← Criminally Obsessed
Criminally Obsessed
These 5 Murdaugh Prosecutors Can't Speak Now — But They Spoke With Us (Part 1)
00:53:26
Loading summary
Transcript133 lines
- [00:00]
A
Welcome to Criminally Obsessed. I'm Ann Emerson. You all have been loving my coverage of Alec Murdoch. I was in court every day of his six week trial and I won a Murrow award for my 60 episode podcast called the Murdoch's Murders. Money and Mystery and my sit downs with Blanca have more than a million views. I've also gotten a number of interviews no one else did. So I'm digging into my archives. I got to sit down with the entire prosecution team for two hours after Alec was sentenced to life for killing his wife Maggie and son Paul. And since no one from the team can talk to me right now, since the South Carolina Supreme Court is currently mulling Murdoch's appeal, as I listened to it, there was more than one point where I said out loud, hindsight is 20 20. Creighton Waters told me from day one he was prepared for an appeal. Did he have a crystal ball like. And subscribe for more exclusive interviews like this one and be sure to leave a five star review. Just remember, this was recorded back in March of 21 more thing before we get started. Not only are you going to hear me ask questions, but also members of my Murdoch coverage team. Welcome everyone. Thank you so much for doing this with us. We are so grateful that you can sit down together and talk about what's going on. And please feel free to if you're whoever. When we direct it to someone, it's because that's who we think wants to answer it. But of course we understand that there could be, you know, so I'm going to let Charlie kick it off.
- [01:37]
B
Hey, I appreciate, thank you all for being here and congratulations on winning the trial of the century. How does it feel?
- [01:47]
C
Amazing. I mean, somewhat vindication because I know that a lot of people just didn't think that this would happen. And I think for me as the Attorney General, I think the biggest compliment I've received is that number of people in this community and in this state who did not think that a conviction was possible. Calls. There were two justice systems and that this office and this team played a role in basically changing people's perceptions of that. And to me, that was vindication.
- [02:14]
D
I think that, you know, it's easy right now. It was hard and now we're a little bit removed from that verdict. It was really kind of hard at first, but it's a little bit easier now. But we have to remember that while we certainly are grateful and feel like we've done a good job, what this is all about was an extremely terrible event. You know, we Always try to focus on that. I think the biggest relief for me, though, was when I heard that guilty verdict was that I didn't put all these folks through a ton of work for. For nothing. And I think we would have been happy with whatever happened. But it certainly is a lot better to be sitting here right now in this sort of situation than.
- [02:52]
A
Than the other extraordinary. I'd like to also just kind of take us back to when, and I think pretty much the beginning of the. When you started to hear about that there could be a prosecution. When did you get this case?
- [03:11]
B
Yeah, that's a good question. Because it's a conflict case, right?
- [03:13]
D
Yeah. So the first two months it was with the local solicitor's office and then General, I think he sent you a letter on August 11.
- [03:22]
C
I have been having conversations with the local solicitor about taking this case early during the summer, but wanted to wait and give sled and local law enforcement in the solicitor's office a chance to evaluate it. You know, I didn't want to just jump in and take something, so I wouldn't give them the opportunity to let this thing kind of unfold naturally and organically. And so from June 7th till, I think around August 11th is when I got the letter and the call from Solicitor Stone. Our office was not involved, but then I got that call from Duffy Stone and then got the letter and then we met with Sled. And then I think a couple of. Couple of days later I. I met with Creighton and we assigned it to him.
- [04:00]
D
Yeah, yeah, I think it was September actually.
- [04:03]
C
Might have been two weeks after.
- [04:04]
D
Yeah, a few weeks. And then, then the side of the road happened. And, you know, our first thought was, okay, there's, there's something, something more to this story.
- [04:13]
A
Creighton Waters is talking about the roadside shooting. Alec Murdoch pulled over because he got a flat tire and he was shot. Turns out he got his cousin Eddie to shoot him so Buster would get a large life insurance payout.
- [04:26]
D
Know that's. We're in the state grand jury room right now and this is, you know, complex investigations is kind of what all these folks do. And, and so we, you know, the first question we had is, what's going on here? And as we started to investigate that in this very room and, and put all that together as well as, you know, Sled, you know, working on that as well as the murders and, and just things started to converge together and
- [04:55]
B
any thought giving it to another solicitor.
- [04:58]
C
I'll take that question. I actually had a number of people come to me early on in this process, and I think they were well intentioned, but they would say things to me like, have you thought about giving this to a solicitor's office? They're better equipped to handle these high profile murder cases. And, you know, this isn't really something that the AG's office does. And I know they meant well, but I really took offense to that. And what you can see in retrospect is that I think this office was perfectly equipped for the level of complexity that this case presented to the world. And I think right now we have put an exclamation point, or I should say we have slammed the door on this idea that the Attorney General's office is not equipped to handle high profile murder cases. In fact, we're the best equipped to do it.
- [05:42]
D
We do high profile stuff all the time. And, you know, I started my career working for Zelenka doing, you know, murder appeals. I was a pellet lawyer to start out with. And well, we do try murder cases here. This is not the first one that we've done. And. But, you know, fundamentally, a trial is a trial, a case is a case. And you know, complexity is something that we're used to. And this situation is obviously unique, like nothing I think any of us will ever see again. But it was something that all these folks, I think, were. Were born to do and excited to do. And we're thankful that, you know, we had the result we have. And we still have a ways to go.
- [06:19]
C
Yeah.
