These 5 Murdaugh Prosecutors Can't Speak Now — But They Spoke With Us (Part 2)

Summary

---

Criminally Obsessed — Ep: "These 5 Murdaugh Prosecutors Can't Speak Now — But They Spoke With Us (Part 2)"

Date: March 24, 2026
Host: Anne Emerson

---

Overview: The Prosecutors' Inside Story of the Murdaugh Double Murder Trial

This packed episode offers a rare, intimate conversation with key members of the prosecution team behind the Alec Murdaugh double murder trial. Anne Emerson moderates a candid roundtable where Creighton Waters, John Meadows, David Fernandez, Savannah Goude, and others break down their investigative and courtroom strategies, reflect on the emotional weight of the case, detail key evidentiary moments, and discuss the family legacy, local politics, and justice system hurdles that defined this historic trial.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Speed & Mood of the Verdict

• Jury Deliberations: The verdict came back remarkably fast—under 3 hours after a marathon six-week trial.

• Jury Observation: Prosecutors discussed how attentively the jury watched the trial and how their engagement gave some confidence in the case being well received.

  "Watching that jury for six weeks, they were listening, and I mean really listening...When we got word they didn't want supper, you kind of knew at that point."
  — John Meadows [03:30]

• Superstitions & Nerves: Several prosecutors confessed to being highly superstitious and nerve-wracked waiting for the verdict, knocking on wood and processing "peak exhaustion."

  "We were two wood-knocking fools during all of this...it's really more nervous energy than anything else."
  — Creighton Waters [04:12]

---

Approach & Style in Courtroom Advocacy

• John Meadows's Movement & Presence: His highly mobile, close style with jurors—sometimes driving the TV cameras crazy—was highlighted.

  "I've told some lawyers over my life, you just got to be yourself. And so that's what I do. I just move, and I feel better when I move...Listening is so key for a lawyer."
  — John Meadows [07:02]

• Balancing Tough Cross & Compassion:

  • Handling witnesses who grew up with or loved Alec Murdaugh required empathy; pushing too hard risked alienating sympathetic witnesses.

  "These were witnesses who had grown up with Alec, Martha. These were almost like family. How did you know when it was going to be pushed too far?"
  — Ann Emerson [07:53]

---

The Emotional Testimonies & Manipulation of Witnesses

• Evidence and testimony from close staff and family were central, especially when Alec was perceived to be manipulating or leaning on their sympathy.

  "They did care about him. They did love him. But when Alex tried to manipulate them, I think that was obvious to the jury and I think that was important."
  — John Meadows [10:22]

Notable Testimony: Housekeeper Blanca

• Her recounting of a conversation where Alec possibly prompted her to recall him wearing a different shirt (critical for timelining) was highlighted.

  "In my mind I was saying, I don't remember Vinnie Vines shirt, it was the polo shirt...He said, well, you know what? I was wearing that shirt."
  — Shelly Ann Blanco [09:01]

---

On Alec Murdaugh Taking the Stand

• Strategy: The prosecution expected Alec to testify, believing he wouldn’t be able to resist trying to charm the jury.

  "We were always convinced he believed he was going to be able to do what he had done for so long: lean forward and look them in the eye and convince them of the latest thing."
  — Creighton Waters [11:06]

• Cross Examination: Waters’ approach was to let Alec talk, believing his need to over-explain would betray him.

  "I wanted the jury to see him perfect his lie and lie to them in real time...He would start talking again and then I'd be like, okay, let's talk about that, that's a new one."
  — Creighton Waters [13:50]

---

Body Language, Lies, and the "Family Annihilator"

• Body Language: Investigators and prosecutors relied on their instincts watching Alec, who gave off "way off" vibes from the start.

  "I had a discussion and said, I don’t like his body language. It's not just slightly off. It's way off."
  — Detective Jason Chapman via David [17:40]

• Limits of Expert Testimony: Prosecutors explained why they couldn’t bring in body language experts due to evidentiary rules—relying instead on common sense and jurors’ discernment.

• The "Family Annihilator" Archetype: Alec fit several thematic patterns: middle-aged, successful, facing financial ruin, family stress—leading into motive.

  "You look at motive, means, opportunity, guilty acts. He had all of those."
  — Creighton Waters [49:33]

---

Dissecting Alec’s Lies

• The team meticulously demonstrated that Alec lied to police before SLED arrived—directly contradicting his story about panicking only after SLED got involved.

  "He concocted that lie from the first second police were called. SLED wasn't called until hours later."
  — David [21:03]

  "The truth is easy to recite. The truth is easy to stick to. And the truth adds up when someone has to be questioned on the outer perimeters of it."
  — David [21:51]

---

The Kennel Video & Bubba the Dog: The Smoking Gun

• The prosecution reflected on how a serendipitous cell phone video—capturing Alec’s voice at the kennels within minutes of the murders, and his calling out to Bubba the dog—destroyed his alibi. The dog's behavior even factored into the analysis of how the crime unfolded.

  "If Bubba hadn’t barked and Alex hadn’t said his name, that was key... The kennel video kind of gets him."
  — John Meadows [42:34]

  "You hear Paul, Maggie, and Alec talking about Bubba. That was so pure and beautiful because nobody knew it was out there..."
  — John Meadows [43:32]

---

Forensic Challenges: Firearms, Shell Casings, and Overcoming Defense Experts

• Blackout Rifle Evidence: Detailed shell casing analysis helped link the murder weapon to the family, even as it was missing.
• Defense Expert vs. Common Sense: The defense’s 3D modeling suggested the killer was only 5’2", forcing the jury to engage directly with the evidence and visualizations. Prosecution countered with direct, hands-on demonstrations and expert witnesses who underscored common sense.

  "Even given all that, all it took was someone holding the gun slightly different or kneeling...It was absurd."
  — David [74:53]

---

Handling Local Politics & the Murdaugh Family Legacy

• The team addressed their (mostly distant) relationships to the Murdaughs, striving for "justice is blind" professionalism.

  "We have no friends to reward or enemies to punish...I was very proud to shine light on the rottenness that was going on."
  — David [33:59 & 35:22]

• The legacy of prosecutorial excellence and dealing with local sheriffs (e.g., previous successful prosecution of a sheriff for corruption) is woven through their own motivations.

---

Emotional Moments & Honoring Victims

• The most powerful, emotional witnesses were those close to Maggie and Paul whose heartbreak exposed the humanity lost, contrasted with Alec’s cold calculated lies.

  "Alex was the most powerful witness against Alex. But I think Shelly [Smith] and Marion [Proctor] were powerful...It was true emotion from her, and you couldn't...your heart...It was powerful."
  — David & John Meadows [63:22, 63:37]

• The prosecution provided victim support even to those in the family still sympathetic to Alec.

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• On Strategy:

  "If you start thinking about hoisting the trophy in the fourth quarter, it'll get away from you."
  — Creighton Waters [04:44]

• On Lying:

  "This is a man who can look you in the eye and convincingly and effortlessly, hopelessly lie to you. And I think that they were able to see that for themselves."
  — Creighton Waters [16:41]

• On the Kennel Video & the Role of Bubba:

  "Thank God for Bubba, because if he hadn't barked, [Alec] wouldn't have said his name. That was key."
  — John Meadows [42:54]

• On Their Purpose:

  "Someone like that shouldn't be allowed to get away with what he did. And going after people like that is why we do what we do."
  — Savannah [30:56]

• On the Courtroom Process:

  "The defense, prosecution, Judge Newman...the process acquitted itself very well...The process worked."
  — Creighton Waters [57:39]

• On Justice and Community:

  "There's no better thing you can do with a law degree than try to make communities safer and bring justice."
  — Creighton Waters [41:03]

---

Important Timestamps

• Jury Verdict & Superstitions: [01:18]–[04:43]
• On Working the Jury & Witness Management: [06:15]–[08:49]
• Housekeeper/Blanca Testimony: [09:01]
• Alec’s Approach & Cross-Examination Strategy: [12:08]–[13:50]
• Body Language Discussion & Expert Limitations: [17:13]–[18:24]
• Alec’s Lies About Timeline/First Police Interview: [20:40]–[24:27]
• On Bubba & Kennel Video's Impact: [42:02]–[45:32]
• Analyzing Firearms Evidence: [51:03]–[54:44]
• Defense Expert Mike Sutton’s Testimony: [69:44]–[77:26]
• The Emotional Impact on the Prosecutors & Local Justice System: [30:10], [35:22], [55:25], [78:03]

---

Jury’s View & Legacy

• The episode closes with the team's reflection on their personal and professional pride, being part of dismantling an unfair power system in the 14th Circuit, and reaffirming the justice system’s resilience—anchored by the integrity of the trial judge and the relentless effort of the prosecution and investigative teams.
• Anne Emerson invites listeners to weigh in on the possibility of a successful appeal and who else they want to hear from in the Murdaugh saga.

---

For those who haven’t listened:
This episode provides compelling, inside-baseball insight into both the procedural and emotional sides of the Murdaugh trial, balancing technical details with courtroom drama, revealing the slow but methodical takedown of one of the South’s most infamous legal family legacies. The podcast brings out both clear-eyed legal strategy and genuine compassion for those forever changed by these crimes.

