PAID A KATIE PAVLIK, AND THIS IS
"THE FIVE."
ALEX MURDAUGH DONE WITH HIS
TESTIMONY AFTER A DRAMATIC DAY
IN THE DOUBLE MURDER TRIAL AND
DISGRACED ATTORNEY ADMITS TO
BEING HELP HOPPING SERIAL LAYER
BUT NOT A MURDER.
THE PROSECUTORS TO POKE HOLES IN
HIS TIMELINE OF WHAT HAPPENED
THAT NIGHT AND YESTERDAY,
MURDAUGH CHANGED HIS STORY TO
ADMIT HE WAS AT THE DOG KENNELS
WHERE HIS WIFE AND SON WORSHIPS
SLADE SOMETHING THAT HE DID NOT
TELL THE POLICE AT AT THE TIME.
>> ...
THE LAST TIME YOU SELL
SUPPOSEDLY YOUR WIFE AND CHILD
AND ALL OF THIS DETAIL, YOU AS A
LAWYER AND A PROSECUTOR DIDN’T
THINK THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO
OFFER?
>> I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT HERE
IN AND AL MURDAUGH HELPED L.A.
ABOUT BEING AT THE KENNELS, HE
LEFT HIS WIFE AND SON MINUTES
BEFORE SLAUGHTERED, NO ONE ELSE
WAS AROUND.
>> >> YOU HEAR THE DOGS BARKING,
CARING ON AND THEY SENT SOMEBODY
WAS AROUND?
>> NO, THEY WEREN’T.
THERE WAS NOBODY AROUND AND THE
DOGS DIDN’T KNOW.
THERE WAS NOBODY ELSE AROUND.
>> GOOD.
>> FOR HIM TO SENSE.
>> Jesse: BUT THE MOST
EXPLOSIVE MOMENT OF THE DAY
MURDAUGH PUTTING HIS OWN THEORY
WHO MURDERED HIS FAMILY.
HE BELIEVES IT IS REVENGE OVER A
VOTE ACCIDENT INVOLVING HIS NOW
DECEASED SON PAUL.
PAUL WAS DRIVING THE FAMILY VOTE
DRUNK WHEN HE CRASHED AND KILLED
ONE OF HIS FRIENDS.
>> I DIDN’T BELIEVE ANY OF THE
FAMILY, THE PEOPLE THAT WERE
INVOLVED IN THE VOTE RACK HAD
ANYTHING TO DO WITH HURTING PAUL
BUT I CAN TELL YOU AT THAT TIME
AS I SIT HERE TODAY THAT I
BELIEVE THAT BOAT RICK IS THE
REASON WHY PAUL-PAUL AND MAGGIE
WERE KILLED.
>> SO WE HAVE RANDOM VIGIL LEAD
TOVIGILANTES BECAUSE OF THE BOAT
RICK.
>> I DON’T KNOW THAT IT IS
RANDOM VIGILANTES.
>> SO YOU ARE SAYING SOMEONE OFF
OF SOCIAL MEDIA?
YOU DON’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF
THAT, DO YOU?
YOU JUST BELIEVE THAT INFORMED
THAT THEORY AND TRIED TO EXPLAIN
THE LIGHT THAT YOU TOLD FOR THE
FIRST TIME YESTERDAY, ISN’T THAT
RIGHT?
YOU ARE TELLING THIS JURY IT IS
RANDOM VIGILANTE, THE
12-YEAR-OLD THAT JUST HAPPEN TO
KNOW PAUL AND MAGGIE WERE IN
BRAZIL JUNE 7TH.
THEY KNEW THEY WOULD BE AT THE
KENNELS ALONE ON JUNE 7TH.
NOTE THAT YOU WOULDN’T BE THERE
FOR ONLY BETWEEN THE TIMES 8:49
AND NINE::02 ANSI CRIME IS
COMMITTED DURING THAT TOUR THAT
SHORT TIME AROUND THE SAME TIME
THAT YOU ARE IN ALAMEDA.
THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO
TELL THE JURY?
>> YOU GOT A LOT OF FACTORS IN
THERE, MR. WATERS WHICH I DO NOT
AGREE WITH AND SOME OF IT WHICH
I DO.
>> Jesse: JUDGE JEAN PIRRO,
HOW WAS IT THAT MURDAUGH PUT
FORWARD THIS ALTERNATIVE THEORY
OF THE KILLING?
>> Judge Jeanine: LOOK, HE
STARTED THIS YESTERDAY.
THIS GUY IS WITHOUT A DOUBT ONE
OF THE BEST, NOT JUST
DEFENDANTS, CERTAINLY THE BEST
DEFENSES ON THE COURT ROOM
STAND.
NO ONE CAN PUT WORDS IN HIS
MOUTH AS HARD AS I TRY.
NO ONE CAN PULL THE WOOL OVER
HIS EYES ANY SHARPER THAN THE
PROSECUTOR.
AND THE PROSECUTOR HAS A
GAME PLAN.
THIS GUY HAS TO HAVE A TERRIFIC
MEMORY TO BE ABLE TO KEEP
TELLING THE LIES HE’S TELLING.
BUT WHAT IS GOING ON TODAY IS
THAT HE HAS CONSISTENTLY ADDED
TO ANOTHER POSSIBILITY SO SOME
JURORS OWING TO SAY, THERE COULD
BE SOMEONE OUT THERE THAT DID
THIS, OKAY?
BUT THE PROSECUTOR IF HE HAS ANY
BRAINS AND I DON’T LIKE THAT
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
YESTERDAY, I LIKE HIM, HE WAS A
BULLDOG BUT HE CAN’T BE A
BULLDOG STRAIGHT FOR TWO DAYS.
THE JURY IS GONE.
THEY LEFT AFTER THE THIRD TIME
AND STALLED AND THE LOOK IN HIS
EYES.
THEY SAY HE IS A LIAR, THIEF AND
A CON MAN.
AND HE SAYS, "I AM."
BUT WHEN HE SAID HE LEFT THE
SCENE AND HE GOES BACK WITHIN
2 MINUTES, ALL OF A SUDDEN, HE
CALLED HIM AGAIN.
WHY IS HE CALLING MAGS AND
PAUL-PAUL AGAIN?
HE’S MAKING 293 FOOTSTEPS.
HE’S PACING.
HE’S PACING BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT
ANSWERING THE PHONE.
BUT HE IS ONLY 1100 YARDS AWAY.
ALL HE HAS TO DO IS GET IN THE
GOLF CART AND GO BACK THERE.
BUT THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT MAKING
THE POINT THE WAY HE SHOULD
APPEAR AT HIS SUMMATION HAS TO
BE BRILLIANT.
IT HAS TO HAD ALL THE POINTS HE
MISSED.
UNDERSTAND ONE THING, A VERDICT
IN A CRIMINAL CASE, MURDER CASE
AND CRIMINAL CASE HAS TO BE ON
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
I WOULD BET MY HOUSE THERE IS
ONE PERSON THAT WILL HANG THIS
JURY IF NOT ONE MORE PERSON.
>> Jesse: THAT IS A PRETTY
NICE HOUSE, HAROLD.
WOULD YOU TAKE HER UP ON THE
BET?
>> Harold: FIRST OF ALL IT’S
GOOD TO BE BACK.
I HOPE THE JUDGE IS WRONG.
SHE HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE AND
UNDERSTANDS COURTROOMS AND
PROSECUTORS.
I DIDN’T WATCH A WHOLE LOT OF
ADMITTEDLY UNTIL TODAY AND I
READ A LOT ABOUT IT AS WE WERE
GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT TODAY.
AND I GUESS I AGREE WITH THE
JUDGE IN ONE HUGE REGARD TO COME
I THINK THE JURY WHO NEVER SAW
ON TELEVISION, WE COULDN’T SEE
THE JURY BUT MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE
BUT IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT THE
JURY BELIEVES THIS MAN RIGHT
HERE BETWEEN 8:49 AND
9:02:00 P.M.