- [06:19]
B
And talk about this a little bit because we're in the state, we're here in the statewide grand jury room in Columbia, South Carolina. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the financial crimes were handled through the statewide grand jury in this room. In this room. But the murder case never didn't go through here because it was a local Collidon county grand jury. Heard that.
- [06:40]
C
Sure.
- [06:40]
D
But I'll say this.
- [06:43]
B
Yeah. Talk. If you could explain maybe the background on the statewide grand jury and how interplay help you with this particular case.
- [06:48]
D
Well, again, these things all relate together. Obviously. I think there's been a lot of talk out there about the financial crimes and all the rest of it, but we don't make the facts, we just uncover the facts. And our goal as we started to look at this, this was, in our opinion, not coincidental. The insane amount of pressures. This, I think I called it a hamster whee. That this man had been living on for the longest time. All these various factors were all converging on June 7th. So let the jury decide. Is that a coincidence or is that relevant when you're trying to answer the ultimate question as to what can motivate a man or cause a man to do this? I think the defense tried to make a little bit more simplistic than what we were saying, that it was just, oh, there's, you know, the boat case and, and the confrontation that morning. That's not what we were saying. We were saying that this guy had been on an exhausting journey of just constant fraud and staying just one step ahead of the game for over a decade. And finally he was running out of time. And guess what? That happened to be the day that his wife and son died.
- [07:54]
C
The analogy I would use, I think if this was a series of movies, this would be a sequel beginning on June 7th. And if you haven't seen the first movie, that provides context for what happened. But that's kind of what we think people wanted. They. They didn't want to hear that. They don't want to see the first movie. They just wanted to see the sequel. But you have to see the first movie to kind of understand the full context of the story narrative.
- [08:18]
B
You think you could have done as well without the statewide grand jury, without the compelled transcript testimony and subpoena power of the statewide grand jury?
- [08:27]
D
Well, we didn't have to. I mean, it certainly makes it easier to gather records and bank records and that sort of thing. But, you know, we didn't. You know, while we can subpoena, compel testimony and we do subpoena people, I will say that initially, people were. Even after the side of the road, people were very reluctant. And I think that's very telling about the situation that existed down there in this particular, you know, the prestige and the power of this family. And I had a number of conversations with people saying, I can't tell this story without you, but I also can't promise you anonymity. You know, I mean, and so we had to have that conversation a few times, and people were reluctant because they didn't want to take on this particular family. But I had to sit down and say, look, you're not going to be alone. But I also don't want to promise you an anonymity that will not last. And so I need you to tell your story and, and to do that. Now, I want to be clear, you know, the financial crimes have not been resolved yet. Alec is presumed innocent of those, and he's entitled to a fair trial. And so while a lot of that came up in the murder trial. And so, you know, it's certainly something that we can talk about. Those crimes remain to be, you know, resolved and everyone is presumed innocent until they have that trial.
- [09:40]
A
But Alec didn't go to trial for his financial crimes. Instead, he opted to plead guilty to 22 financial crimes. He was sentenced to 40 years in federal prison for stealing $11 million.
- [09:51]
B
Now, you've got terrific team of prosecutors assembled here. How did you allocate duties, responsibilities, and maybe they could speak to that from their perspective.
- [10:03]
C
Let me start, and then I'll hand it to Creighton, because he's the one that actually built the team within the state grand jury. The analogy, I don't know if you remember the analogy I used, and I told Creighton this, I said, the way I, the way I run this office is I would, if this were World War II, in this case, where the storming of the beaches in Normandy, I would be FDR and he would be Eisenhower. Right. And so I have, I had the general idea of that, you know, we need to move forward on this case. I approved it. I signed off on the indictments, and then I signed my general here down the grand jury to move forward. And it was during that process of the investigation, as it started to snowball, as the financial crimes became more and more complex and went back further and further and further and things got bigger and bigger and bigger, the need to start handing out assignments. And all of a sudden he went from, I think he started off with just you and another attorney, and then it went to three and then started to snowball.
- [10:53]
D
I kept telling to him, I said, I need the whole team and done and done. And here's the thing, and I sat down with all these folks and of course, everybody involved is not in this. And I want to be clear about that. Everybody. And you saw them all, they all had a huge role and you saw them all shine. You saw some people taking their first at bat in the World Series and they, they laced a, you know, base in, in the center field, and it was really amazing. But I also sat down with everybody early on and I said, everyone is going to have a role in this. Everyone is going to, you know, have a piece of this. And, you know, everybody's going to have ownership of this. And, you know, first of all, that, that ownership. And I think you saw it, you saw it in everyone here. You saw it in the, in the, in the people who are not here. You saw it in the staff members who just such, did such an amazing job. Everybody's going to have a role of this. And so I just gave different people a particular role in this. And first of all, that was the only way, I think, for us to be successful because you saw what amazing work that everybody did when they had ownership of whatever it was. But more importantly, that was the only way I was going to survive because there's. There's no way that, you know, that I could have done it without. All these folks are. And the general provided amazing support.
- [12:06]
E
When you guys are having your, like, your post meetings, your. Your debriefs, all things like that. When you're sending your shout outs or kudos. What are some specific. What are some specific things that you're saying about Savannah, about David, about John, where. Where they really excelled, what they did a really good job of to bring this case home for you?
- [12:27]
D
Well, Savannah is, and I say this and is a pit bull. I mean, she absolutely. And maybe that's not. But
- [12:37]
C
we can edit that out.