Transcript

[Ann Emerson]

Welcome to Crimly Obsessed. I'm Ann Emerson. When it comes to Alec Murdoch, the red haired Southern attorney, it turns out no one really knew him. During the trial, there were many witnesses who looked dumbfounded on the stand when they found out something that they did not know about Alec. The Alec they knew was a good man from a good family, always looking out for others. I was there every day for the six week trial and I gotta be honest with you, when, when I went into that trial, I was not convinced that Alec had murdered his wife Maggie and son Paul. Then came the 911 call, the testimony on the financial crimes, the kennel video, the OnStar and cell phone data, and of course two days of Alec Murdoch's own testimony when he took the stand in his own defense. You just couldn't look past all of that. While South Carolina State Supreme Court justices decide on Alec Murdoch's appeal, here's part two of my team's coverage of the prosecution team. Just remember, this was recorded back in March of 2023. And before you go, be sure to like and subscribe to Criminally Obsessed and be sure to leave us a five star review. It goes a long way to help others find our podcast. So obviously the verdict came back in three hours.

[Savannah]

What do you guys think did it for the jury?

[Ann Emerson]

And were you surprised that it came back that fast?

[Savannah]

I thought we might get a verdict that night just because, you know, the jury's been there as long as we have. We're tired, you know, the jury's tired. You can tell by looking, looking over there at them, I felt like they had made up their minds one way or the other. I do think it came back a little quicker than I thought, but I didn't think we would be there the whole weekend. But in that too, I think for us maybe, or at least for me, waiting for the jury verdict and for it to be read is the most nerve wracking time because I. That's the moment right there that you've put all this hard work and you've been waiting on for six weeks.

[Creighton]

Guilty verdict signed by the four lady.

[John Meadows]

3, 2, 23.

[Savannah]

That was huge.

[David]

You know, the. I'm going off of some of the interviews we've heard from the jurors and you know, you're always, when it came back fairly quick and some of them say it was, you know, roughly an hour, you either, you think to yourself, either we definitely got it right and they understood what we were, what we're putting out there for him, or it went horribly wrong. It's one of the two. We felt pretty confident that we put a strong case out there and you don't ever want to jinx it. But at the end of the day, we really. And juries are, granted, they're unpredictable and you can never really guess at what they're going to do. But at the end of the day, we felt like the message had been conveyed that the evidence was there, it was strong. We didn't feel like there was any disruption, massive, major disruptions by the defense to our case in chief. And all of us were very tentatively hopeful before it was read. And then obviously you have that relief that you put in six weeks of your life and it's not for nothing or you don't have to do it again. So we were very relieved. But I feel like we were tentatively hopeful and confident before it was wrecked.

[John Meadows]

I'm very superstitious and I knock on wood when I don't even realize I'm knocking on wood.

[Creighton]

Made me more superstitious. I was already superstitious.

[John Meadows]

So I try not to think about it. I don't want to talk about it. I really don't. But watching that jury for the jurors for six weeks, they were listening. They were listening, and I mean really listening. And I thought we'd get a verdict. I didn't know if it'd be that night or the next morning or six week trial, you don't know. But I thought they'd reach a verdict. And when we got word that they didn't want supper, you kind of knew at that point. But again, I'm superstitious. But I felt really good the way the case went up. I thought we won most every witness. And that's the way I gauge cases. And I don't mean that in any bad way. I thought they went well, but it was a wonderful moment.

[Creighton]

You know, I'm superstitious too, but not nearly as superstitious as this guy is. And I'll knock on wood too. And again, it's just something you do. It's really more nervous energy than anything else. We were two wood knocking fools during all of this. And I remember one day we had just left the restaurant near the hotel and we were walking across and I saw they had a hickory wood pile out back. And I saw that and I went over and knocked on that wood and John was like, wait, wait, wait, I gotta do that. So he went over and knocked on that wood. Cracker barrel. Another plug. Yeah, there you go.

[David]

We live there.

[Creighton]

Yeah, but you know, I'll say this is that, you know, you do get to, to, you know, the people watching on tv. And of course, you know, many of y' all were present and got to look at the jury. People on TV obviously couldn't. But, you know, like John said, you know, you're, you're. You're seeing that they're intent of and that they're. They're engaged and they're involved. And, you know, you try not to read too much into that, but you, you know, like I said, though, I just try to put it out of my mind. And I've said that waiting on that verdict, I might have been less nervous than any other. And I think a big part of that was we had just reached a point of peak exhaustion, you know, and now it's out of our hands. And, you know, and so when it came back within three hours, that's generally a good sign for the state. But, you know, you just never know. And I am not one to, you know, people would come up during. While we were waiting and say, what do you think? What do you think? What do you think? And I didn't even want to consider that. Didn't even want to think about it, you know, during the course of the trial, while you are looking at the jury and trying to gauge what's going. Going on. You know, again, to use another sports analogy, if you start thinking about hoisting the trophy in the fourth quarter, it'll get away from you. And so you just, you know, you try to put that out of your mind. All you can do is present the evidence and, and make the case, and then it's out of your hands. And I think that that's what I tried to do. I think that was the only way, at least for me to survive that, was to not even consider what the results were going to be until I heard miss Becky say the word guilty. And there you go.

[Ann Emerson]

Well, I mean, I wanted to direct also to your style of working with the witnesses on the stand. It was a. To watch you with the jury as well. It was different from. We've seen other attorneys much closer. In fact, it drove the cameras crazy because they couldn't follow you because you were so close to trying to read the jurors. What about that, really? Why do you approach it that way with the jurors when you're talking to them? Does it, does it literally help to get just right there with them? It was such a unique way of speaking to them.

[John Meadows]

I'd like to move right now, to be honest with you, But I know it's driving me crazy.

[David]

Me, too.

[John Meadows]

It's nothing planned. I mean, if you. I've told some lawyers over my life, you just got to be yourself. And I'm literally reacting in the moment. Don't think about it. And I apologize if I move too much. My dad, who's a United Methodist minister, not Baptist, Nothing against Baptist, but he's a retired Methodist bishop and the best speaker I've ever seen. He's fantastic. And early in my career, I'd move, and some people said, you can't move. He finally said, just be yourself, son. And so that's what I do. I just move, and I. I feel better when I move. And I'm just reacting to the listening. I think listening is so key for a lawyer, as all these great lawyers know, and general, you know, and reacting when a witness says something. I think this is what you got to do as a trial lawyer. And I'm not thinking about doing that. I'm just doing it well.

[Ann Emerson]

And it was also these opportunities to speak to these witnesses who were very sympathetic on both sides and to be being able to, like, balance that. What was that like? Because you didn't want to. You didn't want to push him too hard on. On certain emotions, because it could backfire, I would think, for the prosecution. These were. These were witnesses who had grown up with Alec, Marta. These were not. These were almost like family. How did you know when it was going to be pushed too far?

[John Meadows]

Well, they were family, and they. They did love the family, and I think that came out. But they also. Shelly Ann Blanco, and particularly when Alex asked them to basically lie or try to remember what wasn't true. You could see it and feel it in their body and what they said. And I think the jury felt that and saw that, and that made it more powerful because they did care about him. They did love him.

[Ann Emerson]

Here's part of Blanca's testimony. She was the Murdoch housekeeper, but she was also Maggie's confidant. She's talking about an interaction that she had with Alec Murdoch about two months after the murders.

[Shelly Ann Blanco]

I sat down, and he was pacing back and forth in the. In the living room. And he said, I got a bad feeling. He said, I got a bad feeling. He said, something's not right. And then he said. He said, well, you know, there's a video. There was a video that was out. I hadn't seen a video. And he said, you remember the shirt I was wearing, that Vinnie Vines shirt? Those were. That's what he said to Me. And in my mind I was saying, I don't remember Vinnie Vines shirt, it was the polo shirt. But I didn't mention. He said, well, you know what? I was wearing that shirt. He said, you know, in the. That day, I know what shirt he was wearing because I fixed the collar and the collars are different material.

[John Meadows]

How did you take that conversation?

[Shelly Ann Blanco]

I felt like he was. I felt like. I felt confused at first. And then I know what he was wearing the day he left the house. And I was basically confused. I didn't really know whether he was trying to get me to say that that shirt. If I was to be asked then if that was a shirt he was, was wearing the day.

[John Meadows]

And then when Alex tried to manipulate them, I think that was obvious to the jury and I think that was important and that was just real. I mean, this wasn't anything else about it. And all these folks, we'd all work with these witnesses and. But it was tough, but they did care about them. But I think that's what made them so powerful as witnesses when they were able to convey that, hey, that's not what happened, that's not what happened. And I think that hurt them.

[Creighton]

How do you, how do you go your whole life and not a single person knows who you really are? I mean, that's. That, I think came out from some of these folks and Shelly and Blanca, Marion, I mean, even Buster and John Marvin, you know, the law partners. I mean, all these people, Chris Wilson, all of these people had, you know, thought they knew this man. There's not a single person who knew who he was. And you know, like I said, in some less chilling. That really is chilling. Were you surprised he testified? No, no, we, we, as we investigated this guy and you know, we're also talking about the, the power and prestige of this family and, and their, their power and prestige in the judicial system in the 14th Circuit. You know, we were always, I think, convinced that he believed that he was going to be able to do what he had done for so long. And you saw it and just lean forward and look them in the eye and, and convince them of the latest thing he was trying to tell them. And I just, I think that there was no way that he thought he could. He was going to be able to resist doing that. And when they started putting in a case, that's usually kind of a good sign that. Or that he's going to do that. But we, we felt that that was, that was coming all along.

