Murdaugh Murder Retrial: DNA Under Fingernails & ‘Cleaned’ Crime Scene?

Summary

---

Criminally Obsessed – "Murdaugh Murder Retrial: DNA Under Fingernails & ‘Cleaned’ Crime Scene?"

June 29, 2026 | Host: Ann Emerson | Guest: Charlie Condon

Episode Overview

In this episode, veteran investigative journalist Ann Emerson delves into the reopening of one of America’s most notorious murder cases: the retrial of Alec Murdoch for the murders of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul. The focus is on new developments, including cutting-edge DNA analysis, the defense's strategies, courtroom dynamics, and the introduction of newly appointed Judge Deborah McCaslin. Legal analyst and former South Carolina Attorney General Charlie Condon joins Ann to unpack the procedural first hearing, explore both sides' tactics, and preview what to expect in “Murdoch 2.0.”

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Stage: Murdoch Retrial Announced

• Alec Murdoch is set for retrial on April 5, 2027, with Judge Deborah McCaslin presiding ([00:05]–[00:53]).
• The episode recaps how defense and prosecution teams look largely unchanged from the first trial, with high national attention expected.

2. The “Cleaned” Crime Scene and Lack of Evidence

• Defense Argument: Dick Harpoutlian stresses that little evidence was found, suggesting the crime scene had been “cleaned” ([00:39], [01:19]).
  • Quote:
    • “It's a cleaned scene.” — Charlie Condon ([01:20])
    • “This guy's not a serial killer. He's not, you know, Ted Bundy.” — Dick Harpoutlian ([00:00], [10:09])
• Ann revisits her past interview with Captain Jason Chapman (first responder), highlighting questions around evidence preservation ([00:39]).

3. The Search for DNA and Modern Forensics

• Focus on DNA under Maggie Murdoch’s fingernails as a potential new lead; the defense seeks time to explore with advanced AI and genealogical tools ([01:24], [03:56]).
  • Othram Labs, a specialist in genetic genealogy, is at the center of these hopes, having “cleared 200 cold cases… last year” ([04:20]).
  • Quotes:
    • “In 2026 we are light years ahead... what we're asking for didn't really exist in 2021.” — Dick Harpoutlian ([04:20])
    • “We'll see if that pans out, but that's certainly something to watch.” — Charlie Condon ([04:49])

4. Judge Deborah McCaslin: Tone and Timelines

• McCaslin signals a no-nonsense approach, pushing for transparency and new evidence rather than rehashing old arguments ([05:21]).
  • Sets key deadlines: next motions due August 7 and 14, with trial date firm for April 5, 2027 ([05:21]–[06:08]).
  • Proactive style: she personally contacted the prison warden regarding Murdoch’s laptop access ([07:03]).
    • Quote:
      • “She’s not going to sit back… she’s going to be out there thinking of solutions to getting this case on trial.” — Charlie Condon ([07:28])
• The judge’s stance: this is a “first foray” for her into this saga; she wants a fresh look, not colored by last trial’s proceedings.

5. Procedural Battles: Access, Experts, and Motions

• Laptop dispute: Defense seeks a laptop for Murdoch to review vast discovery; Warden denies request for security reasons ([06:45], [07:03]).
  • Safety concerns for Murdoch, to prevent perceived “special treatment” and possible consequences in prison.
  • Quote:
    • “He will not allow a laptop… for safety reasons.” — Dick Harpoutlian ([07:03])
• Change of Venue: Possible but not yet decided. Anticipated to be resolved by or before next hearings ([10:44]).
• Both sides are preparing with battalions of experts; strong “blocking and tackling” in evidence expected ([13:37]–[14:16]).

6. The Human Element: Murdoch’s Demeanor and Courtroom Tensions

• Murdoch’s Appearance: Looks "a bit hardened" after time in solitary, with a prison haircut and jumpsuit ([08:58]).
  • Notable: He may look “snarky” or “smirking,” possibly affecting jury perceptions ([24:30]).
• Defense Motions: Dramatic discussions about whether Murdoch should be shackled; motion withdrawn and reintroduced in a somewhat disjointed fashion ([19:07]–[20:04]).
  • Quote:
    • “He’s got a very, very strong personality… really strong sense of what should be done and shouldn’t be done.” — Charlie Condon ([20:04])
• Courtroom Fireworks: Defense attorney Harpoutlian makes pointed remarks, at one point comparing prosecutorial tactics to efforts to prejudice the jury ([10:09]).
  • Judge McCaslin keeps tight rein, cutting off bickering between counsel and emphasizing courtroom decorum ([21:43]).