- [12:40]
D
And so, you know, obviously this crime scene, that was the role to her. And, and she's such a hard worker. And, you know, that, that really was huge for me to have her doing that. You know, David Fernandez is my number two in the state grand jury section. He is probably, you know, the most important ear that I have and the most important voice in my ear. And so he was always, you know, just the person that I needed to. And then, of course, did amazing work. And, you know, his cross examination of Sutton was just amazing. And I don't think anybody could have done a better job. John Conrad, who is a former Marine aviator, a wizzo, he likes to call himself Goose. Well, he doesn't call himself Goose, but if, you know the movie Top Gun, he's. He's the guy. But, you know, he's got that technical expertise. And obviously he immediately did. Just did such a great job of that timeline. Timeline and their phone have it as well. And Rudolfsky, you know, authored that timeline, but with John's, you know, heavy input and supervision. And he did an amazing job of that. Johnny James is, you know, my white collar guru, and he and Carson just did such an amazing job in putting all that stuff together. The exonerate superstar here who I've known for many, many years. And I actually, when I started my appellate career, that's when I first met John. He had a couple of big cases that I was fortunate enough to, to handle the appeals on. And, and that's how, you know, we got to know each other and reconnected as we do every year at the annual prosecutors conference. And we had Been, you know, we've been considering some other, you know, some people, you know, to, to, you know, because we knew that this was going to be a really heavy lift and having somebody like John, well, was going to be clutch. You know, the way we put it is, is that if you're making a run to the World Series, I use a lot of sports analogies and there's a free agent bat out there. You go get them. And John certainly.
- [14:37]
C
So let me interject, since you're using sports analogies. So John came late to the game and so I went to the transfer portal, got a five star. But, but, but a lot of people thought that he was brought on for this case.
- [14:49]
B
Yeah, tell them about that.
- [14:50]
C
This, this is a five star recruit. I've been trying to bring him into my program for years. It just, the timing wasn't right before and I think it was early fall. We, in fact, you and Don and the Chief deputy Jeff Young were in the office and we were talking. I'm like, guys, we weren't even talking about bringing in an attorney for the Murdoch case. We were just talking about what can we do to plus up the prosecution section. And I said, what about John Meadows? And Creighton was like, man, we were just at the solicitors conference and we started talking. I'm like, you know, we talked years ago. But John's just a five star. Everyone knows him. He's great. I think he could really, he could really round out our team, not just in the grand jury, but the whole prosecution division. And so I reached out to him and over a couple of conversations, you know, he was pursuing other ventures at the time and we were able to bring him on. And then Crate and I started talking. You know, Crane would be like, we could probably use him on the Murdoch case. It would be stupid not to use him on the Murdoch case. And I said, listen, if you want him and he's here, we'll plug him in. And he really. You didn't even get here until December?
- [15:48]
F
Yes.
- [15:49]
C
So he came in really late in the process and called up and that's a testament to his ability.
- [15:53]
B
How'd you get, how did you get ready so quickly, John?
- [15:56]
F
Well, first of all, I want to thank everybody here for letting me be a part of this wonderful team. And I truly mean that this, it was an honor, timings, everything, and I was just fortunate enough to be in the right place.
- [16:09]
D
Thank all of, I mean,
- [16:13]
C
work hard, read.
- [16:14]
F
But these folks here have done some great summaries. As Creighton said, the support Staff, the investigators just were up on it, and they helped bring me up to date, and all that really helped. But justice was served in this case, and it really was an honor to be a part of it.
- [16:33]
D
John, we were talking the other day when we were at the prosecutor's conference, and he and I were hanging out, as you do at the conference, and he said, well, I wasn't even thinking about this case and them being involved. And I said, well, I was.
- [16:47]
B
Was there a moment. To me, the key. I remember reading about the murder indictment, was that a key moment where you decided, like, okay, we have evidence here, to go forward with the serious charge against this prominent attorney. Tell me. Tell me about that.
- [17:00]
C
Well, it was actually in this room sled, obviously. I think the video, the kennel video was found in April, like two months earlier. And we. I was aware of it, but I don't think I saw it until early July of last year. And it was a couple of us. You were there. Sled came over. Chief Keel was here, and they basically did a presentation up into the critical decision point to say, okay, this is what we think we have, and this is where this is our theory of the case. At this time, I actually did a
- [17:29]
D
40 slide PowerPoint in this room as we made that final decision. That's right. I actually sanitized a good bed, which was one of the PowerPoints during the closing argument. But it was right up there on that screen as we shot. I went through all of that and presented it to the command staff and. And the command staff were sled. And at that point, you know, the David Owen, the PACE agent, and the other agents involved, and I. And we were like, you know, hey, bosses, we think it's time to go.
- [17:55]
B
Wow, Great.
- [17:56]
C
It was a great. His PowerPoint slide, if I'm the jury, he convinced me of that PowerPoint slide. And again, the slide included the entire trilogy, right? Included the prequel and the sequel. It included all of it. And it kind of framed the issue for me, which gave me a level of comfort that I can put my name on this.
- [18:12]
G
So you may.
- [18:13]
B
You made the decision, General on. On that day.
- [18:15]
C
I did. I made that decision. Wow.
- [18:17]
B
Well, congrats. Definitely. What was I thinking about not pursuing?
