← Criminally Obsessed
Loading summary
Transcript74 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, everyone, I'm Ann Emerson, and this is criminally obsessed. If you thought that the last five years of the Murdoch saga was a circus, well, guess what, it's back in town. Murdoch's retrial for the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul is now
- [00:16]
B
set for April 5, 2027.
- [00:19]
C
I think I jokingly told her a few weeks ago that I would. I would send her a chair and a whip because she is about to become a lion tamer in the three ring circus.
- [00:31]
A
That's South Carolina attorney Joe McCulloch. He's talking about his old friend and colleague, Judge Deborah McCaslin.
- [00:38]
B
She's tasked with overseeing the new trial
- [00:40]
A
and keeping everyone in line.
- [00:43]
C
Mr. Harpur engraves me better.
- [00:45]
D
I don't. Okay, we're not gonna go there.
- [00:49]
A
I wanted Joe's take on what went on in Judge McCaslin's courtroom for the first hearing for the retrial. Joe McCulloch isn't just another South Carolina attorney. He's been right in the middle of the Alec Murdoch saga from the very beginning. He represented the young man, Connor Cook, who was injured in the deadly boat crash that killed Mallory Beach. Paul Murdoch was behind the wheel that night, drunk.
- [01:12]
E
We just crashed in a boat. We have no more missing.
- [01:16]
A
Later, he represented two jurors from Murdoch's first murder trial during the jury tampering fight. A fight that's ended up in the middle of this hearing when Judge McCasling called Joe out by name regarding a motion he filed.
- [01:30]
D
I see Mr. McCullough sitting out there. Just get me an answer on that and we'll decide at the next pretrial end.
- [01:37]
A
So I wanted him to tell me
- [01:38]
B
what's his take on Alec Murdoch.
- [01:40]
A
Now that we have a trial date
- [01:42]
C
set, I think he's very ready to put his lawyer cap back on, even though it is without a law degree.
- [01:50]
B
And we are all ready to see
- [01:51]
A
what the defense has up its sleeve.
- [01:54]
C
In the first trial, we had people traveling from all over the country, some from around the world, sleeping in sleeping bags on the front door of the courthouse to be able to get in because you couldn't buy a ticket, as they say. And I suspect this trial will generate that same kind of interest.
- [02:14]
A
It's a show with a lot of interest. All right. But we can't forget at the center of it, we are all here for the justice for the victims. Maggie and Paul, be sure to like and subscribe. I don't want you to miss any of the updates to this story. Now, let's get into it.
- [02:35]
B
When I first started speaking with you, it was about the Mallory beach death. It was the boat crash that Paul Murdoch was involved with.
- [02:45]
E
We're in a boat crash on Archer Street. Whereabouts on Archer Street? In Archer Street. The only bridge on Archer Street. Are you at the dock? No, we just crashed in a boat. We have someone missing.
- [02:59]
B
You are representing Connor Cook. And why. Why were you representing Connor Cook back then?
- [03:04]
C
Well, I was representing Connor or first hired to represent him by his family at a time when there appeared to be an effort orchestrated by Alec Murdoch to have him blamed as the person driving the boat that caused Mallory's death. When that assignment ended with the successful charging of Paul Murdoch, the family asked me to stay on and to bring lawsuits on their behalf against the Murdoch family and others. And so that absorbed the next two and a half, three years. So quite the sag.
- [03:47]
B
Do you think that that is going to get pulled back up into all of this with this retrial that's going to happen?
- [03:54]
C
Well, the retrial is simply going to keep this story rolling. Unfortunately for everybody, and I think everyone in Hampton County, Colleton, that has been living this thing, this tragedy since the inception from that boat accident, at least all of that and this new trial will dredge all of that up. Conversations start anew. And, yeah, it does, I think, unfortunately, breathe life in the past that a lot of people would like to see shut.
- [04:31]
B
We were, you know, sitting in that courtroom for six weeks as well. You were in that courtroom, I'd say, pretty much every day, Right.
