And good evening. Now you are
watching the trial of Alec Murdoch.
After hours, we're taking a look back
at today's events in the courtroom.
Today was the third day of testimony,
only two witnesses taking the stand today,
but a lot of ground was covered.
We begin with defense attorneys cross
examining state witness Melinda Worley.
She is a sled agent who responded to the
crime scene on the night of the murders.
She was asked by attorney **** Harpootlian
about a bloody footprint at the scene.
But there was a body footprint near his that
turned out to be law enforcement, correct?
Yes. In the fever, right in blood.
Is that preservation of the scene that
you're that you're standards require?
No, not exactly, no, not exactly.
Should the police be
walking through the scene?
Do we know what other evidence
they may have destroyed?
Have no idea.
That's right. We don't.
Well, Harpootlian also asked about
a possible footprint on the back of
Maggie Murdoch's leg. Take a listen.
Somebody, even that night we see
in notes thinks that maybe could
be a a footwear impression or
could be something else, correct?
I couldn't determine what
kind of impression it was.
OK, but you would agree with me,
there is something on the back of her
leg that has some sort of pattern in it.
It is, yes. OK,
not naturally occurring pattern, right?
And this is the only photograph you
received that night or you received
ever of Maggie's Cath, correct?
That's not the photo I used
at all. I'm sorry, that's
not the photograph I used at
all for my footwear examination.
Now the other witness today
was sled agent Jeff Croft.
He spent most most of the afternoon
on the stand answering questions
from prosecutor Creighton Waters.
Croft was talking with investigators and
seizing guns on the Murdoch property.
He brought out a 300 blackout rifle
that was found on the property.
Prosecution said the gun was loaded with
the same type of bullets that killed
Maggie and were found near her body.
What's that? This would be the magazine
which I removed from this rifle on the video
and the ammunition which it contained.
And what kind of ammunition is that?
It's heads down SMB 300 blackout.
All right. And do you know the specific
brand and make and caliber of ammunition
that was used to kill Maggie Murdoch?
The head stamps on the shell casings at
the crime scene was SMB 300 blackout.
Same thing, yes, Sir.
Let's talk a little bit about this firearm.
What is this thing on the top here?
That is a I call it an optic,
but it's actually a thermal scope which
can be used for shooting in the dark.
Video from Crossbody Camera
also released this afternoon,
and it shows agents inside the
Murdoch family's gun room.
A large number of guns were
found inside the home.
They were taken by sled and tested.
Defense attorneys objected to the
guns being allowed as evidence,
but they were overruled.
Images of other evidence also
shared with the public today.
These items were entered as evidence
by state prosecutors and includes
images of shell casings found at
the scene of those shooting deaths.
Croft was on the stand for
several hours today,
and he testified about more than
the guns found on the property.
Sam Perez has more on the body Cam
footage from three days after the
shooting deaths that was played
for the first time in court.
The video is of an interview
between Murdoch and SLED agents
Dave Owen and Jeff Croft.
In the recording, Murdoch said
he started the day at the office.
Then Croft testified that Murdoch
said he came home early to ride
around the family's hunting
property with his son Paul.
And one of the things he told you is they
were riding around looking for hogs.
Is that right? Looking for hogs? Yes, Sir.
And we just,
you know, we rode
the property. At some point,
we were all back at the House together.
Maggie had gotten home. And, you know,
we sat down and we ate supper.
Then Murdoch claims he took a nap
and went to visit his mother.
When he got back shortly after,
he says he found his wife
and son shot to death.
The prosecution argues that he
was the one who killed them.
Reporting in Walter Borough,
Sam Perez News 19 WLTX.
And that testimony ended.
At about four 5:10 this afternoon.
Court will resume tomorrow morning at 9:30
and being joined now by Luke Sheeley,
he's a criminal attorney here in
Columbia to talk about what's happening
with the Murdoch trial right now.
So let me get your take on all
of this gun testimony today,
all these images that were released.
How big of a deal is it for the
jury to see something like this?
Well, it is important. It's a big deal.
It depends on really who your perspective is.
I mean, the state wants to show that
they're doing a very thorough investigation,
that they're collecting
evidence and testing evidence.
You may have heard and recall some
objections by defense counsel saying,
hey, this isn't relevant.
And that's because they know what
the jury doesn't know just yet is
the significance of a firearms
report and whether certain items of
evidence and guns actually match or
are they inconclusive or not a match,
but the state.
Wants to show it's being thorough,
but it does kind of cut.
Against the grain there where you
don't want someone to be painted as
kind of a over the top monstrous gun
owner because then a jury might think,
well, he's got so many guns,
maybe he just likes to do bad
things with guns.
And so that's,
that's what you want to be
concerned about a little bit,
defense attorney **** Harpootlian
objecting today to all those guns
being entered as to evidence,
why the objection and why do
you think the judge allowed it?
Well, he allowed it because Judge Newman
kind of allows more than restricts.
He doesn't like to knock out things
that he knows might be relevant.
The the state is going to start,
it's relevant under the rules,
but the rule is also,
well, it may be relevant,
but you don't want it to be
so unduly prejudicial that it
outweighs its probative nature.
And So what Mr.
Harpootlian knows is that some of those
guns have nothing to do with this case.
They're just showing that they
were collected and test fired.
But what's really going to be interesting
is when you get to those blackout.
300 rifles.
And there's only one in
evidence and it was test fired,
but it appears that we're missing
at least two that the Murdochs had.
So that's going to be the big
battle that would be coming
up for future witnesses.
And Murdoch could be heard on video
today basically saying to sled agents
that one of the guns had been stolen,
but it wasn't reported to the police
when it should have been reported.