[David]

So had you prepare his cross examination?

[Creighton]

Well, you know, that there's so much to do there. When that cross started, I think I started at 3:30 on a day. And so I knew that I was going to be cut off by the evening recess. Surprises. Direct examination was so short. Maybe a little bit.

[John Meadows]

A little bit.

[Creighton]

But you know, I also know that, you know, and you know, this is a trial lawyer, you know, you don't want to ask one question too many. Right? I mean, you can do that on cross, but on direct asking one question too many. Can, can. And you can do that on cross as well. But, but we started at 3:30 and I knew that I was going to be cut off by the evening recess. And so any momentum that got built, it was just going to have to start over from scratch the next morning. So that, that first day, you know, was focused a lot on the financial stuff, but I, I was also just trying to get to that evening recess because I knew that I was going to have to, to start over the next morning. You know, the cross, I think for Alec was different. You know, a lot of times in a traditional cross, you talk about the destructive cross, you know, and by destructive, you're, you know, trying to control the conversation. You know, you're, you're, you're the one mainly speaking not letting you know the answers be as you know, from the witness aren't as important really as you trying to dominate the conversation. But in looking at this guy and what we knew about him, I thought that I wanted to get him talking. I wanted to let him answer those questions. I wanted the jury to see him perfect his lie and lie to them in real time. And I thought that there's a wonderful common sense, collective common sense with the jury system. And I just saw that they'd be able to see that I had pauses for a reason because he couldn't help himself. He would start talking again and then I'd be like, okay, well great, let's talk about that. That's a new one. All right, let's talk about that. It was a different sort of thing. He, he's, you know, also a very, very smart individual. He's a trial lawyer. So that's a tough draw as a cross. And so we always preach about taking a weakness and making it a strength. So let's, let's, let's use how slick he is against him. And I think the jurors are going to be able to see through that. And I believe that they did.

[Chad]

Was that something. And this, this is a real brief

[Creighton]

follow up to that.

[Chad]

You mentioned you knew you were up against the clock that first day. Was that strategy, something that you had coming in after, like, seeing him on tape and talking to people about him and knowing, just making observations before trauma. But that strategy of letting him fill those pregnant pauses and that empty room, was that between day one and day two or did you know that's where you were going?

[Creighton]

No, because when, you know, we had the. The, you know, the three taped interviews. You know, the first time I ever talked to Alec in life was at the arraignment. But the first time I really had a conversation with him was obviously during that cross examination. But I did have the benefit of three interviews. And, you know, one of the things I think I kept asking him was, what was the point you decided to lie? Let's go through the interview. Was it this point? Was it this point? Because I actually watched those interviews, and I'm watching his, you know, his body language and his expressions, and, you know, you could kind of see that. And I think, you know, he's good, but he's not as good as he thinks he is. And so we felt like if we kept, you know, just kept him talking, kept him talking, kept him talking, that. That eventually the jury would be able to see that. So that was. That was it all along. The thing about, you know, the end of the day was, was that, again, you build momentum. But if you have to start over the next morning, you're starting from scratch, really. And to really get him talking, you know, it isn't an effort in, you know, who can outlast the other. And, you know, we were peak exhausted, too. But, you know, you got to get him tired and get him, you know, not as polished as he was at the beginning. And hopefully then the jury picks up on that. But there's a lot of body language that I think was very key with him. You know, one of the things that, you know, I think I mentioned to the jury that to me is very telling, is that when he would answer, you know, ultimate questions with a lie, he would shake his head yes. And I saw that on the videotapes as well of the interviews. And, you know, again, reading people is. Is more art than science, but those are the kind of things that you see. And, you know, again, that's what you rely on juries to do, to look at somebody and gauge their entire presentation, not just what they're saying, but how they're saying it and how they're acting when they say that. And, you know, that was what I was trying to expose to this jury. That. And I said it over and over again, that this is a man who can look you in the eye and convincingly and effortlessly hopelessly lie to you. And. And I think that they were able to see that for themselves.

[Chad]

That segues perfectly into what I want

[David]

something else I wanted to ask you.

[Chad]

We. I think you mentioned it before we got started today. We spent month was a Monday or Tuesday. We went down to. We went down to Waterboro and we. Captain Jason Chapman, Laura Rutland, Daniel. Daniel Green, the investigators who were the first ones there.

[John Meadows]

Right.

[Chad]

And Chapman, when it was on and on, he. He came up, he used the word conglomerate of just body language cues. And he said he. He got a little bit of that reaction from some of his peers early on because he was. He says he was picking up on things with Alec that weren't.

[Creighton]

It wasn't good.

[Chad]

It wasn't good.

[Ann Emerson]

Here's what Colleton County Sheriff's Office Detective Jason Chapman told me in an interview after the trial.

[David]

We pretty much got in a group, played the 911 call for everybody to hear as far as the investigators. And that's when I. I had a discussion with a few of them and said, I don't like his body language.

[Creighton]

Is.

[David]

Is like it. It's not just slightly off.

[Alec Murdoch]

It's.

[David]

It's way off, really uncomfortable, not making him a part of the scene.

[Chad]

So my question with that was, yeah, this might get a little off in the weeds. You said body language is sometimes a little bit more art than science. My fault was, wouldn't it have been cool to have someone like an expert witness or someone come up and talk about body language? Or is that something you can even do?

[Creighton]

You can't. And, you know, one of the things that I asked him, you know, during his cross, when I got to the ultimate question I just wasn't going to repeat. Did you kill your wife? Did you kill your son? He'd already answered that on direct. And so. So the way I chose to ask that was, are you a family annihilator? Now, there is a sort of a recognized phenomenon out there that exists, but it's not something that we're not trying to diagnose anybody. And that's not anything we can. You can't bring in a body language expert under the rules and have them testify. You generally can't bring in a psychological or psychiatric witness to diagnose somebody, particularly if they've never viewed them. But here's the thing. These are common sense themes, and I think that that's what we were Trying to show. That's why I say that people look at the financial evidence as too simplistic. It wasn't just about the financial evidence. It was about all those things. It was about the family legacy. It was about the importance of that family legacy. It's like John said in his closing, Alec loved himself more and that was extremely important to him. And then you had the financial evidence as well. You had substance abuse, which none of us think is. Was as extreme as he tried to claim, because that's just not survivable. But, you know, clearly there was a substance abuse problem. We showed that Maggie and Paul were kind of on to the substance abuse a little bit. There's just all these myriad of factors again, that we're all converging on that one day. And so again, while there is maybe a recognized psychiatric or psychological phenomenon about the family annihilator, that is typically a middle aged male who's highly successful, that's facing a family breakup and facing financial ruin. But those are still, again, those are common sense themes that I think a jury could recognize. And then again, these are body languages of common sense. That's what we rely on juries to do. That's. You hear it in the charge that Judge Newman gave the jury. I mean, this is what you look at when you make those determinations. You know, it's not just what they're saying, but how they say it, how they act when they say it, what's their demeanor. And juries are in, particularly in South Carolina, juries are a great barometer of that. They know when they're being fed a line of bull. And I think that that's what happened here.

[David]

Alex's cross was, was, you know, I guess he was faced with the prospect, you know, he. It was no good decision for the defense to testify or not. Creighton did an excellent job, though, of parsing over. I think one of the most crucial things is when he decided to lie to law enforcement. When he made that decision. A lot of effort was spent by Creighton trying to narrow down that moment. When did you decide what was going through your head here? What was going through your head here? And Alex had settled on this lie. That was. I decided that when sled was involved, I thought this David investigator was another investigator. That had happened, you know, years and years and years ago. And that triggered me and I got panicked and I paranoid or however he described it. The reason that was so important though, is because Creighton just accepted, okay, that's your answer, great. And moved on. In closing, we showed the jury. Well, he concocted that lie from the first second. Police were called. Sled wasn't called until hours and hours later. They weren't brought in until, I think, about three hours later. He had created this lie before he even knew sled would be involved the minute Daniel Green arrived on scene. And for Alex. So that was. It was crucial because he'd committed to this fabrication. We could prove it's just not true. And he described himself. This web of lies. The truth is easy to recite, the truth is easy to stick to, and the truth adds up when someone has to be questioned on the outer perimeters of it. Alex had created this web of lies, and his whole life was based on lies, and it was hard for him to keep up with it. And I think you saw that on the stand. Too many variables that he hadn't accounted for came to roost. He just couldn't get past that. And I think that one example is that he'd committed to this lie all along, and he just didn't think through that. He was caught in it.

[Creighton]

He kept identifying factors, and that was, I think, during the cross. Oh, okay. That's a new one.

[John Meadows]

Oh, well.

[Creighton]

Because your law partner said not to talk, and all of these things that he said were the reason why he lied. One of the first questions I had to him was, would you agree with me that the most important part of your testimony is explaining to this jury why you lied about being at the kennels? And he wouldn't even say that. Well, okay, it's important, but not the most important.