7. Legal Strategies and What’s at Stake

• Defense’s Goal: Not necessarily full exoneration, but perhaps sowing enough doubt to gain a holdout or two on the jury ([17:10]–[17:45]).
• State’s Approach: Rely on “really strong evidentiary matters” from the first trial—e.g., OnStar data, cell phone evidence (particularly the “Snapchat video” placing Murdoch at the scene) ([13:37]).
• Both Sides: Highly prepared, “sharpened” for what’s expected to be a more focused, possibly shorter retrial ([17:10], [22:16]).

8. Financial Crimes: Streamlined in Retrial

• Less of the sensational, more of the facts: The state will likely abbreviate presentation on Murdoch’s alleged financial crimes, streamlining what was previously “a trial within a trial” ([23:12]).
  • Quote:
    • “I think the state can get its pound of flesh, so to speak, on those issues with a very, very abbreviated presentation on financial crimes.” — Charlie Condon ([23:51])

9. Judge McCaslin’s Leadership

• Regarded as fair, efficient, and experienced as a former defense attorney herself; high expectations for clarity and brisk pace ([22:16]).
  • Quote:
    • “Her rulings are going to be crisp… we’re going to work long hours and I think a lot of issues are going to be decided pretrial.” — Charlie Condon ([22:16])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

| Timestamp | Quote | Speaker | |-----------|-------|---------| | [00:00], [10:09] | “This guy’s not a serial killer. He’s not, you know, Ted Bundy.” | Dick Harpoutlian | | [01:20] | “It’s a cleaned scene.” | Charlie Condon | | [04:20] | “In 2026, we are light years ahead… what we're asking for didn't really exist in 2021.” | Dick Harpoutlian | | [07:28] | “Proactivity… is really shining forth. She’s not going to sit back and hear things… she’s going to be out there thinking of solutions to getting this case on trial.” | Charlie Condon (on Judge McCaslin) | | [13:37] | “There’s some really hard, hard evidence against this defendant that the defense is going to have to overcome.” | Charlie Condon | | [19:41] | “Why do you do that? Doesn't that look bad?” | Ann Emerson (on defense revisiting unshackling motion) | | [22:16] | “Her rulings are going to be crisp. We’re going to work long hours and I think a lot of issues are going to be decided pretrial.” | Charlie Condon |

---

Timeline: Important Segments

• Retrial Announcement & Setup: [00:05]–[01:19]
• Discussion of Cleaned Crime Scene: [00:39]–[01:20]
• DNA & Cutting Edge Forensics: [03:56]–[04:49]
• Judge McCaslin Sets the Tone: [05:21]–[07:03]
• Prison Issues & Laptop Dispute: [06:45]–[07:28]
• Murdoch’s Appearance & Impression: [08:58]–[09:43]
• Courtroom Dynamics & Shackling Debate: [10:09]–[11:37], [19:07]–[21:05]
• Key Evidentiary Battles & Preparation: [13:37]–[14:47]
• Streamlining Financial Crimes: [23:12]–[24:30]
• Judge McCaslin’s Reputation & Style: [22:16]

---

Final Thoughts

• Both prosecution and defense are recalibrating their approaches, preparing to leverage emerging forensic science and strategic courtroom maneuvering.
• Judge McCaslin’s leadership and insistence on efficiency signal a significant shift from previous proceedings, with clearer deadlines and a streamlined trial expected.
• The focus on new DNA technology—specifically regarding evidence from under Maggie Murdoch’s fingernails—emerges as a possible game-changer, but its ultimate impact remains to be seen.
• The retrial retains the captivating uncertainty and high stakes of the original, with added intrigue from new legal technologies and court personalities: "Murdoch 2.0" is primed as essential viewing for true crime and legal drama followers.

---

Transcript

[Dick Harpoutlian]

This guy is not a serial killer. He's not, you know, Ted Bundy.

