge probably will not admit all of the financial crimes that Judge Newman did based on the oral arguments to the Supreme Court in their comments. But then I said, well, wait a minute. You know, Alan Wilson isn't going to be the attorney general. He's either going to be governor or, you know, he's off to a new career. And we have David Pasco Stumbo and Goldfinch is his name. There's a right Stephen Goldfinch Jr. Goldfinch is the third one. And I asked myself the question, well, they have the discretion to either bring the trial or not. And I think that's a very relevant question for these candidates on what they're going to do. And the answer of, well, I don't want to forecast it right now. I want to see what the Supreme Court says and, you know, look at the what's happening on the ground at that time before I make a decision. And I don't think that's the answer we want to hear as voters. I think we want to hear, you're either going to bring the trial or you're not going to bring the trial. You're not going to bring it because you think it could be a tremendous waste of judicial resources that, you know, the previous attorney general, Creighton Waters and everybody involved, including me, Ronnie Justin Bamberg, Mark Tinsley, we were instrumental in getting him prosecuted and convicted in state and federal court of financial crimes. And he's going to spend his natural life in prison and then another 30 or 40 years under the sentence.
- [07:07]
B
So, yeah, because he's already, that's not going anywhere. That's a separate, that's a whole separate situation just for everybody to understand. He is not in his natural life expected to get out of prison for, for these crimes.
- [07:23]
C
Maybe. Okay, we know, we don't know what's going to happen 30 years from now, 25 years from now when they start commuting elderly prisoners who they perceive as being no longer a threat to the community or they have significant health issues and they don't want to, you know, pay for that health in prison. We don't know. You know, I'm confident, confident that he's not going to be let out for many, many years, if ever. But at the same time, justice requires that justice be done. And Maggie and Paul were killed and their lives need to be vindicated. Their death needs to be vindicated. We need to find out who killed him. And if it was Alex, he needs to pay the price. So the concern I have is what are the relationship that maybe some of these Attorney General candidates have with Dick Harpoon and Jim Griffin? I know that David Pasco, who's a wonderful solicitor, I know that Dick is extremely, extremely close with David Pasco. Extremely close. David worked for him. Dick's been a mentor to him. They've hand in gloved many cases along the way. And I have heard that Dick has been raising funds for David Pasco. So the question is going to be, if David Pasco wins, what is he going to do? Or if Stumbo wins, what's he going to do? I sense that Stumbo is going to definitely say he's going to prosecute him. And I spoke to Stephen Goldfinch, who called me on the phone, believe it or not, and after I posted and said, I just want you to know I've. I think I've met you one time at a roster meeting or whatever. You may not remember me, but you're going to hear from me. If I am elected, I will bring the prosecution against Alex Murdaugh again if his case is remanded from the Supreme Court. So one of the three is already answered to me.
- [09:28]
B
Okay.
- [09:29]
C
It should be a very big concern to our voters because I think Alex wants nothing more than to go through the rest of his life as just a financial crime cheat he doesn't want to go through as a murderer of his wife and son. That's huge to him. I think it's huge to Dick Harpootlian. I think it's huge to his legacy. Dick's legacy is cemented. Okay. He's one of the lions of our bar. He's done an amazing job as a prosecutor, private attorney, one of the seminal trial attorneys our state has ever produced. But, you know, we're always remembered by our last act. And his last, last act was not his best foot forward in trying the Murdoch case. And I think he wants more than anything for that case to be reversed. And so he could say Alex Murdaugh is no longer a murder.
- [10:18]
B
Yeah, I think you're right. And if I was going to speak on that, I would say it's because he is still adamant that Alex is innocent. Defendant is innocent. Right? That, that Alex is innocent.
- [10:33]
C
That word. Look, that's interesting. Interesting word.
- [10:37]
B
I mean, yes.