[Alec Murdoch]

But I did not tell them that I went to the kennel. I lied about that.

[Creighton]

And at the same time, you also looked at this jury and tried to tell them that you had been cooperative in this investigation

[Alec Murdoch]

other than lying to them about going to the kennel. I was cooperative in every aspect of this investigation.

[Creighton]

That was probably the toughest part, because that was the first day was waiting for the entirety of the cross. And then he identified more factors, you know, and there were about four at the end. Was waiting till the very end and not getting ahead of myself to play that Daniel Green video and point out that he's already lying before any of those things existed.

[Ann Emerson]

Daniel Green was one of the first police officers on the scene. And this is video from his body cam.

[David]

How did you pull up you from back there?

[Alec Murdoch]

I went to the house, and they

[David]

weren't home, which was odd. I tried to call. Okay.

[Alec Murdoch]

And then I knew they had been down here before. I Left to go to my mom's.

[David]

Okay.

[Creighton]

And so that is loaded.

[Alec Murdoch]

You might want to unload it, you

[Creighton]

know, and I. I'd been. I. When he said that on direct, you know, that is something that kind of happened on the fly. I made a huge note. And, you know, I had a pink highlighter.

[John Meadows]

The.

[Creighton]

The pink, you know, because there's only so many colors. But the pink highlighter on my, you know, papers is. That's. Don't forget this one. And I wrote big letters, a big star circle around it and. And highlighted it in pink and waited for however long that cross was. I don't know how long it was too long, but it was great. It was great. Well, I had to start over, like I said, but, you know, I was waiting for that moment. And, you know, again, it just. Just, you know, he's sitting here trying to tell this jury that all these factors were why, you know, this man, who also is, you know, carries a badge, has blue lights in his personal vehicle, and who his family has been, you know, synonymous with the justice system in the 14th Circuit for years and years. You know, this idea that. That somehow he panicked and at no point tried to correct that, and even he conceded himself. Well, even my own brothers are hearing this for the first time.

[John Meadows]

It was such a terrible answer, I thought when he first explained it, I had to write it down. It was paranoid paranoia. Couldn't think. Usually I can breathe through it. And we talk about body language. I'll be a little more blunt. I think jurors can see when somebody is full of it. They know who the full of knew it. And I thought that was a. Just. Was a not a credible answer at all right off the bat. And that's why I thought you're talking about those three folks you interviewed earlier. That's why I thought Laura Rutland was so important.

[Creighton]

Alec, why did you lie to Agent Owen, Agent Crawford, and Deputy Rutland about the last time you saw Maggie and Paul?

[Alec Murdoch]

As my addiction evolved over time,

[John Meadows]

I

[Alec Murdoch]

would get any situations or circumstances where I would get paranoid thinking, and it could be anything that triggered it. It might be a look somebody gave me. It might be a reaction somebody had to something I did. It might be a policeman following me in a car that night, June 7, after finding. Mags and Paul.

[John Meadows]

Paw Paw.

[Alec Murdoch]

Don't talk to anybody without Danny with you. All my partners were just repeatedly telling me that I had a deputy sheriff taking gunshot tests from my hands. I'm sitting in a police car with David Owen asking me about my relationship with my wife. And my son. And all those things coupled together after finding them, coupled with my distrust for sled caused me to have paranoid thoughts. Normally when these paranoid thoughts would hit me, I could take a deep breath real quick, just think about it, reason my way through it, and just get past it really quickly. On June 7, I wasn't thinking clearly. I don't think I was capable of reason. And I lied about being down there. And I'm so sorry that I did.

[John Meadows]

Not only because she had him clean, clean, clean. And when I first looked at the case, that's the first thing I noticed. I said, how can he be that clean? You know, if any of our children or wife, I'd be on the ground bloody from head to toe. And he was the exact opposite it. And I just think that that wasn't real. And then when she's talking to him and Creighton talks about the drugs and how coherent he was, and they sat there and gave him the opportunity to talk. And it was clear, the conversation. He knew exactly what he was saying. It was a lie, but he clearly knew what he was saying.

[Creighton]

That BLOOD EXPERT CAN CHECK Oklahoma WORKOUT

[John Meadows]

Was that a problem in the case

[Creighton]

that it turns kind of stuff. So initially there was a report about that sled had obtained from this expert. You know, it was a very recognized expert that he, in his opinion that there was spatter on the white shirt. In November, we discovered that there was a hematrace report that had not. Not only not been provided to the expert, but had not provided the normal channels to us either. Once we had that, we took time to assess that and then ultimate decided that, you know, this is how investigations work. I ultimately decided that that was, you know, not evidence that, that, you know, we were. We were going to rely on because again, it always like. Like John just said, it always didn't make sense how clean he was. You know, when you have a nationally recognized expert come in and say, well, I think that spatter there, that's obviously something that you're going to consider and rely on. But you're constantly refining the case. You're constantly reassessing it, you're constantly analyzing it. And as we went forward, that didn't seem to be evidence that we wanted to rely on. So we didn't. And I think the defense, you know, tried to turn that into a straw man and, and put up evidence. We're not even relying on and attack that.

[David]

Okay, go ahead.

[Creighton]

But that's not any evidence that, that, that we, we ultimately relied on.

[Chad]

Justice is equal. Justice is blind.

[John Meadows]

Right. That's the.

[Chad]

That's the. And that's Attorney General Wilson spent a lot of time on that. And no one is above the law here, phrasing it that way. We all each have our individual motivations

[Creighton]

for what we do. We all have our why.

[John Meadows]

The. The.

[Chad]

The reason that I've been in journalism for 16 years now. Say it.

[Creighton]

I've been wanting to get out since

[Chad]

about three years in. But we all have our why for what we do. What in this case. What in this case spoke to your why and really fired you up and was motivating you through these long six weeks even before that?

[Savannah]

Well, that's an interesting question, and that's something I really hadn't thought much about. But just the defendant himself, someone in such a trusted position, someone with so much power and just. Even a father. How could you do something like this and then you have the nerve to take the stand and lie to the jury? Just how all this has proceeded, you know, from the start of the case. Somebody like that shouldn't be allowed to get away with what he did. And going after people like that is why we do what we do so well.

[Ann Emerson]

And, I mean, Creighton said you were like a pit bull, sticking on facts, sticking on things. How. What does that. What did that mean to you? To be able to be part of this and. And to be able to be that person, to be that pit bull for Creighton in this.

[Savannah]

I mean, it's been an incredible opportunity, and I'm really proud to be part of the team.

[Ann Emerson]

But, like, as far as, like, doing your job, like, really, like, grabbing onto things and just not letting go. We saw it in that courtroom. Like, you would be like, no, no, no, no. We're going back to that. No, wait, stop. We're doing this again. That took some level of patience. That was extraordinary.

[Savannah]

Well, I mean, you have to dig and you have to make sure you get to the bottom of things. So you know for yourself that there's nothing else out there, that it's clear that this is what happened and that the jury understands as well as you understand what you're trying to tell them.

[Ann Emerson]

Did you come out of the 14th Circuit?

[Savannah]

I did.

[Ann Emerson]

Okay, so how did that work as far as dealing with, you know, the politics, as it were, since we know now?

[Savannah]

Well, I went to a law school in Charleston. I clerked for Scarlett Wilson. I was fortunate enough to get a job as a prosecutor out of law school with Duffy Stone and 14th Circuit. That was a great opportunity. I wasn't down there A little over two years. You know, it was a good, a good place to grow and learn. I don't think I had any very close relationships with anybody down there that really would have affected my ability to prosecute in this case. But it was, it was definitely,

[Shelly Ann Blanco]

you

[Savannah]

know, like, wow, this, this is coming from the 14th Circuit. But it could have really came from, from any circuit and not really made a difference.

[Ann Emerson]

I guess as a question to all you guys, I mean, your familiarity with Alec Murdoch when he was an attorney with pmped, just from being here, what did that play into your psyche on any level? Like, were you familiar with Alec Murdick?

[Creighton]

Well, just real quick, I want to let these guys answer, but I want to say this about Savannah, that when David and I were hiring her, and this is how, you know, we've tried to construct this entire team. We're looking for people who ain't scared. And that's something you can't teach. And we saw that in Savannah. And every member of this team, whether attorneys or staff, that's the most important thing to me is I'm looking for somebody who ain't scared. And certainly saw that in Savannah. I think he saw that in every member of the team. But they had gone to the other question about knowing Alec.