[Ann Emerson]

Hey, everyone, I'm Ann Emerson, and this is Criminally Obsessed. It's the first time we've seen Alec Murdoch in more than two and a half years. And he looks much the same. So does his defense team and the prosecution. So here we go again. Murdoch 2.0, now scheduled for April 5, 2027. Alec Murdoch will stand trial again for the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul, in front of the newly appointed judge, Deborah McCaslin.

[Dick Harpoutlian]

We don't know what we don't know. We don't know what we don't have. We need some period of time.

[Ann Emerson]

If you were watching the livestream with me, did you hear Dick Harpoutlian mention the clean scene? Did it sound familiar? I did an interview with Captain Jason Chapman of the Colleton County Sheriff's Office. He was one of the first on the crime scene.

[Charlie Condon]

And it was primarily circumstantial evidence. But I ask you this. If which we. Alex killed his wife, and Alex killed his son. And Alex did the best job that Alex could do in the amount of time he had to remove all evidence that would link him to that crime scene. Should we have found a bunch of evidence there?

[Dick Harpoutlian]

No.

[Charlie Condon]

It's a cleaned scene.

[Ann Emerson]

Most of today's hearing was procedural because of the lack of evidence found at the crime scene. The defense wants a more thorough investigation into what was found under Maggie's fingernails, and that'll take time.

[Charlie Condon]

This is a bit of a wreck hearing, but that doesn't mean that we are not willing to discuss with the defense. It does look like they want to see if there's any way through AI and the genealogy testing that's out there to see if they can come up with another suspect through the DNA and Maggie and Maggie's fingernail. We'll see if that pans out, but that's certainly something to watch.

[Ann Emerson]

There is so much at stake for both sides in this retrial. I brought in former South Carolina Attorney General Charlie Condon to break it all down. He's worked with or run against attorneys for the defense and the prosecution.

[Charlie Condon]

Of course, anyone who's watched the first trial would think there's so much evidence against them. So how are you going to pull the rabbit out of your hat, so to speak? And they're giving a few rabbits out there, aren't they?

[Ann Emerson]

Be sure to, like, subscribe and turn on your notifications so you don't miss any of our Murdoch coverage. Now, let's get into It. Charlie Condon, thank you so much for joining me. Listening to the evidence going through this first trial, which was now three years ago, and it was a lot of evidence that was presented at the time. And now we're being told there's even more that the defense wants to look at. And that is really the opening volley that I heard today from Dick Harpoutlian was that he was ready. He was really telling us there was a lot more evidence to present.

[Charlie Condon]

Yeah, I think that's a fair comment. I, I did reflect upon. If you think about it, he knew this was going to be covered widely. So he, I think he chose. Chose his. His comments very carefully in the beginning. Although he made it sound as if he was just sort of talking off the cup, I don't believe that. I think he really thought through and they thought through on the defense side. What message do we want to convey initially? And the message they wanted to convey was, of course, reasonable doubt. There's all sorts of evidence out there that we need to look at the things that. That hadn't been done by sled. And there's lots of things going on here that will take time. He talked about six months. And I did think the DNA was really interesting with the development of AI relative to DNA and.

[Ann Emerson]

Oh, completely fascinating. Yes, yes.

[Charlie Condon]

Went through. They went both, I think attorney Griffin and he went through that very thoroughly. And it does look like they want to see if there's any way through AI and the genealogy testing that's out there to see if they can come up with another suspect through the DNA And Maggie and Maggie's fingernail in 2021,

[Dick Harpoutlian]

this genetic genealogy was just on the ground floor in 2026. We are light years ahead. And so what we're asking for didn't really exist in 2021. It does exist today. And OTHRAM is the leading lab that performs this analysis. They did last year on 2024. The statistics are that they cleared 200 cold cases on behalf of law enforcement around the United States and the country.

[Charlie Condon]

We'll see if that pans out, but that's certainly something to watch.

[Ann Emerson]

Yes. I think the DNA was also really interesting as far as how we got to our. Our trial date as well. Okay. So just to set the table for everybody, this hearing, this very first hearing, was a status hearing. Judge Deborah McCasland, this is the first time we've gotten to hear her talk on the Murdoch case. She's very clear that she does not want a bunch of inside baseball conversations that, you know, she's Saying, I don't know anything about this, y'.