- [18:23]
C
Well, I'll go ahead and, you know, Creighton and I have had a lot of conversations. Our senior team had a lot of conversations about it, and there's a lot of factors that go into making decision to go on the death penalty. Obviously, you got to consider the complexity of the crime. Obviously, I don't distinguish between circumstantial or direct evidence. They're just as equally important and helpful in making a decision on what happen. But, you know, this is a heavily circumstantial case. You also had the efficacy of the death penalty. Obviously, I don't think there's been a death penalty carried out in South Carolina in about 11 or 12 years. Someone could be on death row for 20, 25 years or more. I'm a supporter of the death penalty, but you also have to look at the individual and sometimes life without parole is a worse crime or worse punishment rather for an individual than the death penalty would be. And also, you know, we wanted to be, I think the one thing. And Creighton stressed this. I'll give Creighton, he said, you know, general, we have a family here and this is a very unique case and the fam. We have to be careful. And we obviously understand that this is a family that is both a victim of this horrible, horrific double murder and all that Alec Murdoch did in the, in the years leading up, they were, they were left in the wake as well. But also they were, you know, they were sitting behind Alec and a number of them were very supportive. And again, when you're considering the death penalty, asking for the state to take someone's life, you have to factor in victim impact. And so that was also weighing in my mind, I don't know if you want to.
- [19:43]
D
Yeah, I mean, you know, you're talking about a six week trial. It's already an extremely complex trial. You had the death penalty to it. And we're talking about maybe a 12 week trial and you're, and you're really adding in a level of complexity to it that, that, you know, in the end, you know, didn't seem to be, you know, the way that we needed to go. You know, also, again, as he said, the efficacy of the penalty, I mean, you're Talking about probably 20 years at best before, you know, that would. The call stared on. The cost is extreme. The resources have to go into that. You know, we wanted to try this case in Collison County. I'm a firm believer that, you know, a lot of people ask why didn't you try to change it in you. I'm a firm believer in it, you know, let the community where this happened have their voice on it. And. But when you add, you know, capital jury selection to that, that's, that's a whole level and you know, obviously you go into this, we know how much notoriety was, you know, picking a fair jury is a huge thing. And adding the death penalty aspect to that just seemed to be taking what was going to be a difficult task and making it even harder because there's a whole level of additional jury questions and selection that goes into that. So ultimately, you know, the best way to go was to make sure that he never left prison again. And, you know, he's a 50 year old man now in SCDC and I think that that's superbility for him.
- [21:10]
B
Quick question. Were you surprised Judge Newman, was it a surprise that all the financial crimes were admissible or admitted by him to prove motive? Was that expected or surprised or.
- [21:21]
D
I don't think so. Yeah, we didn't have to, but we filed a motion early on and said this is what we're going to do. We let the defense know and we let the judge know. And Judge Newman is obviously an amazing judge. And you, you heard his ruling. He carefully considered it. This is a unique situation. It's just a very unique situation. And again, when you look at all the financial crimes, you can't really tell the story of the boat case or the Ferris fees without backing up and understanding, well, why is that important? Why is this such a risk to him? And then you go back a year or two and then, well, you can't tell that without telling the Satterfield story. And, well, you can't really tell why the Satterfield story was important without going back to all the previous victims. So there was really no way to tell that whole story. And for the jury to really understand the context of all that without telling the whole story, this is a unique situation and a unique individual. And you know, I think the judge considered all that very carefully and rightly ruled that the jury needed to understand who this man was. I think that's, that's important to understand. What could answer what is really a fundamental question is, is that what could have led what we thought about this man to get to where he was on June 7th?
- [22:33]
A
I've got to stop right here because this is one of the two reasons that the South Carolina State Supreme Court granted Alec Murdoch's appeal for his double murder conviction. During oral arguments in February, Justice John Cannon few lectured Creighton Waters for taking so much time and effort on Alex financial crimes when the trial was for the murders of Paula Maggie.
- [22:56]
D
If you had condensed your theory of motive, right, the whole Gathering Storm thing down to the essentials and left out all the stuff that, that the Chief justice and Justice James were talking about, you could have done that in about an hour and a half or two hours. You took 12 and a half hours to do it.
- [23:12]
C
When we prosecute these cases, the state, this is a game of poker. We play with an open hand. Obviously, you know, our personal interpersonal trial strategies might be. We keep to ourselves, but we don't hide that. We let. We let you see our cards. And I thought the judge, who, in my opinion is the gold standard of judges, he was so methodical, so judicious, so careful. He let both sides. He would remove the jury when necessary so that both sides could air out. We would, obviously, when we felt that the. The defense had opened the door to. To, you know, information that the jury would not otherwise be allowed to hear, the judge would send the jury out and he would hear both sides, and he would, you know, we would make our legal arguments, factual arguments. He would weigh it carefully, and then he'd put on the record why he decided that based on previous court decisions. So we feel like the record has been sufficiently protected and the judge allowed things to play out the way they were supposed to.
- [24:02]
D
We, I mean, I know it seemed like a lot, and everybody has. Remember, we did those in camera hearings. So people watching the trial are like, God, I keep doing this. Well, the jury did hear it the first time. And if you saw even where I. When we put in some of that evidence, when the judge ruled it admissible, you know, it wasn't as much detail as. As we'd even done in camera. And really, it wasn't as much detail as. As it could have been. And we, I don't want to say we pulled punches, but we. We were trying to walk a fine line of showing what was necessary for the jury to understand the full situation, but not, you know, as the phrase I used was gilding the lily, which is a phrase I learned in royal argument in front of a Chief justice, former Chief Justice Jing Tsul, who was a great mentor for me. You know, what better way to grow as a lawyer than have to do oral arguments in front of her and that entire bench? And so that was a phrase I learned. And so we're trying to walk that line where we adequately explain it to the jury in a summary fashion without going too far. And that's what we try.
