The first time the
prosecution really got a chance
to drill Alex Murdoch about the details
minute by minute,
second
by second of the night of the murder.
There painting him as a privileged man.
It was a habit of lying
until he's confronted with facts
that he simply cannot deny.
And then he comes up with a new lie
to explain that away
none of which Alec Murdoch
actually denies.
But what he does
deny is that he killed his family
and he did that
repeatedly on the stand today.
So you,
like you've done so many times
over the course of your life,
had to back up and make a new story
that kind of fit with the facts.
Alec Murdoch under cross-examination
for a second day
several times getting heated.
You're doing right.
I'm consistent about that
because a very short time before that,
David Owens is asking me questions
and telling me I'm a suspect
in the murder of my wife and my child
and asking me about my clothes.
You dang right.
It was important
because the only thing
you're concerned about is yourself.
You're not concerned
about giving accurate
information to law enforcement
as he tries
to convince the jury
he did not kill his wife, Maggie
and son Paul.
You mean like,
did I shoot my wife and my son?
Yes. No.
Prosecutor Creighton Waters
pushing Murdoch
hard over his admission
of lying about being at the family
dog kennels
where the bodies were found
the night of the murders.
Pretty much all of that was lies
when the part about me
not being out to kill was also not
knowing that Paul went down there,
not being sure
that was a lot to warrant it.
I mean, you're putting
some detail on this thing, aren't you?
Everything about me
not going to the kennel was a lie.
And you're able to just do that so easily
and so convincingly and so naturally.
Don't you.
And hammering Murdoch
on what the prosecution
is calling his new story.
You never told them all
this news story
that you've constructed
in light of this trial. Is that correct?
I did not tell them that
I went to the kennel. I lied about that.
And at the same time,
you also looked at this jury
and tried to tell them
that you had been cooperative.
And this investigation
other than lying to
them about going to the kennel.
I was cooperative in every aspect
of this investigation.
Very cooperative was
maybe the most important fact
of all that you were at the murder scene
with the victims
just minutes before they died.
Also revealed astonishing details.
We've never heard about just how serious
Murdoch says his opioid addiction was.
So you're taking
60 a day or something like that.
I mean, there were days
where I took more than that.
But the majority
of the cross-examination Friday
focused on what happened June seven.
20, 21
So what you're telling this jury
is that it's a random vigilante
that's your 12 year old
and the 12 year old 52 people
that just happened to know that Paula.
Maggie were both at Moselle on June 7th
that knew that they would be
at the kennels alone on June the seventh
and knew that you would not be there,
but only between the times of eight 49
and nono two
that they show up without a weapon,
assuming that they're going
to find weapons and ammunition
there, that they commit this crime
during that short time window.
And then they travel
the same exact route
that you do
around the same time to Almeida.
That's what
you're trying to tell this jury.
You got a lot of factors in there, Mr.
Waters.
All of which I do not agree with,
but some of which I do
a prosecution even saying
that they didn't
feel like Murdoch's explanation
for his alibi,
alibi like really held water
something the defense
tried to push back on.
Believe it or not,
Alec Murdoch is not the defense's
final witness.
Brianna, we still have more to go
when they return to court on Monday.
But that means that
when that jury goes home this weekend,
that all they're going to be able to sit
and think about
or the past two days of Alec Murdoch
taking the stand
and testifying on his own behalf. Yeah.
So dramatic the testimony was.
Diane, thank you for that report for us
from South Carolina.
I do want to talk now
with attorney and legal affairs
commentator Areva Martin
about what we've seen here
over the last couple of days.
Now that the
prosecution, Areva,
has completed its cross of Murdoch,
do you think they were effective
they were absolutely effective.
We always knew
the big issue was going to be
how was Al Murdoch going to explain away
the lies that he told
about not being at the kennel.
And the prosecutor
just hammered him
and hammered him on that lie
and basically said, look,
you lied about one of
the most important facts in this case.
So why should the jury believe
anything that you've said
since you've been testifying?
And more importantly,
he drew out this issue of this new story.
We have a lot of new details
that Murdoch gave today
that he had not given
to the police
despite saying
that he was being
very cooperative with them.
So I think
jurors are going
to have a lot to think about.
They're going to have to think about
whether his testimony was credible.
And as we always know, when the defense
takes the witness stand in his defense,
it takes the witness
stand in his own defense.
There's a probability
that you will be hammered
by a good prosecutor.
And I think that happened today.
Yes, they did that.
And they were focusing
extensively on the timeline
of these events.
The night that his wife,
Maggie and his son, Paul were killed.
The discrepancies
about Murdoch's whereabouts.
Is that enough to sow doubt in a jury
every single one of them?
It's so interesting, Brianna.
You know,
you only need one juror
to decide that they like Alec Murdoch.
He's bigger than life character
in this town.
His son testified
is that his
remaining son, Buster,
testified that his dad was distraught
on the night
that he discovered his wife
and son murdered.
And if a juror is sitting here thinking,
I don't believe that this man,
even though he's a drug addict
and even though he has stolen money
even though he has lied,
I don't think he would blow the brains
out of his younger son and kill his wife.
One juror might be convinced
that the fact that the son is testifying
on his dad's behalf
and saying he was distraught,
that might be enough for one
juror to be a holdout
and you not see
a conviction in this case.
I wonder what you think about him
admitting he lied.
You know, on one
hand, he's admitting
he lied about something,
but he's saying he didn't kill his wife
and his son.
So he's giving something right
Is that help?
Does a jury sort of
look at that and say,
okay, that's actually
helpful, he's
coming clean about something?
Or did they just say he lied about something?
He's definitely
lying about other things, too.
It's a double edged sword,
Brianna, to be truthful
and to be honest with you,
some jurors are going to say,
just as you said, well, you know what?
He did tell a lie.
He didn't come clean
when I wanted him
to come clean earlier with the police.
But he came clean now and again.
I'm not going to,
you know,
take from that that because he's a liar,
but he's also a murderer.
But others will say, look,
this guy lied about something
that was so important.
And if he really wanted to find out
who had killed his wife and his son,
he would have been truthful
about everything.
And even if in that moment
he was paranoid because of drug use,
he had ample opportunity 18, 19 months
to go back to the police and say, look,
I made a mistake.
I lied about what I said about
not being at the kennel.
Some folks are going
to hold that against them.
They're going to say, what,
once a liar, always a liar.
We can't believe anything that he
said on the witness stand.