[Dick Harpoutlian]

All.

[Ann Emerson]

Like, this is my first foray into the Murdoch. I'm, she's read absolutely everything having said that. But she's, but she's saying, don't be throwing stuff out about like what happened last time because I'm not going on that. I'm going on what I'm hearing right now today. And you know, she's already given us these, these deadlines. You know, she's telling us she wants to see the next motions. August 7th, August 14th, we're going to be back in her courtroom in Lexington county to hear pre trial motions. There will be more from there. And April 5th, she is Camilla High Water is what I said. She wants that trial to start. Is that realistic, Charlie?

[Charlie Condon]

Very. I, I think Mark your calendars. Unless the DNA turns out, hey, we absolutely need a couple more weeks to whatever. I doubt that's going to be the case. April 5th is going to be it. And she showed, I think, a side of her that we didn't have with, with, with Judge Newman in, in this, this respect. She's very, she's very proactive. Calling the warden, she herself took it upon herself to talk to the warden about whether or not he wanted, I assume it's a he. Warden wanted a laptop in the, in, in the prison. You said no,

[Ann Emerson]

this was so that he could look over all of his, all of the discovery and like a half a terabyte they said. Right. So, so what you're, you know, they were, they were trying to get a laptop into his jail cell so that Alec Murdoch could look over all of his discovery. And, and as you just pointed out, she was like, well, I called the warden.

[Dick Harpoutlian]

All right, let me tell both of you. I took the liberty of calling the warden and talking to him about the laptop situation. And because I too used to practice law, I talked to the warden. He will not allow a laptop. He's. And for safety reasons.

[Charlie Condon]

So she's calling up, got information directly from him. And what I heard her say about the warden's comments was that, no, as a policy, I don't want laptops in there. And she made the comment, which I thought was really interesting, that it could be as much for defendant Murdoch's safety as for anything else, meaning that if he got special treatment, he might be subject to some sort of attack or a shank or something happening to him. So I thought, I thought her proactivity, so to speak, if that's a word, is really shining forth. And I think we're Going to see that throughout this entire trial. She's just not going to sit back and hear things. She's going to be out there thinking of solutions to getting this case on trial on by April 5, which I, you know, it's, it does sound like a long way away right now, but it'll be here before we know it. And I think we're going to see all the motions being decided well in advance. We're going to have a roadmap on the financial crimes well in advance. All the experts are going to be lined up. So I think she's going to have a, a trial that possibly I may be too optimistic here that might be shorter than six weeks. We'll see.

[Ann Emerson]

Okay, that's a, that's a good prediction to make because we know how hard those benches are after six weeks. That's, that's a lot. Let's talk about the defendant who walked in. I mean, he was in his own jumpsuit with his, with his sort of clean, not shaven, but just buzz cut hair. What did you think when you, when you saw him? What was your first, first impression?

[Charlie Condon]

I thought he looked really pretty healthy, good haircut, maybe aged a bit. You made the comment, and I think that's accurate, that during the live stream that he looked a bit hardened. I think that is perhaps correct that he does look like he is, you know, looks like a. People that you see that have been in prison for a while. He looked a bit hardened.

[Ann Emerson]

He did. And he's not in, you know, he's not in a, a lax prison system, is he? Can you, can you speak to, I mean, they, they keep it under wraps to some degree, but we do had to deal with a, a great deal of solitary confinement. And he just looked a little, a little hardened. Yeah, yeah.

[Charlie Condon]

And it sounds like he had a couple of run ins there in prison.

[Dick Harpoutlian]

Right?

[Charlie Condon]

He had a couple privileges. I don't know what he did exactly. The other thing that I think is worthy of discussion is that you throughout. There's a little bit of a theme there, particularly when this came up about putting him in shackles. That Creighton Waters was trying to prejudice and remind him of his ethical duties.

[Dick Harpoutlian]

She's not dangerous. He only seems to be stealing money. Chained around the waist, chained with the hands, chained on the feet. I mean, this guy's not a serial killer. He's not, you know, Ted Bundy.

[Charlie Condon]

Of course, Creighton wanted to respond back to that. The judge cut him off basically. But I thought that was a bit surprising where he kind of went after Creighton a little bit in terms of how he's prosecuting the case. And I think. I think Creighton rightfully took some umbrage at that and responded back. And so we may see such fireworks throughout this entire, entire case.