- [25:01]
C
I do want to say something, because there was a lot of criticism because people were watching this like it was a reality TV show, and we were living it as if it was a trial. And sometimes the sausage making, you know, people want to have this trial delivered like a bacon cheeseburger. They don't want to see the cow and the pig butchered in the process. It's a. It's a messy process to make a bacon cheeseburger. Well, we had to. They had to see all of that to get to the end product. And there were days where they were probably wondering, why is this relevant or is this necessary or is it too much? Or as Creighton just said, we just heard this. Of course, they didn't realize the jury was not in the room when they heard it the first time. The judge had to make a determination whether the information could be let in. So there were days when it was boring and it was tedious and it was monotonous, but we have to put that in in order to make our final arguments. And also, we don't know what's important to the jury until we. We do now, having heard them do interviews. But when you're presenting the case, we don't know what is and what is not important. We know what we think is important and what we need to do to be able to tell the story. The jurors latch on to different things and different things are important to them. So we didn't have. The last thing we wanted to do or not have done is not put information in. And then all of a sudden have the defense say, you know, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, they didn't put in such and such and therefore their case is flawed and make that argument. And then have the jurors said, well, if we had heard such and such, then we might have ruled differently. We didn't want to. Once they get the case, the die is cast. And so we had to put this information in. And I think Creighton and everyone sitting up here, and those aren't sitting up here, did an amazing job putting it in there.
- [26:34]
E
You had to tell us how to make the watch before you could tell us what time it was to an extent, but still dealing with that. And I think you've addressed this a little bit. Trepidation, nervousness, and you feel confident. I have to feel like you all felt competent to an extent in the evidence that you had collected in the case you were presenting. But it also felt like a lot of dominoes had to fall to get what you were after with the Saturn, with the boat, with the. The 0, United, the red beer, all this, all this contextual stuff. What was what, what was that feeling like for, for you all throughout the trial is, you know, these in camera hearings are coming. You know it's going to be decided. Is it a butterflies moment coming Up. Tell me about that, Savannah.
- [27:26]
A
Oh, we're definitely gonna hit you guys up, too. For sure. We're just getting you out the door before you.
- [27:31]
C
I felt like we're stealing shows, and I want to make sure that you heard.
- [27:34]
A
Yeah, no, no, I know. They're gonna. They're gonna get. Okay, but I didn't want you to.
- [27:38]
B
Yeah, they want. I tell you one. One thing. You have to leave now.
- [27:41]
C
I've got a few minutes. She's bought me a few minutes, but I am getting close.
- [27:45]
B
Further one for you, but go ahead. Sure.
- [27:47]
E
Just start with you. But just was there. Was there those. The trepidation, the. The unknowns of going into the. Each of those rulings from Judge Newman and knowing you needed those proverbial domos to fall?
- [28:01]
D
Well, I think that the first thing you have to do, and I use a lot of sports analogies, is, you know, we know that, you know, we call this a Super bowl, and, you know, you have to prepare. And you also know that there's things you can't control. You know, the other team's not gonna just let you score touchdowns. They're gonna make their plays, too. You're gonna have days where you have an interception or a fumble. And. And also, as I said before, we don't make the facts. We just deliver the facts. And so you go in there and, you know, I try to put all that out of my mind. You know, they say, you know, we're a quarterback. If you throw an interception, what's the first thing we do? Just forget about it and go back out there. And so, you know, I didn't dwell on that too much. You know, I could tell you that every single day, you know, particularly sitting in that first chair when, you know, every decision comes to you, you know, there was never a moment of rest. I mean, and so, you know, you hourly, you know, have to be confident, but, you know, you're. You're under an extreme amount of stress from the moment the judge says, bring the jury until my favorite words of the day was, we'll be in recess. And then, you know, you have 30 minutes or 40 minutes to go back to the hotel room and, you know, kind of clear your head, and then you're back to work until midnight, and then you're up again. So you can't concentrate too much on things like that. All you can do is go in every single day and present the evidence and just have confidence that. That your point will get across. And that's what we tried to do.
- [29:30]
G
And if I could Add to that, I think it's a testament to the team credit you put together, too, because we were prepared for every eventuality. So if the judge depended on his ruling, we were prepared to go forward one way, we're prepared for go forward the other way. The case would not have been disrupted had the judge made a ruling that was against us because we would have just adapted and continued on with presenting. You know, we'd modify our case as needed. But Creighton was making all these decisions. Obviously, we made, I think, a very effective argument as to why we think that evidence should be admitted. But had it not been admitted, we would have marched forward with pretty strong case and adapted. And that's a testament to Creighton. We mapped out every possible, you know, every possibility.
- [30:19]
B
So not on a financial crime. Still pending, thinking about three strikes. You're in life without parole for Alec Murdock.
- [30:27]
C
Oh, yeah. Yes, yes, 100%.
- [30:30]
D
You know, the. The legislature has defined Rachel trust over 10,000 as a strike, and they made that decision. You know, we don't make the laws either. We, we, you know, enforce the laws and apply those laws. And, you know, it's hard to conceive of the situation that if Breach of trust over 10,000 is a strike, what other situation would it be more appropriate to use those strikes than this individual? And that has nothing to do with the murders. We're talking about somebody who allegedly has abused the trust that comes with that deployment and that certificate on the wall that we all have and did so in a way that is unparalleled, allegedly. And again, those remain to be determined. But I think. But based on this situation, again, what other situation would there be, aside from the murders, where someone deserves seeking those strikes? And that's what we intend to do. Again, I always have to be very clear. He's presumed innocent of those and entitled to a fair trial. But we plan to aggressively pursue those under the general's leadership.