[David]

I don't know Alec. I don't know any members of his family. I'm not from South Carolina. I know no one. I owe favors to no one and friends with no one. I firmly believe in the job. I do this because, you know, Chad, I know you mentioned, you know, you're trying to get out of journalism since you started, but I went to law school. Didn't really know what I wanted to do. Figured I'd just go back home and work in politics or something. And I swore that I would never. I hated criminal law in law school, swore I would never do it. And then, you know, 14 years later, here we are. I'm a career prosecutor, so all that to say is I think everyone here who works in this section and we've, as it's constructed, we have tried to attract like minded people, people who firmly believe in our justice system and that it being blind and that means not only who the defendants are, but we don't care who your attorneys are. Someone can hire the nicest or the most well respected or the most intense and powerful attorney doesn't affect our decision making. And that may offend some people in legal circles, but we go forward where we think is appropriate on a case by case. Bas we have no friends to reward or enemies to punish. And all I'll say is I didn't know the Murdaughs. You go to law school and you hear the stories. We learn about some of the case law that's been established in South Carolina over the years. We hear anecdotal stories. We've had some folks that work in this office that were longtime attorneys and longtime law enforcement that you'd hear stories anecdotally, but I had no personal interactions with them. I'm very proud to be part of dismantling a system that I believe was unfair. And certainly Alex had abused his lot in life. He'd abused the authority that's given to you as attorney and as a prosecutor. And with that family legacy, I was very proud to shine light on the rottenness that was going on.

[Creighton]

John, just very quickly, one of the things when we interview people and. And our interviews are pretty epic, you know, because I always say a job interview, it's like, you know, getting married after the first date. So we spend a lot of time interviewing people. But one of the things we ask people is, are you comfortable, you know, being in a situation where you could be prosecuting someone, whether staff or attorney, and over there is a dangerous, you know, gang banger or a member of the cartel or something like that, and all his crew are behind there staring daggers at you. And people are like, yeah, but I said this is actually the more difficult question. Are you comfortable with prosecuting a politician or a law enforcement officer or a respected business person or a lawyer who's, you know, up until this day, had a completely, you know, stellar career and is highly respected, and all his family and friends are over there staring daggers at you. And that's probably the tougher question. And that's something that we relish here. You know, we've got a long history and state grand jury of where the evidence is appropriate, taking on powerful politicians, sheriffs, law enforcement officers, school officials, lawyers, and I think, like David just said, is something that is a unique opportunity that we can do here. And it's something that. Where the evidence is there, it's not something that dissuades us, it's something that enthuses us, because who else, you know, somebody's got to do it.

[Shelly Ann Blanco]

And.

[Creighton]

And we. We feel like that we're the ones that can do it. John, I interrupted.

[John Meadows]

I'm sorry. Just a couple of quick things. One of the highlights of the trial, we were waiting on the verdict, and we were downstairs, and I was actually sitting on wooden benches outside the solicitor's Office knocking on it and j. Church pews. That's church. You can't beat their wooden church pews. That's right. And David looks at me and I was priceless. He said, you know, I sent you a letter when you were deputy solicitor and Richland wanting a job and you never responded. And I said that was probably 30 minutes before the verdict came back. And I said, I love you, man.

[David]

I was telling John it was very nice. I was very glad to be able to work with him. He is an excellent attorney. I think you all saw that. And I was very glad to be able to learn from him and experience that. And I did. I was getting out of law school and was told Mr. Meadows was the deputy solicitor Richland. I wanted to be a prosecutor. Wrote him a letter and I never heard anything.

[John Meadows]

For the record, that was Elizabeth Levy who handled that. So I want to steal.

[Creighton]

It's her fault.

[John Meadows]

I never got it. And I want to publicly say I'm sorry. I would have hired you, but a couple of things on the solicitor. Very briefly, I may have met Alex. I think he was clerking in Columbia at solicitor's office while I was heading up to Kershaw office. So I didn't really know him. I may have met him a few times, but the solicitor, his daddy, I did know and had when I was a young solicitor. And I love this job, as Creighton does, as we all do, David does. I remember him coming down, I said, hey, solicitor. He said, hey, John. And I remember him going, man, he knows my name. And as a young prosecutor, that meant a lot. And we had a conflict case we sent to him. And so I got to know him and I did think a lot of him, I really did. And I'll say something about solicitor Stone, Solicitor Duffy Stone and I worked together under solicitor Harpoutlian in Richland. And Duffy's an outstanding solicitor, an outstanding person, an attorney. They let us use their office in the Carlton County Courthouse. We had full access to the solicitor's office and he was very, very gracious.

[Ann Emerson]

Like he said, Duffy stone is the 14th Circuit solicitor, but he did not prosecute the case. Two months into the investigation, he recused himself due to his relationship with the family, specifically Alec.

[Creighton]

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we. We had great support down there from not only Slisher's office, but, you know, Colleton county and Orangeburg county and Charleston County. And so, you know, there really was a lot of, you know, people that. That supported us. You know, going back to the. The question of. Of. I think I Said before I'd never met Alec before. We were actually in law school together. I was a 1L and a 3L. I never, never met him. I think somebody sent a picture of our law school photos, which I was like, what was I doing with that mullet? But anyway, What was I doing? It was in the 90s, what can you say? But when I went to law school, I was going to be a criminal defense attorney and I was going to get all the information, innocent people out of jail. And then I did three years of law school and the clerkship for Judge Jasper Kieran on the court of Appeals, who was a trailblazer and who recently passed away, but was a great mentor of mine. But I realized along the way that most of them are freaking guilty. And so I decided to become a prosecutor instead. And again, you know, I think all of us, like David said, we're like minded in that we really can't imagine doing anything else. You know, I think that, you know, he talked about Duffy stone. I knew Mr. Randolph as well and worked on a case with him. He was a legend in the prosecutorial community. John justice was another legend. You know, there's so many that I could name. Donny Myers, I mean, these were people that were, you know, the foundation of the prosecutorial community in South Carolina that I was fortunate enough and old enough to been a young lawyer, you know, when they were in their prime, obviously you as a solicitor in the ninth Circuit as well. And so to learn from those folks and to be inspired by those folks and just to realize, I think there's, I don't say this lightly. There is no better thing that you can do with, with a law degree than, you know, try to make communities safer and make, and bring justice. And so we're all committed to that and inspired by it. And we, I think for the most part, we actually like coming to work every day.

[Ann Emerson]

John, I did want to ask you, you know, one thing. We gotta, I don't know if you remember you coming out of the sentencing, everybody's like just spreading out like this and, and you came out and I put my phone up or something and said, Mr. Meadows, tell me, give me, give me a comment. Tell me what you think about this. What do you think about the sentencing? He just looked at me, he said, God bless Bubba and walked away.

[John Meadows]

Supposed to go through the office. I'm just pleased with the verdict. It was a tragic, sad case and God bless mama.

[Ann Emerson]

That's all I got until now.

[John Meadows]

Well, number one, I wasn't sure we're supposed to talk or I would have talked more. But that kind of summed it up and it truly hit me with my daughter in law called me and I'm going to see them right now in a little bit. She called me and said she had seen the kennel video with her dog Tater. And Tater barked when Bubba, Bart and I can't wait to see Tater. I'm going to send you all a picture of Tater today when I get. But it just kind of hit me somewhere in this that, you know, and maybe he did have a sixth sense. I don't know. Bubba loved Maggie and who knows. But if he hadn't barked, you know, if that hadn't said he hadn't barked and Alex hadn't said Bubba, you know, and that to me and my wife, she's a lot smarter than I am. I want that to be on the record. She looked at this and said, John, you know, I know y' all are working hard, but kennel video kind of gets him. And I said, well, it does, but with this other great work. But when he got locked in on those three statements and then he couldn't get out of it. And that's why I wasn't sure if he was going to testify. And he didn't do a good job trying to get out of it, thanks to Crayton. But when that kennel video came back and it was so pure and beautiful because nobody knew it was out there and he locked in. And then that's when I said, thank God for Bubba because I think, who knows? But if he hadn't marked, Alex wouldn't have said his name. And I think that was key. And that's where you get right down to what's real. And jury understands that.

[Creighton]

Yeah, I think John said in closing that also it was Paul speaking from the grave, but Bubba was key. We actually talked about calling Bubba to the stand. Bubba run to the killer now, but

[David]

without Bubba, you know, you heard a little bit about Bubba being a difficult, strong, strong willed or hard headed. I can't remember how he was described and I'm sure he is. I've never met him. But you know, if he wasn't that, if he was just a friendly dog that listened, you know, Alex may never have said what he did on that video. He was, Alex was clearly annoyed on the video. I mean you can hear him annoying in his voice. He was annoyed he had to go chase down this dog with the dead chicken in his mouth who probably didn't want to give it up. And, you know, despite what Alex said, everyone we've talked to said that when Bubba got a chicken, it was a whole thing getting it away from him. It was. It would have been a whole thing. You're getting messy, you're getting nasty with the dead chicken. And he just didn't want to give it up. And you can hear that if Bubba wasn't that type of dog, Alex may not have said anything when Paul was recording.

[Ann Emerson]

Listen closely to the kennel video that was extracted from Paul's phone about eight months after the murders. In it, you hear Paul, Maggie, and Alec talking about whether Bubba has a chicken or a guinea hen in his mouth. And you hear Alex say Bubba's name. Hey, he's got a bird in his mouth.

[David]

Hey, Bubba.

[John Meadows]

It's a guinea.

[Creighton]

This is.

[David]

And so we were. We were all. It was just so many things that added up that. That really were just so, you know, lucky to have in many ways that. That ultimately was able to convey to the jury what happened.