[Ann Emerson]

Yeah, I mean, he even said something to the effect of even though there is this acrimony between us, when they were talking about where this trial will actually take place, which is, of course, another part of what we're trying to decide right now, the change of venue, if there's going to be a change of venue from Colon County. Yeah, that was something that I was listening to too. Dick said something to the effect of the acrimony between us. We can still talk offline, basically, and try and come up with an idea where this going to take place. But he wasn't going to let. He wasn't gonna let Creighton Waters off the hook at the top. You know, he was definitely gonna just, just, just pry in there a little bit. Right. That's all. That's all part of, you know, positioning, isn't it?

[Charlie Condon]

Yeah. Throw him off a little bit. And I think sending out the message, we've got all this evidence to look at that could establish innocence. Of course, anyone who's watched the first trial would think there's so much evidence against them. So how are you going to pull the rabbit out of your hat, so to speak? And they're giving a few rabbits out there, aren't they? The DNA. The crime scene person said that it was a clean crime scene, but things must have been moved around the shell casings under Maggie's body. Her cell phone was missing. We're raising all sorts of questions here early on and in our comments at this. This initial stage.

[Ann Emerson]

Well, and, you know, after a couple of years, Theories that get thrown out all over, all over the place, you know, there is a lot of room for the defense to come in and start obscuring things. Right.

[Charlie Condon]

There is. It's. It was. It's basically a. A really strong circumstantial evidence case, but it's circumstantial at the end of the day. And so what they need to do and what they're trying to do is to show how the circumstances that are there merely raise suspicions, but not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There's another explanation for these things that look bad on. On the. On the face of them, and there's some. As we've talked about a lot, there are a lot of things that look really, really bad for him. Not the least of which is the, is the, is the cell phone video of, you know, that we got from, from, from his, from his son where he's down there at the, at the Camels and he said he wasn't down there. Yeah, well that's a, yeah, it was Snapchat. That's right. That's, that's a tough one. We haven't had any discussions about that yet. And I think, I think that's going to be the, the, the meat of the stage case along with some, some very strong forensic evidence. Towards that end, of course they've said they've got eight experts that I, I suspect are going to be the ones challenging the state's forensic evidence. They wanted to, talked about the OnStar with the GM. That was good evidence for the state. In the end they want to look at that again. So there'll be a bit of a battle the experts going on here and we'll see how, again how that goes. But the direct, the evidence that the state has doesn't go away. The route, it just doesn't go away. It's going to, it's going to surface early on, I'm sure on opening statement and at the trial itself. It's, that's, there's some, there's some really hard, hard evidence against this defendant that the defense is going to have to overcome.

[Ann Emerson]

Jim Griffin, one of Alec, Alec Murdoch's defense attorneys was saying, you know, he's speaking to a very specific lab down in Texas called Othram who we have done multiple stories with because of their unbelievable cutting edge technology and the DNA. You know, I mean they literally have said it's gonna be one day, it's going to be impossible to get away with. Murder is literally like their tagline.

[Charlie Condon]

How interesting is it a private lab down there?

[Ann Emerson]

Sure is. And they are doing extraordinary work. You know, they're not, they're not really overplaying what they've done. These guys are incredible. 200 cases, yeah, I think it's 200 cold cases this year they were able to solve. And you know, basically when there's something that's really, really difficult, that's who they go to because of their proprietary technology. But we don't even know if these, this, the DNA under these fingernails of, of the victim, of Maggie Murdoch are even going to be important. But we're going to spend time looking at it, aren't we?

[Charlie Condon]

Yeah, it sounds like they're going to really get a lot of notoriety from this case and probably a lot more business. It sounds like because it does sound like they've got something to offer the criminal justice system.

[Ann Emerson]

What do you see Charlie is like the next things they're going to be working on. As far as the motions going forward,

[Charlie Condon]

I thought it was good. She kept the dialogue going on almost everything. The laptop I thought was interesting.

[Dick Harpoutlian]

Without the laptop we can't next year. It's ridiculous to require him, not with all due respect, require him to have a memory of each document that he looked at almost five years ago.