- [04:40]
C
For the first trial, I was there every day. And had I only. I guess, if I was a smarter lawyer, I might have seen six weeks coming. But I don't think anyone could have predicted that. That the judge in that case was going to allow all of that financial evidence that absorbed about two extra weeks. So I think the next. Next trial you see will have either none of that financial evidence or a modest amount, I suspect. So this trial will take considerably less time.
- [05:18]
B
Oh, you think so?
- [05:19]
C
Oh, I absolutely think so.
- [05:21]
B
Okay, well, let's get into it. I want to talk about what you saw today. How was it in there? Tell me what was going on.
- [05:28]
C
There was a. We had a full house in the largest courtroom in the Lexington County Courthouse. I would say one side primarily occupied by press from all over the country, the other side occupied by the public. All sorts of folks who, I guess, watch TV have found this trial interesting. In the. In the first trial, we had people traveling from all over the country, some from around the world. Sleeping in sleeping bags on the front door of the courthouse to be able to, to get in because you, you couldn't buy a ticket, as they say. And I suspect this trial will generate that same kind of interest. Certainly we began to see the early stages of that today. But the, the judge walked in and sat down at exactly 10 o' clock and exactly 10 o' clock an hour and one minute later she was done.
- [06:34]
B
She said, everybody out, I'm done. When you saw Alec, I assume this is the first time you've seen the defendant, Alec Murdoch, in the last two and a half years, am I right?
- [06:44]
C
He looked to be fairly fit and healthy and you know, I've seen people in suffering, the prison incarceration syndrome come out looking a lot worse than he appeared today.
- [07:01]
B
He looked perfectly fit to me. He did look, I'll be honest, you know, just watching him and what's going on, you know, when I interviewed Dick Harpootlian right after this was overturned, these convictions, he said he just didn't believe it. Do you see somebody that believes that he's getting a new trial now? Do you think he's got, he's, he's got his head on this one?
- [07:28]
C
Oh, yeah, I think based on the, there was a lot of discussion today about whether he should have or could have access to a computer, an iPad, so that he could be an active participant in the trial preparation. So I think, I think he's very ready to, to put his lawyer cap back on, even though it is without a law degree. But he has the training and the professional experience, you know, to, to be of help to these lawyers. So he appeared to me to be ready to go.
- [08:03]
B
Do you know Judge McCaslin? Like, have you, have you tried cases in front of her?
- [08:07]
C
I, I do know her. I've known Judge McCaslin for, I don't know, 30, 40 years. So, okay, back when she was a young law clerk. So really I've known her through her law school days, in her young lawyer defense days. And so she comes to the bench as a real skilled lawyer turned judge. So she knows how the system works. And that's why I think you'll see a very different trial, very different dynamics. And I think that the people who were there in the courtroom, people your viewers who saw that on live stream around the country, have now got a sense that this judge is pretty, no nonsense. She walked in already well informed and a list of questions for the lawyers and was quick to say, I don't want to hear from you guys yet. I want you to hear my questions. Let's kind of get me some answers today or begin to get me the answers I need. And it showed her command of the courtroom, which is kind of fun to watch. And I think I jokingly told her a few weeks ago that I would, I would send her a chair and a whip because she was about to become a lion tamer in the three ring circus. And I don't think we're going to see much of a three ring circus here. I think she is going to be very much in charge of her courtroom. And the lawyers got a little testy at one point and she was quick to call them down.
- [09:57]
D
I don't. Okay, we're not going to go there.
- [10:01]
C
And I think you'll see more of that. Trials are, are hot blooded competitions and in the heat of the moment, in the heat of the battle, tempers can flare and, and that's why Judge McCasland has the perfect judicial temperament. She's calm and composed and will bite you.
- [10:23]
B
I say it with a smile on her face. Yep, she's in charge as the, the attorney who's been representing probably one of the most extraordinary people in this whole retrial, Ms. Myra Crosby, Juror 785, also known as the Egg lady, as well as another, another person, Mandy Pierce. Talk to me about how you've seen this evolve. Could you have ever seen where we'd be right now? Is this where you were expecting us to end up?