[Creighton]

And, you know, you think about Bubba and the dogs. You know, I think another thing, you know, Alex timeline is so compressed, you know, that, you know, if the two. Five. Two people, you know, wearing gray bodysuits or, you know, hiding in the woods somewhere, I mean, you know, those. Those dogs are going to, you know, To. To recognize that. I mean, I. I'm a dog lover. And. And, you know, we know, you know, you know how dogs are. And it just. That was another thing. And the. While bubble was so clutch, because if there really were bad guys hiding in the woods or whatever, those dogs would have. Would have detected that. And you hear that when they're in the kennels and law enforcement arrives, they're going crazy. Okay, these are labs. These are hunting dogs. They're perceptive. If they're really bad guys nearby, they would have responded.

[David]

And I think even Alex testified that the dogs, when you let them out, would do a circle around the area, the kennels, and they'd mark and they'd go around sniffing the trees. I mean, this is what the dogs did. He didn't realize what he was saying, but he was betraying his story when he describes what the dogs would typically do.

[John Meadows]

And it was such common sense to me. I don't know when it hit me, but the fact there are these conversations going on with Rogan and Paul and Maggie, and that's why it was so crucial when he said he wasn't down there, because the conversations did end. I mean, that is when they were killed. I mean, they'd Been on the phone. Been on the phone. Been on the phone doing a video, and then it stops. Yeah, that's time of death. And that's when he said he was taking a nap and I in. Anyway.

[Creighton]

How would he know that?

[Chad]

How would he know when to. When to say he wasn't there if he didn't know?

[Creighton]

Why is that so important? Why is that so important unless you know exactly what happened?

[David]

And if you look at the evidence, if you remove. If you remove the kennel video from the equation and you look at the evidence we do have, we would have had his alibi, would have. Would have worked, generally would have worked. I think we could have probably still gotten there. I think there were still other things that he didn't consider, but his alibi would have worked. His alibi was, I was taking a nap for an hour and I woke up, and lo and behold, here's my phone, See, it's moving around, and that's when I woke up. It works. It works. He didn't know the video existed. He created an alibi that generally worked. And when the video he didn't know existed came to light, he was stuck,

[Creighton]

you know, from the beginning, you know, an opening. Because this was going to be a different case, you know, normal. Normally, if Alec wasn't the killer, he would be our first witness, right? He would be the grieving father that came across this terrible scene. But obviously that's not the case. But one of the things that we talked about in opening to the jury was listen critically, watch all of this and see if it adds up. And the reason for that is that I knew I was going to have to play the 911 call. I was going to play the Daniel Green video and the McDowell video, like, hey, how you doing? And. And play those statements. You know, the risk with that is, is that you're hearing his exculpatory version of events, and you don't want out of the gate, the jury to sort of internalize that and be persuaded by that. So I wanted them to think critically, but I also needed them to hear enough of his voice so that when they first heard that kennel video, they're like, okay, that's it. You know, and, you know, people might have asked, well, why did you keep bringing in people to say, okay, that's Alec on the video. That's Alec on the video. Well, the reason is. Is because until he took the stand Thursday, Alec had never told anybody that that was him. And I think he was forced him to that corner that he, you know that he had to do that because, you know, his family and friends were like, yeah, that's him. That's him on that video.

[Ann Emerson]

You've taken this. Would you have taken us to. Would this happen without that kind of video? Would he have gotten where we got?

[Creighton]

Well, I don't want to speculate that. The evidence is what the evidence is, and that's what we took forward. There's also the blackout. In closing, we talked about. Just when you think about the basic ways how you determine guilt, you look at motive, you look at means, you look at opportunity, and then you look at guilty acts. He had all of those we can't underestimate. I think another thing that he didn't consider, which is the blackout. You know, the cases that were found around Maggie's body match cases right outside the door that will leaven, you know, testified I was with Paul when we were shooting. That tan blackout, you know, that is missing. Now, in some respects, that's almost better than having the weapon, the fact that it's missing, because that, again, is a sign of guilty consciousness, that that gun is missing because we could identify the murder weapon. And the fact that it's missing just adds to, you know, the fact that this man was, you know, a smart, talented, experienced lawyer and prosecutor, was manufacturing an alibi and manufacturing this crime scene from day one. And it's kind of ironic that, you know, he was taking his cell phone and, you know, in the first video, I mean, he's. He's. He's using that to establish his alibi. But in a large measure, it was the cell phones that got him.

[John Meadows]

And Fernandez did it, and Paul Greer knocked out the park on the shell casing. And that was just incredible. And I agree with Creighton that shell casings where Loving was shooting and then across at the shooting range and then around Maggie's body, that was powerful.

[David]

It's significant because Alex created. He's a sophisticated individual, he's intelligent, and he created an alibi that he thought worked and it sort of did it superficially did. He used a 300 blackout that he thought was collecting dust that never got any play because Paul didn't like it. And we established that Paul didn't like that gun. He didn't like it. He didn't use it ever. It was bought and sat in the closet forever. So Alex thought, aha, that's a perfect weapon. It's a weapon no one knows about. It's a weapon no one's ever used. This is, of course, you know, my speculation or theory. And what he didn't realize is that just a few months earlier, Paul had been shooting that gun or Will Loving had been shooting that gun right next to the house. He just didn't know that. Just like the kennel video, he didn't know what he didn't know. And he created an alibi that ran up against the brick wall.

[Creighton]

I'm glad we're talking about the blackout because obviously that was, you know, one of David's big assignments. David's got a good knowledge of firearms. Anyway, that was going to be huge. You saw we had that in camera hearing that David did with Paul Greer where they challenged the underlying science. David did an incredible amount of research on that. And then of course, you know, that examination of Paul Greer, again, that's clutch. I mean, we keep talking about the Kindle video, but let's not forget about the blackout and how important that is that a family weapon was used to, to kill Maggie. And you know, David, David's, you know, real focus or one of his big focuses aside from me and you know, my go to number two was that firearms evidence. And just, you know, that was so key and so clutch. And they actually had on their witness list an expert that was, I think, going to try to undermine the science of firearms and tool marks examination that David had prepared for greatly. And maybe after they saw Paul Greer and the job that David did that they decided not to call him and I said, so maybe they got scared off. But that, that was.

[David]

We were trying to guess where they were going to go. You know, part of this trial is guessing what we, we knew that firearm evidence was crucial, we knew cell phone evidence was crucial, and we figured that's what they're going to try to attack. You know, I do know a little bit about firearms, but this is, you know, this is very technical. It's, it's, it's very, it's very complicated, this firearms identification field. And so I was taking a PhD course in a few weeks. And to SLED's credit, they, they rose to the occasion and really were able to relay the information to me in a way that I could then relay it to a jury. And, and also I have to, I have to give a lot of credit to the FBI. I worked very closely with their general counsel, one of their general counsels up in, up in DOJ in D.C. and they provided just so much information on firearms examination because it is being attacked nationwide. It's a thing that they're dealing with. And they had the resources, they had the materials and I spent every night, I mean, every night reading transcripts, reading articles, reading everything on firearms. I hope I get to use it again because I have this information now that I hope doesn't go to waste. But it was a crucial piece of evidence. We needed to be firm on it. And ultimately they did identify an expert that we were prepared to aggressively cross examine. And we felt very comfortable and confident that we would be able to diminish whatever expert they would put in. Ultimately, they waved off on that.

[Creighton]

Yeah, I mean, that was really the first key battle of the trial, was that in camera hearing and David and sled examiner Paul Greer, I mean, they just knocked it out. And we had to kind of. I mean, we knew that that was coming, but David really did Eamon's work and then Paul Greer did as well, and putting all that together for that in camera hearing. And that was the first battle of the trial. We ended up winning that. And I thought that was a good omen as we went forward.

[Savannah]

I think you said at the end,

[Ann Emerson]

you know, that you've been trying murder

[Savannah]

cases for 30 years.

[Ann Emerson]

I don't know what number you gave.

[David]

35.

[Ann Emerson]

35 years.

[John Meadows]

I'm old.

[Savannah]

So was this case different or was it the same as. It was different.

[Creighton]

What made it that.

[John Meadows]

I've just been fortunate to. That's what I love, is trying murder cases. I just love it. And it was sometime before the trial. One of my favorite shows was Columbo. It just was. I loved watching Peter Falk and I just. I loved it. And this hit me early on. I said, this is an episode of Columbo now. It's real life. It's not a game. And. And he made some mistakes that these folks and the other great folks involved in this were able to detect, but he made some mistakes. He didn't know what was out there. Like Columbo episodes, the shell casings, the gunshot residue, I thought was just beautiful finding that. And then the video. And don't forget John Conrad and Johnny James. I know you mentioned them. That timeline that John Conrad did with the phones and. And Peter Hradolfsky, that was just incredible. You know, my focus was. And they did fantastic. My focus is just on the murder and got to focus on the witnesses and how it happened and the emotion of it. And that's what I love doing. And so that, to me. And we said this to somebody else, I thought the true shining star in this was Judge Newman.

[Ann Emerson]

Who can forget this line from Judge Newman to Alec Murdoch?

[Creighton]

You have to see Paul and Maggie during the Nighttime, when you're attempting to

[Chad]

go to sleep, I'm sure they come

[Creighton]

and visit you, I'm sure,

[Alec Murdoch]

all day and every night.

[Creighton]

I'm sure. And they will take. Continue to do so and reflect on the last time they looked you in the eyes, as you looked the jury in the eyes.