[Charlie Condon]

I'm sure that Ordon's going to be Adam about no laptops continually. I don't think you can download on. On the. And you know these prisoners. I didn't have to sort of, sort of chuckle to myself. A lot of lawyers don't have access. It's called Westlaw. It's very expensive to hire that service where you can do research. So apparently for an inmate at the Department of Corrections you get that for free. He being a former lawyer, I'm sure he's researching like crazy all different cases around the country relative to his issues. But I'm thinking that the laptop is gone going forward. I think change of venue. My strong suspicion is there'll be an agreement on that and we'll maybe have that by the next hearing, if not sooner. The these different expert motions things. If I'm on the defense side, if I've got a lot of experts I need to make sure they've got everything and are are good to go. I certainly want to make sure that during one of these pre trial hearings over the next couple of months that I broach that subject because she's not going to entertain something very late on this.

[Ann Emerson]

And that was Dick Harp and talking about like what he wanted to introduce as new evidence or discovery, I guess.

[Charlie Condon]

Yeah, I thought it was clever how he threw out there that people contacted them about information and we sent them to Sled. Something about. You catch there was one person apparently said we connect something to the murder somebody else and we sent them to Sled. I don't know if they looked at that. I thought that was very clever to plant that seed that maybe Sled had such a closed mind they didn't even look at it. So you can. If it didn't go anywhere through. No. If it wasn't investigated you could, you can make head of that. So I'm sure this the state is, is and they had plenty of ears in that courtroom. So they're listening to everything. So I'm sure the state is trying to, to. To head off any Sort of challenges on things that they didn't do. It seemed like both sides were very in command of, of what's going on there. Creighton Waters, I thought, seemed very much confident and in command, as did the defense. Both Dick and Jim seem very confident. So as I said, I think, I think we're going to have a 20 here. I think they're both going to be very sharpened in their presentations and get down to what they need to do to, to, to bring jurors their way. And I think the state is into what I call blocking and tackling the basics of this case. Let's make sure we present that we've got these really strong evidentiary matters going our way and the, and the defense needs to work things through and to find ways to, to cast some reasonable doubt. I, I have a hard time believing the defense actually thinks they can get a not guilty with, with all the jurors agreeing for not all 12, but I, I think they may be optimistic about we can get two or three going our way on some really serious questions. They thought they had that at the last trial. I guess their position is that we did have it, but for the jury tampering, I'm not so sure that's the case. But as I said, I think both sides are, do seem to be headed towards a really well prepared retrial.

[Ann Emerson]

Yeah, that's what it feels like to me too. Charlie, explain this to me. You have a, you have a defense attorney like Dick Harpoulian and Jim Griffin and Phil Barber, who knows what, what is at stake more than anybody else. And in, in the first, you know, put in this motion to have him unshackled. Then they go back and they withdraw this motion to have him unshackled because they're not going to worry about it right now and it's taking too much time. And then in the middle of the thing, they start saying they want him unshackled again,

[Dick Harpoutlian]

right?

[Charlie Condon]

Yeah.

[Ann Emerson]

Like, why do you do that? Doesn't that look bad?

[Charlie Condon]

He almost said that flippantly, like where the, the judge said you're withdrawing it.

[Dick Harpoutlian]

Right.

[Charlie Condon]

Well, do you want to rehear that? Yeah. And so they got right back into it.

[Dick Harpoutlian]

So you've been moving your motion now. Just want to make sure.

[Ann Emerson]

Why do you do that? Like, doesn't that just look disorganized?

[Charlie Condon]

It could be from Alec too. Right. He could be really pumped up on that one particular issue too. Who knows? I mean, he's got a very. I did. Having sat there through six weeks as you did. He's got a very, very strong personality. You could just tell that just by being there. He's got a really, really strong sense of what should be done and shouldn't be done. And it could be coming from him as well. You know, the shackling and being in the orange. I mean, everyone, I would think, on this planet would know at this point in time, who follow this at all. He's been convicted of the double murder. So I think they would have in their own mind that, hey, he's got some issues. Right. Possibly. And so to think that he's being prejudiced that much by being in shackles in an orange jumpsuit ahead of trial, I don't know if, if it really means that much. So I don't think that that's going to go their way in the end. And ironically, by standing him up and parading him around in front of the cameras, they did bring more attention to it, didn't they? I think the public interest in this is probably at the highest right now in terms of pre trial.