So again, a missing gun out there,
at least according to Murdoch
when he talked to sled.
Yeah, it seems the way this evidence
is shaping up is that it's probably
not going to be contested that
there were three blackout rifles,
you know, one that Murdoch had
and two that his sons had with,
with the one being either stolen or missing.
And we've got one in evidence.
So the state's going to want to say, well,
the third one that's missing perhaps is Mr.
Murdoch's and he maybe got
rid of it after the crime,
whereas the defense will say,
well, there's guns missing.
It's either totally irrelevant.
This happens to be a similar
chamber caliber rifle,
or maybe potentially it's Paul's that
was stolen or misplaced at some point.
You know, a year prior.
So that's that's gonna be
the battle right now.
But go ahead.
The defense making a big deal
right now that no blood splatter,
no blood of any kind,
was found on Alec Murdoch when
they talked to him the evening
that the shooting deaths happened.
That's correct.
I mean you the nature of this crime,
you know these jurors are asked to
have it use their common sense and
common sense would dictate that
if you're in close contact with
high-powered weapons such as this
rifle and shotgun that you have
the potential for blood spatter.
We lawyers know and some members
of the media and public know from
looking at the filings that they've.
Heartedly objected to one expert in
particular about blood spatter analysis,
and their beef will be well.
There's no blood on the shirt, you know?
Sled knew that,
but they sent it out for testing anyway.
But I don't know,
it seems like the the state is
kind of leaning into this idea
that he doesn't have any blood.
He seems very clean, so maybe there.
They're just kind of leaning into
the concept that maybe he's getting
rid of evidence, bloody sharks,
weapons,
so that that might be kind of
where they're going and we'll
see how it plays out.
Have we heard anything about gun residue
on his hands yet? Has that come out in
court yet? I don't think
we've heard that. We haven't.
I expect we'll be hearing that soon.
I I don't know that they've
actually tested his hands.
I know they tested items of clothing.
I think the shirt in question doesn't
really have much if if memory serves
from from the defenses motion and I
know I think they alluded in their
opening argument that there'll
be some evidence on his car.
So, but gunshot residue can be explained.
You can get it from holding a gun
from touching someone who's been
in close proximity to a shot,
such as victims of crime.
So there's multiple ways on either side.
How that could be explained just
depends on who explains it better.
I know a lot was made last
week that there were like 255
potential witnesses in this case.
255 people are not going to testify
in this case. I know, right?
No, absolutely not.
You kind of you have to name your
witness list as a as a lawyer for
either side because potentially if
you don't name a potential witness
and then you do something changes
in mid course of the trial and you
feel like you need that witness,
the judge can say, well,
sorry you didn't name him.
So you really kind of do it
having a bunch of caution,
but they're only going to call
a fraction of those folks.
The defense team, as you know
and as many of our viewers know,
the defense team only has to put
a seat of doubt in one juror.
Do you think **** Harpootlian is doing
that right now with the evidence that
he's going over in court right now?
Well, still early days in my opinion.
We've got a long way to go.
He did score some,
some pretty good points today
with the crime scene investigator.
He did get her based on trajectory
analysis of two potential entry points.
He did get her to say that it's
possible that that could be from
two different assailants and that's
the type of thing you want to do.
You want to plant that seed
and then hold on to it.
And he did.
He was able to get some good
points about sloppy crime scene
preservation footprints made
by law enforcement officers
that really shouldn't be there.
So I think there's a lot to come.
And he's got a very kind of
conversational style that is a
little different from what we're
seeing from the state right now.
But that's that's just who he is.
What
about, I know it's early,
but what about the prosecution?
Do you think they're doing a
good job of laying out their
case to get a conviction here?
I think they are. I mean,
they've got a lot of evidence to work with.
And being a defense lawyer when it's,
when you're in the prosecution's case,
you always feel like you're kind of
swimming against the current a little bit.
But they're in all the photos
and the blood and the gore and.
And they are doing a good job of keeping
a good rhythm that's engaging and,
you know, trying to be a little dramatic
at certain points to keep the interest.
So I can't really fault them right now.
The only thing I will fault is the comment
today about the audio recording of Mr.
Murdoch during his interview where
they asked for the interpretation of
what he said about something like.
I, you know, regarding his his dead son,
you know, I I I did him.
I did him wrong or something
to that effect and.
I could tell by the reaction of Mr.
Murdoch that I don't think that's what he
would claim he said during that interview.
But so I don't know if it's just kind
of a little bit of taking opportunity
there and let it rest with the jury,
or if they're trying to bait Mr.
Murdoch into testifying.
But it seemed pretty clear from
the defense table that they were
a little upset with that comment.
As a criminal attorney, what do you
take with the public's fascination
with all of this right now?
It's to be expected on a case like this,
you have to take it with a grain of salt.
Even on lesser cases, sometimes the
media will catch hold of it newsworthy,
and you have to kind of put your blinders
on and do your job for your client and
make sure you stay focused and not get too
caught up in the in the sideshow of it all.
But it's it's about as much
media as I would expect,
and surprisingly even more than I expected.
So it's. It's, it's good for the observer,
but the people that are in the trenches,
it can be very stressful.
Alright, well thank you so much
for your time and your expertise.
I know we'll be talking
in the evenings ahead.
Alright, sounds good.
And of course we will continue to
have full coverage of the Alec
Murdoch trial on air and online.
You can watch on our website wltx.com.
You can watch on YouTube,
you can watch on WLTX plus as well
for the latest minute by minute
developments and again testimony
resuming tomorrow morning.
9:30 and News 19, of course,
will be there to bring you all the testimony.
As it happens.
We want to thank you for tuning in here.
We'll see you again tomorrow.