- [10:39]
C
Is he not guilty because the state didn't prove his case? Lawyers often use that term, not guilty. And it's a loaded term because the burden is always on the state to Prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And so many times when lawyers are trying cases, they say, you need to vote not guilty because it hasn't been proven. It's a completely different kettle of fish. And when to say he's innocent, because we do not have a verdict that is innocent. In the, in Europe, you have not guilty. Guilty and not proven. So we don't have that third prong. And Dick's been using the word innocent from day one, and that is a very loaded term. So I think he wants to show that Alex did not commit this crime. And what better if the state doesn't bring a new prosecution against him? It's just, it reminds me a lot of O.J. when O.J. you know, was convicted. And, well, he was convicted in the civil case, but in the criminal case, he was held not guilty. And they said, we're going to spend the next 30 years trying to find the people who did it. And of course, they were never found, just like they're never going to find anybody else other than Alex. You know, again, the dumbest fact in the world is to say that two executioners came on Alex and Maggie's property without guns, and we're going to break into Alex and Maggie's house to get guns to kill Maggie and Paul. No executioners go on to a southern property or any property without their own weapons that they can discard.
- [12:17]
B
Yeah. And, you know, you were saying, and just to be clear for our viewers, too, when we were talking about David Stumbo, David Pascoe, Stephen Goldfinch Jr. We're talking about an Attorney general, a heated attorney general race, which is the top cop in South Carolina. And we are looking at, you know, how they will handle if, if the Supreme Court comes back and says, sorry, guys, we need to retry this case. Like we're going to overturn these double murder convictions, and you have every right to take this back in and, and, and do it again. But because of what happened with the clerk of court and the accusations, just the accusations, just the allegations that, that, that there was jury interference and the fact that the financial crimes was what we called a trial within a trial. It was, it was two weeks of testimony and, and that was very damning, but it was still the financial crimes window that, or door that had been opened, by the way, by the defense, from what I remember.
- [13:27]
C
Correct.
- [13:28]
B
So these are the guys that will decide, basically, is what I wanted to make sure everybody understood, is they decide.
- [13:33]
C
Just so your listeners know, prosecutors retry cases all the time. John Gotti was tried five times after four, you know, hung juries.
- [13:43]
B
Can you imagine? Five, Eric, five.
- [13:45]
C
No, I mean nobody, nobody wants to go through this again. The state doesn't want to go through it again. It didn't make our bar look good. It didn't make our state look good. However, justice requires care, custody, control that you, you have to pursue it. What does it say in Deuteronomy? Justice. Justice. Shall I pursue Deuteron? In the Bible, justice always isn't convenient. Justice isn't inexpensive. But Maggie and Paul deserve this. We as citizens deserve this. And I'm sorry, you know, it's uncomfortable, it's not fun to talk about. You know, it's going to be a tremendous amount of state resources. People are going to say, well, the Attorney General, the new Attorney General should focus on X as opposed to Alex. We focused on Alex for the last five years.
- [14:41]
B
Well, and it's, and I think that's, I think that's going to be the argument that we hear about if this. And of course everybody, we're not, not saying that anything's happened yet. We're saying that, you know, there was a really strong pull from the justices up there during the oral arguments that made all of us feel like, whoa. We did not expect this to be
- [15:04]
C
so harsh, that one sided.
- [15:06]
B
I talked to Valerie Baraline about this too. She came on the show and we talked about maybe this could be. Because in my head I'm thinking, are they doing this to just over like be over the top? Are they like you know, crossing their T's and dotting their eyes and saying we've checked and we've looked and we've looked and we've checked. Do you feel like it was that kind of conversation?
- [15:27]
C
They weren't doing it for show? No, no, they are not doing it for show.
- [15:30]
B
Oh God.
- [15:31]
C
We don't know what they're going to rule. But I have rarely seen that side, that one sided questioning of the prosecution or one side against a defendant as opposed to the plaintiff. And, and they don't rule that way. You know, they're pretty judges, Justices are pretty consistent. They're not just talking for show, they're talking for a reason. And the way the, these oral arguments work, the briefs are summarized by their law clerks and they get a memo which pretty much summarizes the, the arguments by the parties. And then the questions come from that memo where the justice is telegraphing what his or her concerns are about. And it wasn't confusing, it wasn't ambiguous. They were pretty adamant about Becky Hill, about Justice Toll not giving enough deference to Jersey and some of the alternates and the egg lady. And they were very critical that he may have been convicted for financial crimes that he had not been tried on.