[Dick Harpoutlian]

Yeah.

[Charlie Condon]

So we're going to have a couple more pre trials where probably the, the viewership is going to drop off dramatically. So ironically, they, I thought, sort of argued against their own motion by standing him up and making such a big issue. Maybe the, the larger plan would. At that point, they then took it, took a real dig at Creighton, saying that he, of course, needs to or would legally prejudice their client. That's his job, so to speak, to convict him of murder, but not to do this unethically, in effect. And so they did throw that out there. And of course, he got offended and responded back. And Judge McCassen wisely cut both sides off.

[Ann Emerson]

Yeah, he's like, I'm not going to have this in here right now. We're not going there. I think she even said something like that, like, we're not going there right now, guys. I, I just liked what she said. She was like, listen, I was an attorney, too. I, you know, like, I was a criminal defense attorney. And she was, she was, for anybody looking at her record, she was in, you know, she was a criminal defense attorney for many, many years, and now she's a judge, you know, so she knows she'll be a really interesting person to watch. She's obviously well thought of on both sides, too, I thought.

[Charlie Condon]

I agree. I agree. She does have a really good reputation. I think that's why the Chief justice chose her. Not as I fully expected, but I think everyone could see it started off really well. I Think the reviews on her are going to be excellent and I think she'll continue to have really good views and I think as the trial starts, I think her rulings are going to be crisp. We're going to have it move along. We're going to work long hours and I think a lot of issues are going to be decided pretrial so that it will go, I think really quite smoothly. Now, the length, we go back and forth on that, but six weeks was a long time last time. It's possible with all these experts we could go equally as long, but I kind of think not. I also think the financial crimes are going to be really, really pared down so that, that'll take away several weeks right there. Death penalty or not. I think we're probably not going to have a death penalty case. So I think it'll go pretty quickly.

[Ann Emerson]

Well, I was going to say, like, I think, I think they may, you might lose some of the colorful witnesses and the, the anecdotal stories of the wrongs that Alec Murdoch did. Maybe this is my thought, tell me if I'm wrong, but we're going to lose a little bit of that and it's going to be a little bit drier. When it comes to the financial crimes, like put in the financial analys list, put in the people that are looking at the numbers and the forensic financial issues of the crimes. I'm talking about like the, the money he stole, but less about the, the victims maybe. Is that, is that.

[Charlie Condon]

I agree. I mean, the state put it in, you know, to show that, you know, his, his, his motive for what happened, you know, with the, with the office manager confronting him on, on the day of the, about the money being stolen, that'll tie into the financial crime somewhat. And then to show that he's tried to put off the hearing coming up, that's why he committed the murders, to get some sympathy. So you can do all that. I think the state can get its pound of flesh, so to speak, on those issues with a very, very abbreviated presentation on financial crimes. Maybe like a day as opposed to. What was it, a couple weeks, wasn't it, before the first try.

[Ann Emerson]

It was a trial within a trial. I mean it was, that's what we called it. It was the trial within the trial. And you know what? In the end that was not such a great thing to have, I guess because here we are again doing it. But I wonder if his, if his lawyers, if Alec Murdoch's lawyers are going to say anything to him about those smirks. I mean, our comments on YouTube were like, is he. That's snarky, like smirking, like kind of looking over and it could just be the angle that we're looking at Alec Murdock. I'm not saying was smirking, I'm just.

[Charlie Condon]

He looked. Yeah, no, I think I, I think during the trial in Colin county, outside the presence of the jury, he, he said had some of that stuff going on, as I recall. So, yeah, first impressions here are, are, are key. And he, I think he does have a bad first impression going on here today.

[Ann Emerson]

Yeah. Yeah. Well, I, I look forward to speaking with you again. I'm gonna, I'm gonna book you for, for the next pre trial hearing.

[Charlie Condon]

So look forward, my pleasure, to continuing, continuing to, to look at, I guess we can call it maybe Murdoch2O here.

[Ann Emerson]

Yeah, Murdoch2O. Season two of the Murdoch saga. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. Y' all. Drop a comment below. I want to hear what you thought of the first hearing in Murdoch 2.0. And be sure to, like, subscribe and turn on your notifications. I'll be updating this story regularly.