And good evening now, thanks for
being with us on this Thursday,
February 9th as we recap what
happened inside the courtroom today
in the Alec Murdoch double murder
trial going on in Colington County.
The disgraced attorney accused of
shooting and killing his wife Maggie
and his son Paul some 19 months ago.
Now following today's testimony,
after we recap it,
we're going to be joined as usual
by a criminal defense attorney.
For his take on the latest
developments going on in Walterboro,
today's testimony started with an
FBI engineer back on the stand.
He actually testified yesterday
afternoon about data retrieved
from Alec Murdoch's vehicle.
Investigators were able to find
when the vehicle was started,
put in and out of park,
and when it was connected
to a Bluetooth device.
This morning,
defense attorneys asked if
investigators found location data
from the night of the murder.
There's direct testimony that there's
sometimes you can get location data.
Were you able to get location
data from the vehicle,
from the infotainment system?
We had limited location data
and there was some location data
recovered from the OnStar module.
And do you recall was there
any location data recovered
for the day of June 7th, 2021?
There was no location data
recovered on June 7th.
Now prosecutors have established a
timeline of when Murdoch's vehicle was
put in and out of Park on June 7th.
However, investigators could not determine
when the vehicle was actually moving.
The state also presented more testimony of
Murdoch's alleged financial crimes today.
Prosecutors say all of this is
important because it establishes
a motive for the slayings,
and witnesses that testified today
testified last week before judge clipped
the Newman as he was deciding whether
or not to actually allow the allegations
of financial crimes and as evidence.
So many of you are probably already
familiar with what they had to say today.
But back on the stand, Chris Wilson,
he and Murdoch were friends.
And as the attorney who worked
with him on a Mack truck case,
that's the settlement check
that went missing.
And it was that check Murdoch's
paralegal talked about finding
in yesterday's testimony.
Wilson told jurors Murdoch asked
that he pay the money directly
to him and not his law firm.
When the firm asked Murdoch for the money,
Wilson ended up loaning him $192,000
to help cover the total amount.
I know enough to know enough of the
law to know that you can't enforce an
agreement with a person that's deceased
against their state unless you got some
documentation of it. And I said, well,
I hate to even ask you to do this.
And I was worried that he was
going to kill himself.
You know, still at that point.
And and I was worried about
what that would, you know,
was worried about what that would mean.
More so on a human personal level,
but also what that would mean
about me trying to get repaid.
And I said, I hate to ask you to do this,
but but can we do this?
And he said sure, no problem.
Well, also back on the witness stand today,
Tony Satterfield.
He's the son of Gloria Satterfield.
She was Alex Murdoch's housekeeper who died
falling down stairs inside the family home.
Satterfield said Murdoch told him he
would get money to pay for his mom's
medical bills and to help the family.
Satterfield said he heard in the
media that the case had been settled,
but Murdoch told him he was
still working to get the money.
Here's Satterfield reading a text
from Murdoch after the settlement
had already been reached.
Alright, and can you read that to the jury?
Finally getting some movement.
Still a ways to go. Doing good.
Was just thinking about and thought
I'd check in. Hope to see you soon.
Still a ways to go is what he said, yes.
At that point in time that he tell you there
already been 2 recoveries in the case.
And that ever tell you that he also
had a $5 million umbrella policy? No.
Did he ever tell you that there
had been a recovery against that?
No. Did he ever tell you that
I've been in recovery for
$3.8 million against that?
No. Did he ever pay you
one penny of $3.8 million?
Again Satterfield testifying that
he heard in the media and not for
Murdoch at his mom's case had been
settled and late today Jan Malinowski,
the current CEO of Palmetto State Bank,
was also on the stand.
He took over after the former CEO
Russell Lafitte was fired for financial
fraud allegations linked to Murdoch.
He testified that Murdoch owed
more than $4.3 million to the
bank and had an account that was
overdrawn by nearly $367,000.
He said that after the bank started.
Looking at the Murdoch's
relationship with the bank,
Russell Lafitte deposited
$400,000 in Murdoch's account.
When you had a discussion at the
board meeting in August. 2021.
Were there any representations made
to you about the purposes for some new
loan to Alec Murdoch? Yes, there were.
And what were you told the purposes were?
Repairs to beach house.
Repairs to the beach house?
Yes, Sir. And who told you that?