- [11:05]
C
Well, it's. Nothing about this trial process has been predictable. And of course, the fact that after six weeks of a very long trial with lots of witnesses, lots of expert testimony, lots of questions that went unanswered, it was an amazing surprise to have a jury verdict in three hours. The jury barely had time to settle down in their jury room and suddenly a verdict. So that was one huge surprise. From that point, my involvement with several of the jurors began. And as of course, that led to their support of a motion for a new trial. And once I learned what apparently had taken place, it was a little shocking to me. I've been doing this a long time, many decades, and to have a court official, a court officer intervene in the process really just is another chapter in this very, very strange tale. So I have a motion pending now that was mentioned today by Judge McCaslin.
- [12:28]
B
By name. By name. Mr. McCulloch.
- [12:31]
D
I see Mr. McCullough sitting out there.
- [12:33]
C
Well, she's, she's known me a long time, so you could, I guess, see me sitting out there kind of front and Center. But that is a motion to have the investigations conducted by the Attorney General's office and sled in the jury tampering allegations that clients were primary witnesses in. And I just am hopeful that the judge will release all of that information so that as. So the public can absorb it. I think like so many things, the public is entitled to know the diligence and vigorous nature of that investigation. And I'm still unable to figure out why there was insufficient information to indict or charge Becky Hill, but, but sufficient information for the South Carolina Supreme Court to, to grant and, and throw out two convictions for murder against Ellie Murdaugh. So the, the dichotomy there is one that I intend to follow. And so I'll be arguing a couple weeks with Judge McCaslin.
- [13:51]
B
You know, I put in a FOIA as well, a Freedom of Information act to get the entire Becky Hill case investigation file. When I received that, there was a bunch of stuff left out of my foia. So now the question was, well, what was left out? And it was a lot of stuff, honestly, about the jury tampering. And we're just trying to understand why it was left out. And from what, what's interesting to me, what you're saying right now, is that you're also interested to see what was not in. Included in the, in the case investigation file on Becky Hill, who.
- [14:30]
C
What I'm interested in is what was done to investigate jury tampering, because I'm interested in how that came about. What thing instigated the thought process that led Becky Hill to have conversations with jurors, to have conversations with several members of the jury during a trial when, when that's about as inappropriate activity as one can imagine for a court official to involve themselves in. So I'm interested in the hows and the whys and when it started, why it started, and who all was involved if. If more than Becky Hill.
- [15:16]
B
Well, and also, I mean, there was a one point where Descartian said that Becky pulled Myra into her office and took her to the office and just browbeat her about Murdoch and she convinced, I'll tell you, at the time, convinced Meyer that Murdoch was coming after her. That sounds a lot more nefarious, right? If this was Becky telling her to come in and talk to her and that you have to do this. This. Do you. You know, some people, and this is crazy, but I mean, some people think that Becky was working for Alec Murdoch. You know, some people think, you know, you've heard everything, right?
- [15:57]
C
Well, there have been lots of Rumors. But I don't think anybody believes that Becky Hill was working for Alec Murdoch. She certainly had a funny way of doing that. She got him convicted and it.
- [16:11]
B
Oh, you wouldn't believe the comments we get. We have them all the way across the board. But of course also that Becky had help from the inside. I mean, you know, all kinds of rumor mills and theories. None of these are obviously proven out, but that's because we don't have the investigation file. We don't know what they were looking at.
- [16:30]
C
Well, Becky didn't have help from the inside. She was the inside. She was the ambassadors, the judge's ambassador, the intermediary with the jury. And so she simply got out over her skis in a very real sense. And, and maybe it was curiosity, maybe it's something more nefarious. We'll see. That's part of what makes this inquiry interesting. And it's no less interesting than everything else about this case.
- [17:09]
B
Do you feel like there's any chance that they are going to go for the death penalty with this? Do you, Are you concerned about that?
- [17:15]
C
You didn't hear much about that today and I think that you won't hear much more about that. If there were, if there was a serious interest in that. There is a required death penalty notification, if that were given now, that would likely skew the schedule we just learned of today.