[John Meadows]

And with the sports analogy, one shining moment. We're in March Madness. I think Judge Newman was one shining moment. And the world got to see you can get justice. And this is how it's done, efficiently, effectively, with the graceful iron hand. And we were all honored and glad he was ruling this

[Creighton]

as fine. A judge is in the state, and what better person to again show the process and show it working well. And I think we've all seen celebrity trials across the nation where things kind of go off the rails a little bit or they don't really equip themselves well. And. And having the steady hand at the helm of the judge. And I want to give credit to the defense, too. I mean, this was a professionally tried case. We have good working relationship with them. You strive hard as adversaries, but still try to remain friendly and professional with one another. And I think across the board, the defense, the prosecution, Judge Newman, of course, and his law clerk, Gabby, who's amazing as well. Well, all the corps staff. I mean, I just think the process acquitted itself very well. I also want to. David mentioned the FBI. I want to point out their contributions not only to the firearm stuff, but also to the telemetry that they did. Also they did the cast report as well with the cell tower. So they provided a lot of help. And I have to go back to sled, you know, sled. And John did a great job of fighting back on this. Obviously, you expect in a case for law enforcement to come under attack and. But they did an amazing job. Dave Owen as the case agent. Ryan Kelly was the lead on the side of the road, which, you know, again, was really where all this started to come together. You know, you had Peter Radovsky, who, you know, worked on that timeline and just did such a great job of testifying. You know, that's the guy taking an at bat in the World Series for his first at bat. That, you know, that's pretty amazing. You had, you know, David Williams, who worked on a lot of the financial stuff, Charles Gunt, the lieutenant. Ryan Neal is the captain who did great work on all of this. And, you know, I hate to start names. Jeff Croft, you know, who is great. Jeff Croft really has a knowledge of firearms, too. And, you know, obviously, again, Talking about the blackout. He's the guy who, you know, noticed those cases out there by the, by the side of the door. And then that just became such a crucial piece of evidence. And I don't mean to leave out any of the other people that sled, you know, those are just, you know, some of a huge team that worked on this and worked on it, you know, throughout the case. And, and, you know, a lot of times, you know, as prosecutors, we get to sit in front of the cameras and all that sort of stuff. Law enforcement doesn't get to do that. But those, those guys deserve, you know, just, you know, huge amount of credit.

[John Meadows]

Yeah, that's what Firework Craig said.

[Ann Emerson]

Chief Keel, we'd love to see him.

[Creighton]

And let me mention the chief as well. I mean, the chief was amazing throughout this. I mean, you saw not only the general down there and what a huge team we had, which was the only way to survive this, but there was a ton of sled agents down there too. And the chief, Chief Gill provided amazing support and resources throughout this entire trial. And this is one thing that we do in the state grand jury. State grand jury is different. We do complex investigations, but it's a little different because as process prosecutors, we get involved at the beginning of the investigation. The normal process is law enforcement does investigation, they get an arrest warrant and then it goes to the solicitor's office. But state grand jury is different. We get involved from the beginning and who our usual partner is is sled. And so we're, we're, you know, very used to, to working with each other. And like any family, sometimes we get on each other's nerves, but we still love each other and we're still, you know, pulling towards the same end. And, you know, I think you see what happens when the attorney general's office and sled, you know, work together like this. You know, we can be pretty unstoppable. And that's, that's really my favorite part of the job, aside from working all these folks, is I got to work with those guys at sled.

[John Meadows]

Can I just follow up?

[Creighton]

Sled.

[John Meadows]

One thing when you're through. I'm sorry. And that, right. The depth of deception that Alex presented and then to go in his position and his family's position as a part time solicitor that didn't go and talk about what a terrible job they did, which I thought they did a fantastic job.

[Creighton]

Yeah.

[John Meadows]

And that didn't really hit me till I was up in close. If that is offensive, you're going to sit there and say they did a terrible job. And you're withholding the major piece of evidence. I've never had that before. And that was just unbelievable.

[Creighton]

Yeah, and it just. It doesn't.

[John Meadows]

And I think that bothered the jury.

[Creighton]

It just doesn't ring true that this man, with all his connections with essentially the entirety of leadership and law enforcement in the region there at that scene, you know, if he was really, you know, innocent, that he. He somehow would feel, you know, unable to. To be truthful. It's just. It's just ridiculous.

[Chad]

What did each of y' all think

[Creighton]

was the most powerful witness? Kenny Kinsey, probably. He was. He was really, really clutch. I thought, you know, this. This was a different kind of case because of how complex it was with the. The family and the friends, many of whom had lost, had loved this man, but had no idea who he was. And we had to handle that with a delicate nature. But I think that some of the times where you saw people describe Paul and Maggie and you got to see the human side of them, that was important. Blanco was one witness that did that. Marian did that. Ronnie Crosby did that. And, you know, this just those moments where all of a sudden you step back from this and realize, you know, these were the people that. That. These were people that, you know, were in the problem of their lives and, you know, they're. They. They were. It was taken from them.

[David]

It's Alex.

[John Meadows]

I was going to say that Alex powerful against himself.

[David]

If our witness. Powerful, I would say Marion Proctor, I don't think she brought as far as evidence, but she was a true victim. And they got. I think the juxtaposition between herself and Alex is that she genuinely was. Was torn apart by what happened.

[John Meadows]

It was.

[David]

It was true emotions from her and you couldn't. Your heart. I was horribly upset hearing her testimony. It was very upsetting. Alex was, I think, phony. It didn't come through, and I think it was important. I think it was powerful.

[Creighton]

Over the course of the next couple of days or in the aftermath, as the shock was wearing off just a little bit, did you have any conversation with Alec about what had happened?

[Marion Proctor]

I didn't talk to Ella. Was just really busy, and the whole town was coming to see him, and he was very, very, very torn up. I did at one point ask him if Maggie had suffered, and he assured me that she did not. Now, I don't know that I think that's true. And I asked if Paul had suffered and he said no. And then later I asked him, I said, alec, do you have any Idea who's done this. I said, we have got to find out who could do this. And he said that he did not know who it was, but he felt like whoever did it had thought about it for a really long time.

[Creighton]

Whoever done it had thought about it for a really long time. Did that strike you as odd?

[Marion Proctor]

I just didn't know what that meant.

[David]

As far as, you know, the best evidence. There's a number of folks Creighton listed that were key to the case. Integral. But as far as just raw emotion, I thought it was. I thought it was Marion.

[John Meadows]

And Alex was the most powerful witness against Alex. But I think Shelly was powerful.

[Ann Emerson]

Shelly Smith was a caregiver for Alex mom, Ms. Libby, who had Alzheimer's. She took care of Ms. Libby at Alex parents home, which was called Almeida. Alec went to Almeida the night of the murders. Here's some of Shelley's testimony.

[John Meadows]

Was he telling you about that he was at the house the night of the murder?

[Creighton]

That he'd been in 30 to 40 minutes.

[John Meadows]

Was he telling you that? Did he ask you anything about that when he was talking to you?

[Creighton]

Yes.

[John Meadows]

Did you indicate to you what he wants you to do with that information?

[Creighton]

No. No.

[John Meadows]

What did he say?

[Creighton]

He didn't say that he was at the house the 34 minutes. I said.

[John Meadows]

You said what?

[Ann Emerson]

Shelly starts to get choked up.

[John Meadows]

Was he there 30 or 40 minutes at night? Not to matter at all. Fire crying you said,

[Creighton]

because they're a good fam, a good family and I love working here and I'm sorry all this happened.

[John Meadows]

Get good people.

[Creighton]

You know.

[John Meadows]

He wasn't there? No. 30 or 40 minutes, was he?

[Creighton]

No, no. Can't lead the witness.

[John Meadows]

Did that conversation upset you somewhat? You upset right now?

[Creighton]

Yes.

[John Meadows]

Did you call anybody about it? My brother. You called your brother after that conversation with Alex? Yes. To tell him about that conversation?

[Creighton]

Yes.

[John Meadows]

Just to be there and see her reacting to him wanting her, Alex wanting her to lie, I thought was important.

[Creighton]

You know, I want to mention this now that we're talking about it. You know, one of the things that we did early on because of how complex the situation is and that there are. There is a family here that's been torn apart. And not only torn apart, but torn apart in a very public way, which, you know, it is what it is, but it certainly adds to the trauma. And we knew that there were members of the family that were across the spectrum on how they felt about the prosecution. One of the things that I decided early on was that we were still going to provide victim advocate services to the family, regardless of their viewpoint about the case. If they were, you know, sitting behind Alec or if, you know, wherever they were on the spectrum, we were going to be respectful to them because if we knew how difficult the situation was and our victim advocate, Trish Allen, had to do something that this, that victim advocates don't usually have to do, and that. And that is, you know, provide services even when the people are, you know, on the side of the defense. And there is a variation of viewpoints, you know, throughout the family. But we were going to treat them with respect and do our best to do that regardless of where they were. Because in the end, you know, we can't forget this is a family that has gone through just a stunningly terrible event, not just with the merge of Maggie and Paul, but by finding out that Alec is who he is and that none of them actually knew him, despite knowing them their entire lives. And that's not just the family, too. It's, again, the friends and his law partners and all of that. I mean, I think obviously you could see that when all those folks testified how difficult it is to process what they thought and what they know.