Russell defeat OK and did he tell you
at any time that it was $350,000 to
Chris Wilson to put some fees back?
They tell you that at any time
it was $400,000 to cover a -,
347,000 dollar overdraft that the bank
had been paying for him since June of 2021.
Bill. Taylor, bill.
All right, Taylor Bell
is going to join us now.
Criminal defense attorney here in Columbia.
We're going to talk about everything
that happened in court today.
Thank you again for your time.
Thank you for having me.
So at 6:00 o'clock tonight,
our Caitlin Hagwood was reporting live from
outside the Clinton County Courthouse.
She said. At some point today,
several times today,
jurors could be seen yawning,
stretching, their heads, held down.
Basically disinterested in some
of this financial testimony
that was going on today.
At least that's the impression
that I got from that report.
What's your take on that?
Yeah, my take is very similar in that
they're not keeping their eye on the prize,
which is the murder case.
And, and I think the jurors are,
you know, all right, we,
we, we know he's still,
we know he's a thief, but show us murder.
And I think that's a question
that they're going to have.
I'm not sure the repetitiveness of
the these witnesses saying kind of the
same thing each of them he stole this,
he was covering up this,
he stole this, he was covering up this,
playing games with the money.
Not sure.
Some of these witnesses obviously testifying
for the first time in front of a jury,
they were on the stand last
week without the jury present.
But it's been a steady flow of witnesses
for the past four days about alleged
financial crimes for this jury.
That's correct for the most
of the witnesses today were
all about financial crimes.
We had the bank CEO we had.
The Satterfield case.
And then we also had Chris Wilson,
the family friend that he grew up
with and who was also a lawyer all
about the the stealing and and I
think it also gave though the defense
an opportunity to ask questions of
his friend that he cared about his
family and to show that he cared
for him. At this point the jury knows
that the state is arguing that the
alleged motive here would be to buy more.
Time for to to buy more time to do something
about these alleged financial crimes.
That's why the state would be
presenting all this evidence correct.
They would know that by now.
I think they would know that,
but we don't know that for sure.
When you're trying a case you you
don't know what the jury's thinking
it it's hard to know what they're
thinking because they're sitting
there that they're not communicating.
So. From the prosecution,
you're hoping that that's what they're,
they're seeing here and and that's
what they're believing, that, hey,
the motive is he's trying to cover up,
but that's kind of where
closing comes into play.
At the end after everybody's testified
that you close it all together and
you explain what these people did.
I understand during opening that
that is what the state said,
but you kind of put it all together,
right, as far as how much longer the
state is going to present a case.
We heard today that the latest I guess the
state would go would be next Wednesday.
That would be the 15th of February.
We also heard today that the defense
plans to present evidence and testimony
and that they they they may have about
a week's worth of witnesses as well.
So that adds 2 more weeks on
to the trial from yesterday.
That puts us at the 22nd.
Then on the 23rd or 22nd or 23rd,
somewhere in that timeframe,
I guess closing arguments would be heard.
If the jury were to get the case,
say on a Friday afternoon,
this jury is not sequestered.
From my understanding,
they get to go home at night.
If the jury were to get this case,
say on the 23rd or 24th or Thursday or
Friday and continues to deliberate and
it goes into the weekend with the judge,
make them stay the weekend to try
to come to a decision or send them
home and bring them back on a Monday.
I think Judge Newman would
make that decision based on,
you know, his experience having
been in front of Judge Newman.
Four and tried cases and seen cases
tried in front of Judge Newman.
He holds the jury there for for
a substantial period of time.
He'll hold them after hours
when they're deliberating.
So it wouldn't surprise me if he would
call them back on a Saturday that
that wouldn't surprise me at all.
I don't know if he will do it though,
but I wouldn't be surprised with that at all.
We know there is more testimony
upcoming other than financial
allegations against Alec.
Or not, because the pathologist
still has to testify in front of the
jury and is going to lay out exactly
how Paul and Maggie Murdock died.
That is still to come, correct?
That is still to come.
We're still going to likely hear
where the entry wounds were
from the from the pathologist,
and what organs the the actual bullets
hit and what the cause of death was.
He's going to come in and and tell us that.
So we get kind of a medical
terminology of the cause of death.
Do you think a lot is being
thrown at the jury right now?
Do you think a whole lot of?