- [16:50]
B
The other thing that I was wondering, that one, that one, I don't know how you get around actually, that. That's very concerning. But the other scenario, could it be taking this back to Justice Tolan saying, we need you to do more, like, we need another evidentiary hearing now?
- [17:09]
C
It is a possibility. I don't see it happening. As critical as they were of her applying the wrong standard, possibly. And the conclusion she reached about the juror testimony and Becky Hill's testimony, because if they send it back to her, it's like sending it back to her to say, now make the right ruling. And the right ruling is that you should have granted a new trial. Do they want to be the ones to grant a new trial or do they want Justice Toll to do it? That's an interesting question, too. I think that they're going to, as a panel, take the heat and say that there's a strong constitutional issue involved and that unfortunately he is entitled to a new trial.
- [17:56]
B
I mean, I didn't even feel like during the oral arguments that in some ways, and this is just me watching, total layman perspective, but it felt like at times they weren't even worried about what the defense's whole oral argument was. They had their own issues.
- [18:11]
C
They all. They usually do.
- [18:12]
B
Like, the justices were up there, like, yeah, we're not worried about that. We want to talk about this.
- [18:17]
C
Well, you saw they let Dick talk for a solid 10, 12 minutes before one person asked the question. Creighton couldn't even get up there and catch his first breath and take a step and boom. Mr. Waters, can you answer about this?
- [18:33]
B
Yeah, he was incredible. But it was. It was tough. I mean, it was tough to watch. And I definitely was, like, loosening his tie for him, like watching this whole thing, like, okay, so do you think they had any idea when they got up there that this was gonna go south?
- [18:48]
C
I think they did when they heard the question.
- [18:50]
B
The prosecutors, just to be clear, I mean.
- [18:53]
C
Yes, I thought. I think Creighton, while he was sitting there listening to Dick's presentation and how easy they were on him with question that he knew he was going to get a full frontal assault.
- [19:05]
A
Okay.
- [19:06]
C
And let me explain that, you know, judges shouldn't leave their God given common sense at the door. They have to apply the rule law irrespective of awarding friends and punishing Enemies, they have to apply the rule of law. It is written in their stare deceases, which is precedent that you have to file. However, in, in federal court, the judges should be gatekeepers that just because somebody plead cause of action or a complaint doesn't mean you get full discovery and get to go to trial. And parties have to spend thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars ultimately to have the case dismissed. If there's not a plausible explanation or a plausible cause of action, the judge should dismiss it. I didn't hear any of that from these justices. Like our God given common sense says, all these circumstantial evidence facts point to Alex and nobody else. The, the. They have to take the record as it's given to them. And we have him lying about the, the dog kennel video. We have him, you know, not calling Paul Buster right away. We have him the Snapchat video. We have so many different facts of him going straight to his mother's house and not going to the kennels to tell Maggie and Paul that he's leaving. The throwing of the phone, all of the different forensic informations with the bullets. There was ample. Ample.
- [20:33]
B
Don't even get me started on Blanca, Ben.
- [20:36]
C
Blanca and I, and I believe, I believe even if you keep out the financial crimes, he would get convicted again on a retrial if you just went on the circumstantial evidence.
- [20:46]
B
Well, and I mean, there's a lot of stuff that's come to light too. I mean, I've done a series of interviews with Blanca, Blanca Turrubiate Simpson, who's the Murdoch housekeeper, and she was the confidant to Maggie Murdoch. And she certainly was not thoroughly, in her opinion, vetted by the investigators and used for all the information she had, which was unbelievable as far as what she knew. But there were mistakes that were made. I mean, Eric, do you get nervous that, like, you go to retrial and they say, and you get a jury that decides circumstantial is not enough. Is there any way that he wiggles out of this?