- [31:35]
C
And again, echoing what Creighton said, presumption of innocence. But. But I believe that every victim of every crime deserves to have their day in court, regardless of where the defendant is. Because a lot of people say, well, he's in prison for life. You've got him, so why are you going to waste our time? Well, that's irre. He is irrelevant to their lives or their family's lives. So they deserve their day in court. And we're going to pursue every case that involves every other victim. They get their shot, they get their day in court. And again, as a matter of strategy, we expect that the appeal. We're going to defend the appeal. We expect him to be in prison for the rest of his life. But I would love to have that extra layer of, of, you know, basically to kind of insulate, you know, appeal proof, this thing.
- [32:19]
A
But now they're in the middle of the appeal, and we're waiting for South Carolina's Supreme Court justices to come back with a decision. Will they let Alec Murdoch's double murder conviction stand or will it be overturned? No timeline has been given for a decision.
- [32:33]
C
We definitely want him just, you know, put him up on those charges for those, for those various reasons.
- [32:39]
A
What are the three cases? Which three cases are you going to go for the three strikes. So they all go. They go in that.
- [32:48]
D
Well, so the way it's indicted is, you know, the indictments are broken up in the various counties. As you know, in South Carolina, again, you have to venue the case in the county where, you know, there's a connection. But those indictments are generally broken up by the various victims. You know, there's multiple charges related to each one. And so each one of those is its own thing. And as the general said, those cases have their own, own importance and validity and their own alleged victims. And those, those need to and will be addressed, every single one of them,
- [33:18]
C
in, in the order they come in as a function of logistics and availability of the attorneys involved. And so we'll, we'll let that play out. We. We don't know yet.
- [33:26]
A
Again, Alec Murdoch pleaded guilty to his financial crimes and has been sentenced. We, we had just spoken with the trooper Tony Moore, in an interview, and I know that he was specifically like, because he, he also was at the bond hearing as one of the victims speaking to keep Alan Murdoch and back in jail back in, what, over a year ago when, when he first was up for that. And that was really interesting to me. He was like, absolutely, I would testify if I was called for as a witness. I mean, he even told us he wants to. He was like, I really want them to.
- [34:06]
D
Yes. As I said before, that was interesting because when we first started doing that, I think we had our first indictment in October, November of 2021. And actually at the time, because of COVID we were not doing grand jury in this room, state grand jury. We were doing. And again, there's a distinction between state grand jury and county grand jury. Those are two very, very different processes. But we're actually doing it at the convention center down the road so we could have social business items. So we, we were down there so that's actually where the initial investigation and entanglements were done down there, like I said before. I mean, initially. And, you know, you saw how we indicted it. We would indict, we would work on some, and when we felt those were ready, we would present those to the grand jurors, and then they would indict, and then we'd go on to the next one and keep going. It was just too much. It was just too much to do all at once. And so ultimately, though, there was, like I said before, a lot of trepidation from people who just were not convinced that anything would ever happen. And I had those conversations. I had conversations in this room with DK right here.
- [35:10]
B
Well, maybe we should ask before FDR goes, if you let me.
- [35:13]
C
I probably should. Shouldn't compare myself to fdr, but it's a battle. But. But the whole point is, what I was trying to do is to say, I know I'm the boss of the office, but I have. I have, you know, generals and colonels and lieutenants and such, and I have to trust them to be able to do their jobs. And the men and women sitting up here with me and the others who aren't here, I trust implicitly, and I trust this man. That's why I signed this case to him. And so I said, listen, I understand what my role is and understand my authority, but I have delegated that authority to you, and I'm not going to take it back.
- [35:43]
B
Dr. Ken Kinsey. And it's like a key.
- [35:47]
C
I'd like.
- [35:47]
B
It is. It is a key, critical moment in the State vs. Alec Murdoch in the Attorney General of South Carolina stands up for this rebuttal, direct examination of this key witness. I don't know if you know this or not, but there were several spectators in the courtroom that took real notice of the active role that the Attorney General is now playing. What went into that decision to go center stage in the most critical moment or one of the most critical moments and one of the most critical trials in the history of South Carolina.
- [36:20]
C
So I don't want to overplay that, because I think there were lots of critical things that the people up here brought to the case that made the difference. I will say this. I made for great feeder that the last case or the last witness in the state's rebuttal case was. Was done by me. That wasn't planned that way. You know, I had been there first off, I want to go back and say, wow, I was there to begin with. I came down. I think I Got there. I had had conflicts the first week. I couldn't be there for the jury of Wadir and all of that and the openings, but there for the last five weeks. And the reason I chose to be there is a couple of reasons. This is high stakes game here. This is a high stakes trial. The eyes of the world were watching the offices under a microscope. I had 1000% faith in the team going down there. But I knew that if things didn't go well, they were putting their necks out on the line. And I said, they need to see me putting my neck out on the line with them. So I was going to put myself there and I was going down to not be the attorney general, to be another staff attorney and to be a support attorney to help the team out and also to say, hey, I'm going to put myself out there with you. These folks are staying away from their families for six weeks. Real life is happening back home. Kids are getting sick, you know, loved ones are getting injured, you know. You know, my wife was going through an ordeal at the time. They're going to be away from their families. I'm going to be away from my family. They're going to live in a hotel dorm room lifestyle for, you know, we didn't know it'd be six weeks, but they're going to be there for a month plus I'm going to be there with them. As the case started to unpack itself, I went to Creighton because I knew Creighton was really pulling, you know, he was bandwidth is at his ends. And I went to him and I said, hey, listen, I'm happy to continue being a support staff. I'm happy to continue sitting there and passing notes and doing research and giving ideas out. But if you want me to take a witness, if you want me to help out. I used to be a prosecutor, you know, I used to do this and I enjoyed it.
