Good afternoon my friends, and thank you so
much for joining us for News 19 at noon.
I'm Andrea Mock and of course we are going
to start right off with the latest out of
the courtroom in Walterboro as the double
murder trial of Alec Murdoch continues.
Now early this morning,
an interesting decision in the courtroom.
Want to get you up to date on this.
Defense attorney **** Harpootlian
asked the judge if they could
take the jury out to Mozelle.
The scene of the murders, of course.
Where Maggie?
And Paul were shot to death,
Harpootlian said.
We believe it would be useful
for the jury to see Moselle.
Prosecutor Creighton Waters disagreed.
He said, listen,
the property has changed a lot since
the murders because nobody is currently
living there or maintaining it.
The trees are overgrown,
Judge Newman said,
though if the defense wants to arrange
that field trip to Moselle, he will do so.
All right, now on to today's first witness.
And I want to warn you right now,
some of this testimony is very graphic.
The defense called Doctor
Jonathan Eisenstat to the stand.
Eisenstadt is a forensic pathologist.
He's also the former chief
medical examiner for the George
Georgia Bureau of Investigation.
That's basically like Georgia sled.
Eisenstat told the jury he disagreed with
Doctor Ellen Reimer's opinion about that
second gunshot that killed Paul Murdoch.
Doctor Reimer said that she was
confident that Paul was shot in the
shoulder and had an upward trajectory
and the pellets went into his neck
and ultimately blew off his skull and
part of his brain out of his head.
Dr.
Eisenstat says, though Paul was shot
directly in the back of the head.
Listen to this.
Would have been to the top back of his head.
And how far away from the head? Ohh no.
It would have been pressed against
the head. This would be a contact
wound to the back of the head, correct.
Top of the head wasn't shaved,
so I can't tell you the exact entrance,
but it absolutely is a contact
range shotgun wound to the head.
And from the way it was
described by Doctor Reemer,
what she described as the exit wound
was that it was near the top of the head
and a little bit back on the right.
So probably right. Out here. OK.
So again, Doctor Eisenstat saying he
believes what Doctor Reimer thought was an
exit wound was actually the entrance wound.
Now here's the thing that we haven't seen
yet and the defense has already done,
they haven't said yet why this matters.
So let's bring in our own expert
news 19 reporter Sam Perez joins
us now live from Walterboro.
Now, Sam, this is very,
very graphic testimony today,
and I was trying to follow, OK?
Where is the defense going with this?
I have two thoughts.
One, they're either trying
to prove it was so graphic,
how could a father do this to a son?
Or two, they're introducing the
idea of there being 2 gunmen.
What did you take away from
all of this graphic testimony?
What do you think?
Yeah, absolutely, Andrea,
I certainly think that bringing in,
you know, that that father dynamic,
they've, you know, the defense this
whole time has been saying that,
you know, Murdoch is a family man.
He loved Maggie.
He loved his son Paul.
So I think introducing the idea that
this could have been a contact wound,
meaning, you know,
the gun was pressed against Paul's head,
I certainly think that's
part of the defense strategy.
I also think this whole testimony is
another opportunity for the defense to
try and discredit the investigation.
So that's a big point.
They've been bringing in from,
you know,
sled to the Colleton County Coroner today.
They've been trying to say that
the investigation did not go
according to protocol and could have
done better or been done better.
So I certainly think that's
another part of this.
Yes. So now certainly Eisenstadt says he
agrees with some of Reimer's conclusions.
But now not all of them,
like you said, Andrea.
So on Maggie's body, Eisenstat testifies
he agrees with the conclusion about
four out of five of the bullet wounds.
On Paul's autopsy, however,
he's drawn a few different conclusions,
especially when it comes to the head wound.
Dr. Reemer testified Paul was
shot from about 3 feet away.
She says the bullet went through his.
Jaw and out his skull.
But Eisenstat has a different opinion.
There is no skull here.
That's probably the area
where the shotgun was pressed
against the head. This is, I
mean, textbook for a contact
range shotgun wound to the head,
to the top of the head, not
down here and. OK, so. In your opinion,
if it had happened the way Dr. Reimer said.
You would not have the directionality
of those pellets in the shoulder down,
correct? And you would not have.
That kind of. Devastation to the
skull wouldn't be enough energy,
that's correct. You may have some
what we call linear fractures,
so little lines of fractures,
but you wouldn't have the top of
the skull completely gone.
Eisenstat has testified he thinks Paul's
head should have been shaved during the
autopsy to collect more information,
like evidence of gunshot residue and burning.
He's still up on the stand now being
questioned by the prosecution,
reporting live in Walterboro.
Sam Perez News 19 WLTX.
Andrea, back to you.
Yeah, very interesting.
Sam, I also agree with you.
It's a possibility that he could be
asking brought up that witness and
asking those questions just to show that
there were flaws in the investigation.
That's another excellent point.
So again. Like Sam said,
the prosecution now questioning Dr.
Eisenstat will let you know what happens
in that testimony at 2:00 o'clock
when you join us for our live update.
And of course make sure you follow us
throughout the day wltx.com or follow
along as we stream live on YouTube.