- [17:37]
B
That's absolutely right.
- [17:38]
C
And you know, that would have heard more about today.
- [17:41]
B
She set April 5th is her, is, is that a drop dead deadline? Is that like. No, we're not crossing that line.
- [17:48]
A
You're going to have to really give me something like I think it will
- [17:53]
C
take a significant development, somebody becoming very ill or some expert who can justifiably state that they cannot render their opinion. The DNA perhaps, but I think based on what the defense said and in terms of timetables, how long it would take for this DNA expert to get to get rolling, to get the sampling, which has to be done and it has to be sent under very special, by very special conveyance to protect because it's evidence in, in this chain of custody.
- [18:38]
B
Right, right. And we're talking about the DNA under the Maggie's fingernails. We're talking about the DNA that is some male DNA, but we don't know whose. And we know it's not Alec Murdoch's and we know it's not Paul's according to the work that's been done so far.
- [18:55]
C
Well, we don't know exactly, we know at least those two that it would have been checked against. We don't know what other people it may have been compared to. But we do know that the DNA sample is of a size or a complexity because of some other factors, that it's going to take a very special process and a special laboratory. And the one that the defense has identified evidently has that skill.
- [19:26]
B
I wanted to know your thoughts on the change of venue. I thought it was very interesting that she's having them and they're having offline conversations Right. About where this, where the best place is for this to be to be held. Do you think Lexington county is a high runner in this because of this is where. That's Judge McCaslin's home turf. She lives there, she's comfortable. All these lawyers sort of live in and around this area.
- [19:50]
C
Well, I mean, Lexington, the. I'll vote for Lexington. It's right across the river for me. I think that the consideration of where you place this trial in the state of South Carolina, you know, it may not make any difference from the perspective of. Are you going to be able to find a jury that hasn't heard about this case? No. Is there any place that offers an appropriate sized courthouse, courtrooms, security, jail in proximity, close proximity to the courthouse and. And then of course, there are a whole bunch of offline considerations like hotel space for the throngs. But Lexington, I would say, is probably a contender. It is McCasland's home base and all of the litigants work within 30 minutes of that courthouse. So that's a real possibility. I haven't given much thought to what equation the defense is using, but I would suspect they'd like to have a jury pool of well educated people who will listen, who are not likely to be swayed by passion and horror and sympathy and all that. And the prosecution probably would like a Lexington county because it's a place of known for law enforcement. It's the county in which more death penalty cases have been won.
- [21:32]
B
Are you going to go every day again? Are you going to be there with me?
- [21:37]
C
I'm planning on it. I'm planning on much less than six weeks.
- [21:41]
B
But what's your. As a betting man, As a gambler man? Tell me, what do you think?
- [21:49]
C
Oh, about this outcome.
- [21:52]
B
How long?
- [21:52]
C
Oh, how long? No, I'm. I'm guessing four weeks.
- [21:58]
A
Okay.
- [21:58]
C
That's not an unreasonable time period. I think that, you know, one thing happens in a retrial, as both parties, both the state and the defense said today, we're going to retool. We're looking at everything. We're starting way back at ground zero and we're going to work our way through the witnesses that were presented at trial. We're going to consolidate. We're going to figure out which witnesses were more effective than others. Generally that leads to a much more efficient presentation. That means shorter presentation. And the fact that the defense announced today they have eight potential experts, I would have to, I would say they probably had five in the prior trial that could add some girth and length to this thing. But I still think they can bring it home in three to four weeks.
- [22:57]
B
Well, I look forward to speaking with you about it as we go on. I, I, I look forward to your commentary on this.
- [23:04]
A
Drop a comment below. I want to hear from you. Who would you like me to reach out to before we get to the next pre trial hearing that's scheduled for August 14th? And of course the trial is set for April 5th, 2027. But I expect there'll be a lot going on in between that. So be sure to like subscribe and
- [23:22]
B
turn on your notifications.
- [23:24]
A
I don't want you to miss any of the UPD I'm going to be doing.