- [38:14]
D
It.
- [38:14]
C
And so he says, well, if the opportunity presents itself, you will. And then I think the weekend before, we didn't even plan it to be the last witness. I went to him, I say, listen, and I want to give credit to David Fernandez and Creighton Waters. Creighton took Kenny Kinsey in the state's chief case. And David is the one that did the cross on the defense expert that came up with those preposterous and ridiculous theories that the bandits were 52 to 54 and that there were two of them. And so what I did is I was obviously there. I took copious notes for both his Direct of Kenny and his cross of this, the defenses expert and took very detailed notes and went back and re watched their examinations and sat down with Kenny Kinsey and was able to come up with the idea of how we would tear apart the defense's theory and do that. You know, do the gun in the doorway.
- [39:01]
A
Here is part of that cross examination of Dr. Kenny Kenzie.
- [39:05]
C
Can a 6 foot 4 person in a 5 foot 4 person still shoot the same angle just at different distances?
- [39:12]
H
Absolutely.
- [39:13]
C
Can you demonstrate for the jury why that is one way that this could have changed their map?
- [39:18]
H
I can. Here I'm even over 7 foot and I've still got the same angle. I have just added a little bit
- [39:23]
D
of distance to it.
- [39:25]
H
And as far as the quail pin angle, I'm 21 inches from the floor to my knee.
- [39:33]
C
I measured it.
- [39:34]
H
I believe it was testified that the defendant is 25 inches between the floor and his knee. So there's 4 1/2 to 5 inches difference in our heights here. I'm probably at 410 if I'm shouldering this weapon and I don't know the mechanics or how it got this way. I'm just saying it's possible here I'm at 39, 38 for some change or I can even take it lower or higher. And please don't ask me to demonstrate that flight because I don't think my knees can do it again.
- [40:05]
C
I think I heard him cry.
- [40:06]
D
Yeah.
- [40:08]
C
What is your opinion of the defense's expert that says the shooter could not have been 6ft 4 inches tall like the defendant, Alec Murdoch?
- [40:19]
H
I think that's a flawed opinion.
- [40:23]
C
Could it have been a success foot four person?
- [40:25]
H
It could have been a 5, 4, 6, 4 or in my opinion, a 74, as I just demonstrated.
- [40:31]
C
And so it was just building blocks that they laid down for me. And again, it wasn't. My daughter was in the audience, but I didn't know that she was going to be there the day that I was going to take the witness. So it. It was all. It made good theater, but it wasn't planned that way.
- [40:42]
F
I wrote a little sticky to him when he got through and I said, you go ag.
- [40:47]
G
Hey.
- [40:47]
F
It was great.
- [40:48]
D
I have to give him a lot of credit. He was down there, but he never attempted to, you know, take over the room or anything like that. I got to joke. I got to be the boss of the boss for a while. I know that there were decisions that we debated and I went probably a different way than. Than he would have. But you Know, that's a testament, I think, to his leadership in that role. As we moved into that last weekend, you know, he had been so focused on that. He had been talking to, you know, Dr. Kinsey a lot, who's just, you know, an amazing, amazing witness, amazing person. And, you know, we were coming off the cross of alec. All of us were at the end of six weeks, just exhausted. And the AG was laser focused on that. And he came to me and said, hey man, I'll take him if you want. And that seemed to be the right decision because again, I knew I've worked for this man for a long time. And one of the things that's great about that is that he has experience in this office. He has experience as a line level prosecutor in a solicitor's office. Joan Condon, you were solicitor as well. Well, and so, you know, we had a lot of confidence and he was so focused on that and you saw how well he did. So it, you know, that was, you know, I'm sure I made a lot of wrong decisions along the way, but that was one of the right decisions and letting him handle that, that last witness. And it went really well.
- [42:06]
C
And again, I thought it was helpful for the jury to hear a different voice. I mean, at the end of a very long trial, they've heard of from all of these people. You've heard from the same attorneys over and over and over, and they were doing a great job. But I think anytime you hear a new face, see a new face and a new voice voice, people kind of sit up and say, okay, what's this person about? How, what's their presentation style? And I thought it would be helpful to have a different face. And the, the one thing I was concerned about, obviously, is that as the elected Attorney General of the state, you know, the last thing I want to do is have anyone hold their views of me as an individual against them. They're not political people. They, they are, they're career prosecutors who just want to seek the truth and just want to do justice. And so I was very cognizant. And he and I talked about it. We didn't want to do anything that would distract from the case, which is why I kept it more muted position and let them do their jobs. But it worked out and I was glad to be part of it. And I had a lot of fun and it reminded me of why I love being a prosecutor.
- [42:57]
D
Yeah, I mean, we were, we were, obviously we talked about a lot of those issues, but, and that's a, you know, that's a huge risk to an elected to get in there because again, you know, they, you know, I, I've always joked with the general and I, you know, don't want to over overstate or use an analogy, but, you know, generals have lieutenants. You know, we're the ones that, that do that sort of thing. So there, there was a big risk for that. But, I mean, he just, he just. Absolutely.
- [43:21]
C
But thanks, boss.