IF YOU BELIEVE HE LIED ABOUT
EVERYTHING, THERE ARE A LOT OF
THINGS BEFORE THAT AND YOU
BELIEVE YOU LIED ABOUT THINGS
AFTER THAT, WHICH HE ADMITTED
TO, AND HE LIED ABOUT SOME
THINGS HE DID IN HIS OWN
PRIVATE, PERSONAL PRIVATE
COMMERCIAL PRACTICE IN LIFE AND
WE TALK ABOUT THE LAW AND HIS
FAMILY’S LIFE.
HE HAS AN AUDIBLE HISTORY WITH
HIS FATHER, GREAT-GRANDFATHER,
AND HOW DOES HE NOT REMEMBER THE
13 MINUTES ON THE PROPERTY?
I DO AGREE WITH THE JUDGE COME
IF I WAS THE PROSECUTOR I WOULD
PUT A WHITE BOARD AND JUST WRITE
DOWN ALL OF THESE THINGS.
I WOULD WANT THE JURY TO RELATE
AS THEY SIT BACK IN THAT ROOM TO
REMEMBER WHAT HE WAS DOING WHEN
HE WROTE THOSE THINGS ON THE
WHITEBOARD.
LOOK, I WILL NOT SECOND-GUESS
THE PROSECUTION.
THEY SOLD AT JURY AND THE
PROSECUTION HAD AN OPPORTUNITY
AND I THINK HIS NAME IS WATERS,
NO RELATION.
SO HE SAW WHAT THE JURY WAS
THINKING AND HE COULD SEE THEIR
EYES.
I GUESS THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE
FOR THE JUDGE, WHAT DO YOU THINK
THEY WOULD DO?
TO THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CALL -- WOULD YOU CALL A POLICE
OFFICER OR SOMEBODY JUST TO
REAFFIRM AND REINFORCE FOR THE
JURY THAT HE LIED TO THEM?
AND WHAT THEY THINK HE WOULD BE
LYING?
>> Judge Jeanine: ABSOLUTELY
HAS A D.A. PROSECUTOR.
>> Harold: I DON’T KNOW ENOUGH
ABOUT IT.
>> Judge Jeanine: YOU HAVE A
RIGHT TO REBUTTAL TESTIMONY.
BUT THE PROBLEM AS A JUDGE, I’M
NOT GOING TO ALLOW IT.
BECAUSE IT IS NOT MATERIAL TO
THE MURDER.
WE HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED HE’S
LIED.
I’M GOING TO SAY AS A JUDGE, THE
JURY ALREADY HEARD THAT UP AND
YOU CAN BRING IT UP IN
SUMMATION.
THAT SAID.
>> Jesse: CORRECT ME IF I AM
WRONG, THEY DON’T HAVE A TON OF
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
THEY DON’T HAVE THE MURDER
WEAPON.
THEY HAVE THE VIDEO AROUND THE
CRIME SCENE AT THE TIME.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS ALL
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
SO THE PROSECUTOR HAVE
ESTABLISHED I’M A LIAR, HE’S A
LIAR, HE LIES ABOUT ALL THESE
OTHER THINGS, WHY WOULDN’T HE BE
LYING ABOUT KILLING HIS WIFE AND
SON?
THAT IS NOT THE STANDARD.
THE STANDARD IS BEYOND THE
REASONABLE DOUBT ON MURDER
CHARGES.
NOT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
WHETHER HE IS A LIAR OR NOT.
SO MAYBE THAT WON’T LIE WHEN IT
COMES TO THE JURY DELIBERATING.
THE ONE THING HE WAS ASKED BY
THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY BEFORE THEY
ADJOURNED FOR THE DAY WAS, "DID
YOU MURDER MAGGIE AND PAUL?