- [21:27]
C
Right, I'll talk about it. Like, Gloria and Blanca had a unique front row seat. They, they saw the family over years evolve and interact and Alex's domineering behavior and how he belittled people and how he treated Maggie and how he overindulged Paul with alcohol use that was permissive in front of him and all those things. Do I worry on a retrial? I do. I worry that there are people who do jury nullification all the time and say, even Though somebody may be guilty, I don't like the system. It prosecutes the poor or the minorities. I always thought that Alex was either going to be held guilty or a hung jury. I do not ever, ever foresee 12 jurors saying not guilty. It's never going to happen. But I could see on a retrial, there could be one or two or three jurors that they don't believe in circumstantial evidence, that they want direct evidence. They want to see a video of somebody pulling the trigger on somebody and that, you know, I just read an article, believe it or not, last night when I was going to bed. Dr. Henry Lee, who's the foremost, you know, forensic pathologist in the history. Him and Cyril Weck, the O.J. simpson trial, Phil Spector, all these major trials. Dr. Lee was, you know, beyond reproach. He's amazing. Well, on his deathbed, he made a confession. He rushed through four or five major convictions that have been overturned based on splatter evidence that was totally unscientific. You need to read about it. He died at 87 years old last year, and he is discredited. And he always said when he spoke to graduating class, you could spend a lifetime building a reputation, but one bad case, you'll destroy it. So who knows, maybe some of these experts, these jurors are going to think are junk science. You know, the armpit, the temperature under the armpit, or, you know, the casing, fingerprints, the bullet casing, leaves all of this. We just trust. Wow. These guys are doctors. They're PhDs. They have laboratories. They test all this. It may be garbage. And so you could have two or three jurors who have a hung jury. We could. Look, I believed 110% throughout Creighton's first trial that Alex was guilty. 110%. I still believe it. But I. I did. I, for a while in that first trial believed that there was going to be a hung jury.
- [24:15]
B
Yeah.
- [24:16]
C
I did not see a conviction.
- [24:18]
B
No. I don't think until I saw the kennel video or. And heard the kennel video that I was like, you know, you just.
- [24:25]
C
When Alex testified, we knew, we saw. And he lied and he lied, but he isn't going to testify in his second trial.
- [24:32]
B
But the real question is not if. Not even they're going to be sitting on him. They're going to be like, there's absolutely no way you're getting up there tonight, ruin this again.
- [24:41]
C
However. However, his previous testimony is admissions that can be used against them.
- [24:48]
B
True, that's absolutely right. Well, when I spoke with the lead prosecutor, Creighton Waters, about how he felt about. Like this was way before the oral arguments went up, because he has been under sort of, I think, a soft gag order since then to just. You've got to see how all this.
- [25:04]
C
He's a total throw. Yeah, he's a total pro.
- [25:07]
B
He said he'd totally do it. You know, I asked him if there was evidence there was someone at the end that helped him sort of who was an accessory. You know, some of the theories that. That Blanca herself has kind of talked about that she felt like there might have been some cleaners afterwards that came in. Of course, he said, absolutely, if there's any evidence. So I think if we do get a.
- [25:28]
C
Don't you want a prosecutor like that in our society that's going to hunt the bird to wherever the dog takes them? He'll go through brush, bramble, bush, up a mountain, down a mountain, through a stream, through broken glass, just to find justice. That's what we want.
- [25:48]
B
You're right. And. And I think that it'll be, you know, all of these pieces have to come together, right? So they. I don't know if it's a. If it's a sure thing, you know, either of who would be the lead prosecutor on this, but we know who. Who did it the first time so brilliantly. So it'll be interesting to see all these pieces of the puzzle, you know, how the oral arguments play out, how we have these candidates, how they end up.
- [26:14]
C
Go ask them. You're a journalist.
- [26:15]
B
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, don't worry.