[Ann Emerson]

Now, Magny's family, I really. We did not see them at the trial. We have not. We have not heard from them. Maggie's parents. Have you been able to talk to them? And just at least I, I would say that some closure.

[Creighton]

That. That's not anything I want to comment on.

[Chad]

Backing up just a minute. You know, the most powerful. One of the most powerful things to me as an observer was Mike Sutton.

[Ann Emerson]

Mike Sutton was an expert witness for the defense. He's a forensic engineer who claimed Alec Murdoch couldn't have shot Maggie and Paul because he's too tall. He said according to the shot trajectories, the shooter had to have been about a foot shorter. By the way, Alec Murdoch is six, four.

[John Meadows]

Okay, tell us how you get to

[Mike Sutton]

a height for the shooter. So for the purposes of what I've been showing you is, is that I started putting different height people in the trajectory analysis. And so what I've been showing you is a person that's five foot two versus how tall.

[John Meadows]

The shooter's how tall.

[Mike Sutton]

Five foot two. Could be someone a little taller, crouching

[John Meadows]

down a little bit.

[Mike Sutton]

Could be 5, 3, 5, 4. Yes.

[John Meadows]

So between 5, 2 and 5, 4.

[Mike Sutton]

Yeah.

[John Meadows]

Shooter.

[Mike Sutton]

Because what happens if, let's say if you put a five, four person even or five, five, five, six in kind of that shooting position from the hip, you've got to move them all the way up to the quick pin. And it doesn't make any sense there because there's no shell casings.

[John Meadows]

How'd you come to 5.2?

[Mike Sutton]

I mean, what did you look at any data? Well, again, these, these are actual people that were scanned in. And so these are five. Two, what happens is, for instance, if you, you know, I tried it with a 5.4, tried it with a 5.9,

[John Meadows]

why didn't that work?

[Mike Sutton]

Because it puts the person, person under the shed close to the quail pen. Doesn't make much sense being under there. There are no shell casings there.

[Chad]

And I'll tell you, and I'll tell you, I'll tell you my, my logic here. And this is a jumping off point for two things. One, your, your cross examinement of him as an observer. I'm across the street in that wildlife set of media room. I wasn't in the court. I was in court maybe three days. Court TV wasn't showing everything. They're not, we're not seeing the, all the exhibits. We're not seeing all the, the crime scene photos. We're not seeing. And for the longest time it, I

[Creighton]

couldn't wrap my head around. It couldn't wrap my head around.

[Chad]

And that was leaving a big, okay, they're saying this, but it doesn't make sense. And it didn't click with me until Mike Sutton's little 3D animation. And it had the opposite effect on me. Like, oh, I can totally see how

[Creighton]

he did this, right?

[Chad]

Like I can just having that visualization and that with me.

[Creighton]

I want to ask you all about

[Chad]

the jury visit to Moselle and what y' all thought about the jury Moselle that has to dovetail with Mike Sutton's 3D model and all that.

[David]

What is the if the question is, was it impactful? You know, when you, when, when the defense puts up, I guess the difference our case, we play poker with our hands with our card showing and defense doesn't. We're left guessing generally what they're going to say, what they're going to do. If you notice, one of the first questions we always ask these experts is, did you write a report? They never write a report. So we're hearing it for the first time the same as the audience is, same as the jury is. So we're adapting and trying to understand what they're saying, process it and then coming up with some coherent questions to ask them across. And expert witnesses, defense expert witnesses can go usually one of a couple ways. They can be, they can say things that are accurate and things we can agree on, largely. We can agree on 90% of what went on. We may disagree about 10%. Those kind of witnesses are fairly easy to do because you can ask them questions and they're going to agree with you. They're going to agree with everything that your sled agents and your law enforcement already said. There's other experts that want to kind of say things that, you know, aren't really founded in the facts or, you know, they're not. They're not moored to reality in many ways. And I think Mr. Sutton kind of veered into that territory. He was saying things that I don't believe were supported by anything that was established in the facts and the conclusions he was drawing, I don't even think were. His conclusions were to the exclusion of almost every other explanation, which I thought was just unrealistic and just not. It was, I think, the word preposterous. I mean, there were so many things that he concluded was preposterous. So I think that helped the jury in some ways, because they could see a crime scene. They could see the little lasers. They could see a lot of things. But what he didn't add was common sense. And I think that's what I was trying to bring out is that there's just. You can apply all this math and angles and engineering, and at the end of the day, you didn't apply common sense, because even given all that, all it took was someone holding the gun slightly different or kneeling or, you know, it was so absurd that he was going to say things like to the exclusion of any other possibility, it had to be a 52 or 54 individual. It was absurd. And so I think it did help. I think it very much did.

[Creighton]

As far as he said five two. Dick said five four.

[David]

Yeah, right, right. It was silly in many ways, but, okay, that was his testimony. We were going to go with it, and we were going to treat it seriously. The crime scene visit, I thought, because having been out there a number of times myself, and I don't know if y' all ever got a chance to visit, it does put it in perspective. Into perspective. The crime scene is. It feels like it's this vast, expansive area, and it is in many ways. But when it gets down to it, the crime scene is very tight. It's, you know, less than the size of this room. And you really do see how it's very intimate. And one person could absolutely accomplish all of this in a very little amount of time because everything is so close and compacted. I think it did help them put it all into context.

[Creighton]

You know, one of the things. One of the. Probably the mistakes I made. I'm sure there are more than one. Was waving David off on challenging his qualifications in the beginning. But I'm going to rationalize that now, and I think your question is helping me do that. But that. That I think fundamentally, David did such a great job on Cross that it damaged the credibility of the defense. So I'm going to rationalize that. That that was actually a good decision. Decision, because they put up that. And I think that, you know, again, jurors have a great barometer for bull. And then the AG came back with Kenny Kinsey and then just really drove it home. So. So I'm gonna rationalize it that way.

[Chad]

Effective thing you did,

[John Meadows]

you know.

[David]

Right. I mean.

[Creighton]

And I had.

[Chad]

You held that tape measure out.

[David]

Yeah. I realized he wasn't. You know, he was. He was gonna be. He was gonna be absurd in some ways, but in other ways, he wasn't. Right. So the angles and the measurements were what they were. He's a math guy. He's an engineer. And I've dealt with many engineers, so I know where their brains are, and they're gonna. I knew what he was gonna say, so I. I asked him the measurements. Give me the measurements. And I thought that was just the best way to relay his absurdity, because he. He did. He went to all this trouble to establish these computer. Fancy computer graphics and all that, but he just wouldn't concede that. There was just other possibilities. He wouldn't concede it. And whenever we present a witness, it's shades of gray. Life is very rarely black and white. Sometimes it is, but it's oftentimes shades of gray. And our witnesses relay that. And he was going with the whole black and white. It must be this. To the exclusion of anything else. That's absurd. And just a tape measure shows the absurdity. The numbers didn't lie. It's only his interpretation of it that I think was misguided.

[John Meadows]

I want to thank all y' all for covering all this. This has been fantastic.

[Ann Emerson]

Thank you so much. I mean, to have y' all together to hear this story together, I feel

[David]

like, oh, we could talk for hours. Bore you to death.

[Ann Emerson]

Privilege for us to get to talk to you, especially after staring at you for six weeks. Yeah, we felt like.

[Creighton]

Well, you know, we. We enjoyed it. It's really kind of, I guess, good for us because we're kind of getting to. To talk about all this stuff as Well, I mean, we've been talking among ourselves anyway, but it's. It's actually good to. Yeah, it's good for us to all talk in this setting because I get, you know, it's good to hear everybody's perspectives on everything.

[David]

It's a labor of love we spent. Creighton and I in particular, have spent a lot of time in Carleton County. We. We have been there. What year did we start looking into the sheriff? I mean, he's Strickland.

[Creighton]

Right. We indicted and convicted the sheriff.

[John Meadows]

Right.

[Creighton]

You know, so not long before all

[David]

this happened, I think it came out in testimony that we had a grand jury case going on, on the boat case. I mean, we, Creighton and I in particular have been deep diving into. Into Alex's life and Colleton county and helping clean up some of the issues that. That had plagued that county for a while, for quite a long time. It's kind of a capstone to be able to say that we've dedicated a number of years of our. Of our professional careers to trying to clean up that area. It's something we. I think we. I don't want to speak for Crane, but I take a lot of pride in that.

[Creighton]

I think, you know, I know that with that prior case, which was called Alpha One, that led to the conviction of the prior sheriff, Andy Strickland, I know that that has made law enforcement better than Colleton County. And then, you know, we'll see what the effect of all of this is. But hopefully the system, the justice system is improved. And then, of course, again, the most important thing about all this was the murders of Maggie and Paul.

[Ann Emerson]

So drop a comment below. Is there anybody else that you would like me to interview from the Murdoch saga? And what do you think about this appeal? Do you think that Alec Murdoch really has a chance at getting his double murder convictions overturned? Let's discuss, because I think this appeal is going to be coming in pretty soon. And be sure to like and subscribe to Crimly Obsessed, so you don't miss any of these incredible exclusive conversations.