"AND HE SAID I WOULD NEVER HURT
EITHER ONE OF THEM.
HE DID NOT SAY "NO."
SO MAY BE A YOUR ANSWER TO GIVE.
[OVERLAPPING VOICES]
>> Katie: IT WOULD HURT BUT HE
DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION AND
OF COURSE, THE REMAINING
QUESTION COME IF HE DIDN’T DO
IT, WHO DID AND THE POLICE
CLEARLY DON’T HAVE ANY OTHER
LEADS WHEN IT COMES TO THE MAN
WHO’D HAS DONE THIS.
>> Katt: JUDGE COME I AGREE
WITH YOU I THINK THERE WILL BE
ONE PERSON -- I DON’T KNOW.
THERE ARE PLENTY OF REASONS WHY
TO HIT THIS FAMILY AND TO HATE
MORE THAN HIM AND TO BE SO MAD
THAT KID WAS DRIVING THE VOTE
AND KILLED THAT GIRL.
DO I THINK THAT IS WHAT
HAPPENED?
NO.
I THINK HE KILLED THESE PEOPLE.
BUT I ACTUALLY THINK THE
PROSECUTOR’S PLAN IS OKAY, I
WILL SHOW THIS GUY IS A LIAR,
AND ATTIC AND HE SAYS,
"ABSOLUTELY I AM."
AND BECAUSE I’M AN AVID THAT IS
WHY I BEHAVED AND CRAZY WAYS BUT
I WOULD NEVER DO THIS.
HE IS DOING SUCH A GREAT JOB.
IT IS ALMOST MAKES ME HATE HIM
EVEN MORE BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE
HOW YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH ALL OF
THESE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THEY
SEEM TO GET AWAY WITH THEIR
ENTIRE LIVES BY ONE, THE WAY HE
IS COMING OFF OF A YEAR OF HER
DIS- MEDIA ABOUT TRASHING ALL
THESE PEOPLE ARE TO WATCH THAT
AND STILL COME UP IS PRETTY
SYMPATHETIC.
>> Harold: ONE THING AS THE
JUDGE, IN LIGHT OF WHAT WAS
SAID, WOULDN’T YOU WANT TO CALL
THE POLICE BACK TO REBUT THE
FACT THAT WE DID EXPLORE AND WE
DID LOOK INTO THESE OTHER THINGS
AND FOUND THAT WAS NOT THERE?
>> Judge Jeanine: KNOW THAT
WAS DEFENSE AND O.J. SIMPSON
SAYING OR THE PROSECUTIONS THEY
WILL CALL SOMEBODY AND SAY, WE
CHECKED EVERYBODY ELSE OUT.
NO, IT IS AN ARGUMENT --
>> Harold: I DIDN’T PRACTICE
LIKE YOU, BUT I WENT TO LAW
SCHOOL.
>> Judge Jeanine: HE OPENED
THE DOOR.
THAT IS NOT MATERIAL.
YOU DON’T HAVE TO ELIMINATE
EVERYONE TO AND TYPE THIS
PERSON.
I WILL TELL YOU WITH THE WINNER
IS HERE FOR HIM IN TERMS OF HIS
BEING ACQUITTED, TO
COCONSPIRATOR WAS TALKING TO A
FRIEND OF MINE FITZPATRICK ADA
AND THE PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL
DAs AND WE ARE PALS AND
STORE AND HE SAID JEANINE IN ALL
YOUR YEARS HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A
HOMICIDE SCENE WHERE THEY USED
TO COPE GUNS WITH ONE PERSON?
I SAID, NEVER.
HE SAID, JEANINE, NEVER.
I’VE NEVER SEEN IT AND YOU’VE
NEVER SEEN IT SO WHAT DOES THAT
TELL YOU?
>> Jesse: IF HE SKATES ON THE
DOUBLE HOMICIDE CAN HE GO TO
PRISON FOR THE FINES?
>> Judge Jeanine: THIS IS ONE
THING THAT JURY MAY SAY, LOOK,