- [26:18]
C
Call David Pasco on the phone. Call David Stumble. I already told you what Goldfinch said, so let's see if we can get an answer.
- [26:25]
B
No, I know. I. I thought it was so interesting when I saw it, I was like, that's exactly what we need to know right now. They may be walking the line, like you said. They may be just waiting to see what. What the Supreme Court says. They might not have to say whether they would read Triumph. And. And that is the way I'm. I'm feeling like this might play. But we'll put them on the spot for sure. We'll put them in the hot spot. I have to tell you about one other thing before we go to Eric, as we do, we send millions of FOIAs about everything, right. And I wanted to know who Alec Murdoch was speaking to from prison during the appeals Time from February 11th to the 13th is what I put down. So I wanted to see what he was thinking as far as how he felt this appeal. And I just assumed that he would be talking to some folks. Right. But all I got back from SEDC was, sorry, we can't disclose that because of attorney client relationships. And I said, don't worry about it. I don't need the attorney calls. I understand that.
- [27:24]
A
Send me the other calls.
- [27:26]
B
There are no other calls that were made to Alec Murdoch after that appeal.
- [27:30]
C
Yeah, it's kind of interesting. You know, Buster is married, with a child, living a life. We don't know if John Marvin or any of his family were at the Supreme Court in the oral arguments. I was looking and I really couldn't tell if there were family members there. Look, Alex is a despicable human being, murderer or not. He showed we know his true colors. His clothes were removed. We see him for who he was. One of the worst of the worst. You know what I mean? So, you know, there are always going to be contrarians out there. But, you know, we don't know where Alex is. We don't know where he's staying. We don't know how long he's going to be there. Some people have said Broad River Road as opposed to where he was before. I'm not sure. You know, we don't know where Corey Fleming is.
- [28:20]
B
Corey Fleming was convicted as a co conspirator of Alec Murdoch for financial crimes. For our financial. That's correct.
- [28:28]
C
You know, that is a major, major thing because I, I represent victims of Corey Fleming and we, you know, Creighton Waters. I've asked him and he said, you got to go to the Bureau of Prisons. They won't tell us. We're not allowed to tell. And I'm against that. I think people should know. So the question is, where is Corey? Is Corey cooperating? Is Corey in danger? Has his life been threatened because of what he knows? There's so many unanswered questions right now and he ob.
- [28:57]
B
Obviously did not get anywhere near the kind of sentences that, that.
- [29:01]
C
Oh, they're pissed off though. Debbie Barbiere is very mad at Judge Newman. Remember, they wanted Judge Gergle and Judge Gergle, even when he pronounced that 40 month sentence or four years for Corey Fleming said, I'm very hopeful that the state court judge will look at my sentence and say that's enough. Well, Judge Newman came back and said nine years in state prison after he's done with federal and. And Debbie Barbieri hit the roof.
- [29:33]
B
Right.
- [29:34]
C
And his. He's appealing that.
- [29:36]
B
Well, I know federal and state don't play to play well together sometimes.
- [29:40]
C
Not in this case. Did they play well at all?
- [29:42]
B
No, I think, I think, yeah. Don't you think Newman had heard and this Judge Newman was the Newman that. That oversaw the, the double murder trial that he had heard too much that was too concerning. There was no way he was going to let him walk out of state without, without some, some pain.
- [30:01]
C
Oh, and he gave him pain.
- [30:02]
B
But, yeah. So I just, I was the, the, the deafening silence for Alec Murdoch. I, I saw it and I was like, okay. So there were no other calls that were made to him probably on one of the most important days of his life. No one reached out. No calls, no family, no loved ones, no friends, nobody that was going to call and say, hey, how you doing? We just heard those oral arguments. Looks like you're going to get a. Looks. Feel is feeling pretty positive.