From the slayings, the guns,
the weapons, the videotapes,
the allegations of financial crimes.
A lot is being put on that jury right now.
They're having to absorb all
of this without the ability
to take notes in this trial.
That's correct.
They're, they're getting a lot of
witnesses and I'm not necessarily sure
that that it's in a succinct fashion.
Some of the witnesses have been,
you know, out of sync to a certain extent.
But that's again where closing
comes in for each side. The jury.
I've never sat on a jury.
I've been in front of juries.
And I think they're listening,
but I think they only want to pay
attention to what's important to them.
And I think the jury having been
instructed that you can't consider this
the financial crimes as propensity,
they're kind of like, all right,
well, we already know he's a bad guy.
And so now they're moving on and not
really paying attention to that,
however.
In closing,
I believe the prosecution is going
to layout an absolute timeline of
every single witness that the time,
the date of each of these actual
data points or facts that you can
lay out that are not able to be
misconstrued such as phones such as
the the car that's going to be laid
out and they're going to assist the
jury and hopefully making a decision.
And
I was talking to someone earlier
today and they were like they
they asked me a question like.
Why can't the state call
Murdoch on the stand?
I mean, the defense would be the
one to put Murdoch on the stand and
explain to our viewers why the state,
just on their case,
could not put the defendant on the stand.
We have the right against self
incrimination and in this country it
means that you do not have to testify.
You do not have to present any evidence.
It is the government's burden of proof.
And that's why I do what I do is
because we need to hold the government
accountable to prove what they say and not.
Make us disprove what they say.
It's kind of why we came over to this
country from England, to be honest.
It's the right against self incrimination.
Speaking of the defendant in this case,
there is some anticipation that
he may testify. He may not.
That's his right if he wants to do so or not.
If he takes the stand,
is that going to open the door
for the prosecution to here to
ask all kind of questions about
these alleged financial crimes,
not only the double murder?
Ohh absolutely however.
You know, they're already getting into it.
We're already, there hasn't been much
questioning by the defense lawyers of
whether or not these financial crimes
actually occurred or didn't occur.
They've accepted them kind of at face value.
The only real questions of these
witnesses have kind of been.
By the defense about his
character as a father,
whether he cared for his family,
whether his he cared for his friends,
they've not really been about did these
financial crimes occur or not occur.
That's not really contested.
So that's why I kind of think
it's a setup that he may get up
there and say yeah I did that,
but I didn't do this being the murder
and and that was also a topic
of conversation by some today.
That maybe he gets on the stand.
Maybe the defense says,
look, he's got issues.
He's got problems.
You've heard some of his friends testify.
He's got some issues when
it comes to opioids.
He's got some problems here,
but that's not connected to what happened.
Although the circumstantial
evidence that they presented,
he's confronted about one thing
the morning of the murders,
and then the murders happened
just a few hours later.
I agree with that, that that's what they're
trying to to show that that this was.
The day of he was about to get
caught and he went out and committed
these murders to to kind of deflect
the conversation of everybody.
You know, again, I've always said
I'm not 100% buying that motive.
Just the criminal defense side of me.
However, I've also said that, I think.
He was irrational and irrational.
People do irrational things.
Reports that their defense has a a for a
focus group, so to say listening to
the testimony, and that the focus group
not buying the state's motive that
he killed his wife and his son as a
distraction to the financial crimes.
Is it common to have focus groups and high
profile cases like this for the defense?
I think in big cases you will have
focus groups, in smaller cases your
focus group might not necessarily be.
Folks, outside of your circle,
you may go as a lawyer and talk to other
lawyers and say what do you think about this?
So we always have focus groups.
Many of us are members of
organizations and we we talk,
we don't say names or
anything about our cases,
but we talk about our our cases and
kind of bounce ideas off of each other.
So all cases have focus groups.
Is whether or not it's high profile
enough to to put the resources
into an actual focus group itself?
All right, well, it sounds like.
Have at least two weeks or more left
of this very high profile case that
has riveted the nation's attention.
Taylor Bell, thank you for
your expertise tonight.
We appreciate it so much.
Thank you for having me. Testimony
is going to resume tomorrow
morning at 9:30. We will be there.
You can watch it right here
on our YouTube channel.
You can watch it on WLTX plus
you can watch it on our website,
wltx.com as well.
Again, we'll have live team
coverage tomorrow from Walterboro.