- [43:23]
D
Yeah, those days are gone there. Yes, they are. But anyway, no, it's, you know, there's, there was that. But I think the thing was, was that as we talk about those issues, you know, it wasn't like he was just going to parachute in. We, we didn't think, you know, why it was such a huge moment. Like you just said, when he stood up and go, like, wow, the Attorney General was going to do one. But he had been here the whole time or the majority of the time. And so, you know, it, you know, it seemed like that there would not be some sort of negative reaction to the Attorney General doing that because he was part of the team. And clearly the jury had seen him be part of the team the entire trial.
- [44:04]
F
And he may not want to disclose this, but really the secret to his success, I brought him a little thing of Jif every morning. Peanut butter.
- [44:10]
C
It was a peanut butter.
- [44:11]
F
The peanut butter.
- [44:12]
D
Yeah, we're doing a lot of plugs here. Yeah.
- [44:15]
C
So he gets kind bars. Jif, peanut butter. But I will tell you, you know, this is kind of behind the scenes for people. It was very interesting when you were packed in a courtroom and you were all there large on the whole time, every day, and all of a sudden all these national producers and personalities were there and the criminal defense team, and we're all there and you have a lot of the same spectators coming back, the court staff. And it was almost like, but kind of came, I would say, like a family environment. It was like a family reunion every day. And we, you would see us being combative, but then all of a sudden we would break and everyone would just be talking about, you know, family stuff or, you know, life. And it was, it was kind of interesting and it was honestly kind of sad when it ended. I'm glad that it ended. But, you know, you've, you've got into that routine every single day of seeing the same people and you got to be friends with people, and that was kind of fun.
- [45:09]
D
And that's, that's something I thought about, is that when we walk out of that work the last day is that this group of people. And there's so many. I mean, you know, we talked about the, the sled agents and the amazing job they did and, and, and you know, they're a huge part of the team. And, and of course, all the team that we have. And then not only that, we've got, you know, miss Becky.
- [45:32]
A
Yep. That. Becky Hindsight is 2020 now that the former clerk of court, Becky Hill, pleaded guilty to perjury, obstruction of justice and misconduct in office.
- [45:43]
D
Collison county sheriff's folks. And, and then just, you know, the, the various people who were there. And as I walked out of that courtroom the last time, I realized, you know, none of us, it will never happen again. That all of us will all be in the same room again. And it just won't. And, and that is a little sad because we made a lot of friends down there. And you know, when you go through something like that, I know there's a connection I think that will always have. But, you know, is it is a little nostalgic to think that not that that that group of people that was in that room every day will never
- [46:12]
A
all be in the same room, but now they could. If the state Supreme Court overturns Alec Murdoch's double murder conviction and orders a retrial.
- [46:21]
C
I, I do want to say this as a parting thought. I don't even know if this will make it to the editing room floor. But I have never been more proud to be the Attorney General of South Carolina in the wake of this, because it showed not only the state, but the world that this office can send a signal to people who doubted the system, who had trouble believing that this was possible, that we sent a message to everyone out there who doubted and maybe renewed their faith that no one is above the law. No matter who you are, what your station in life or society is, no one is above the law. And not only the men and women that are up here, those who aren't represented today, but there were a lot of men and women who weren't part of this trial. That kept the wheels of justice spinning back home. There was a double murder case, conviction of big case that would have been a high profile case had it not been for the Murdoch case. Those people weren't getting the recognition they deserve. And I just want to say how incredibly proud I am of the work of the men and women of this office. And one of the greatest, other than being a father and a husband, being the Attorney General of this office and working with these people is one of the greatest amazing gifts I've ever been given in life, and I'm so proud to be part of it, be part of this story. Even if it is just a little footnote, I'm glad to be part of it.
- [47:32]
D
And let me. Let me add to that is that, you know, the solicitors, the local prosecutors, doing amazing job, and they are the background of the system. The law enforcement, obviously, are the backbone of the system. But I can say this. There is no place, even the U.S. attorney's office, there's no place like the Attorney General's office to do the things that you get to do and you can do. And if you want to make a difference, you know, this is a place. I mean, the things that we get to do, whether it's a case like this, public corruption, white collar, you know, cartel drugs, and then, of course, that's just part of it. You know, there's. There's the appellate work, there's the post conviction relief work. There's an entire civil section here. You know, this. This is a place that if you want to litigate you, the sky's the limit there. And you can actually say, this is a problem I want to address, you know, and then go do that. And it's just so amazing opportunity.
- [48:28]
C
So what Creighton is basically saying is, we have some vacancy, and if you, if you're a confident, capable lawyer, we have a job for you. Go to our website, notify, we'll put a file in your hand and send you into court.
- [48:39]
D
But, but in all seriousness, I've been in this office since you hired me in 1998, you know, and I've never left, but I've never gotten bored because I've had a chance to do so many different things here. I mean, and where else can you go and do that? Where else can you go and do Every level of state and federal court. You just can't do that anywhere else. And so, and then we had this. This opportunity to. To make a difference. And hopefully we have.
- [49:03]
C
We did. We did make a difference.
- [49:05]
F
And he's a pretty good fellow.
- [49:06]
C
Above average, as my mom says. Not as good as most, but better than some.
- [49:11]
G
Right?
- [49:11]
A
It was an incredible opportunity to talk to the prosecution team right after Alex sentencing. But to hear it now, based on what we've learned since then, and with this appeal looming, it still feels very relevant. Drop a comment below, let me know if there's anybody else that you'd like to hear from in the Murdoch saga. And be sure to like and subscribe to Crimly Obsessed. And if you get an opportunity. Leave us a five star review. It goes a long way for others to find our podcasts.