- [30:30]
C
Remember on October 15th of 2021 when I argued that he shouldn't get bond on the Gloria Satterfield? And he did not. You remember Alex walked out in the blue jumpsuit with the handcuffs on and he was looking out for friends and his partners and his family, and there was nobody there. And you could see. Put his head down. And at that very same moment, John, Marvin and Buster were playing blackjack at the Bellagio hotel in Vegas. I think that's when it hit him. Oh, man. You know, this is real. And people are very mad at me.
- [31:09]
B
Yeah.
- [31:10]
C
Games up and are done with me. They've written me off.
- [31:13]
B
Yeah. And Eric Bland just. Just ripped off the mask. Just ripped it off. That was one of the most brilliant. It really was. And I would love to play it again because I, when I heard that, I remember running back into the Starbucks afterwards. I don't know if I ever told you this. And I, I was reporting on it and we were just starting to understand what the hell was going on with Alec Murdoch. We had no idea. We really had not. No idea of how deep and insidious this really was. The financial crimes and, and of course, the murders were so horrible. And it was really good, Eric. Yes, it was.
- [31:49]
C
Thank you. That's where the name of my podcast. I said, he needs a drink from the same cup of justice that everyone else does. He has to get comfortable, getting uncomfortable. He disgraced our state, he disgraced our profession. And if he really is the drug addict Dick Harpootle and portrayed him as, then he's a menace to society and doesn't need to get out. And Damif. Judge Newman said, said no bond. And by the way, he's never had a breath of fresh air. Ever since that day. He's never been out. Never. And Dick Harpoulian said he should have gotten a $50,000 bond. And Creighton only asked for a $200,000 bond. At that hearing.
- [32:29]
B
He was like, no bond. You are sitting in my. Sitting him under my purvey, my friend. Yeah, it's fascinating. So when are we going to get an answer? Valerie thinks it's coming any day. What do you think?
- [32:42]
C
I'd be shocked. Now, that would be too quick. I think it's going to be towards the end of their term, you know, probably late June, early, you know, in that area, just to. So they can get out of Columbia and go back to their home. Look, there's going to be a lot of people that are going to be upset just because they know that Alex is guilty. But there's going to be a lot of people that will applaud it for the rule of law and justice. That, again, justice has to work. Work for the worst of us.
- [33:11]
B
We'll have to just see what happens. But you are in. In favor of this going to trial again? If that's the need.
- [33:19]
C
Yes. Yes, I am. Oh, absolutely. If there.
- [33:22]
B
If it gets overturned, then you are. Are fully in favor of getting this back on?
- [33:27]
C
Yeah, I. I'm not so hung up on. Should it have been the remmer or the green standard? I believe what we heard from the witness stand showed no juror who was credible said they heard anything from Becky hill. They certainly 11 said without question, that was my verdict. Nothing that anybody did, said or I saw other than the evidence or testimony was my own free decision. So everybody said that they didn't say they were forced into a guilty verdict? Actually, everybody was polled. The 12th juror, she vacillated in three different affidavits. So based on the evidence that Justice Toll heard, I think she made the right decision in saying no new trial. Now, if the Supreme Court says it should be remmer, I support it, but I want a new trial because I don't want a murderer to go free.
- [34:26]
B
We'll give Pasco a call and see what he says.
- [34:28]
C
Oh, yeah, yeah. I mean, Dave, David, straight up guy who. He should tell us.
- [34:33]
B
Let's find out. Okay, I'll let you know what he says. Thank you, Eric.
- [34:36]
A
Thank you for talking to me.
- [34:38]
B
If we do get any breaking news on this appeal, I'll find out. I'll get your initial reaction, see what you think.
- [34:46]
C
You will, you will.
- [34:47]
B
Before we go, we're so excited that
- [34:49]
A
we've been nominated for a Shorty Award for Best True Crime and Documentary Podcast, and we need your help to win. Public voting is open through April 8th. We've pinned a link to where you can vote for us at the top of the comments.
- [35:02]
B
Every vote counts, so if you love
- [35:04]
A
what we're doing here at Criminally Obsessed, be sure to vote for us every day. Once a day through April 8th. Thanks.