Alex Murdaugh, the alleged perpetrator on the heart of one of the vital byzantine true crime circumstances in latest reminiscence, is lastly getting his day in court docket. Alongside his indictment final 12 months for allegedly murdering his spouse, Maggie, and his second son, Paul, Alex Murdaugh (pronounced “Alec Murdoch”) additionally faces over 100 counts of monetary crimes together with fraud, cash laundering, embezzlement, and tax evasion.
So if you happen to thought the trial for the 2021 homicide of Murdaugh’s spouse and son, which lastly started on January 23, could be a routine affair, guess once more. Up to now, the Murdaugh trial has introduced us weird and ugly opening statements, lots of crying, newly revealed police footage, and a “yanny/laurel” second within the courtroom — and we’re simply at the start.
Going into trial, the case in opposition to Alex Murdaugh has appeared largely circumstantial — however there’s a staggering quantity of circumstances, implicating Murdaugh in not one, not two, however 5 suspicious deaths since 2015. (Take a look at our explainer on the head-turning twists on this case for the total image.) As a member of an elite South Carolina household of high-powered legal professionals, Murdaugh gained an area popularity for with the ability to manipulate the justice system and bend different folks to his will, all with little or no accountability. That every one modified in 2019 with the demise of Paul’s buddy’s girlfriend, Mallory Seaside, in a boating incident. Paul was allegedly piloting the boat whereas drunk.
All through the following investigation, Alex drew scrutiny for trying to impede any potential prosecution in opposition to his son, which solely raised extra questions on different suspicious deaths to which he had ties. These included the 2011 demise of Hakeem Pinckney, a shopper whose insurance coverage payout Alex allegedly stole; the 2015 demise of Stephen Smith, a homosexual school pupil who was rumored to have connections to his different son, Buster; and the 2018 demise of the Murdaughs’ housekeeper Gloria Satterfield from a mysterious head harm incurred on the Murdaugh property, after which Alex allegedly embezzled life insurance coverage cash from her household. Hypothesis solely elevated following the double murder of Maggie and Paul, which occurred on the Murdaugh property on June 7, 2021. Alex’s habits after their deaths didn’t alleviate suspicion; he was subsequently arrested for insurance coverage fraud after reportedly hiring somebody to kill him and stage it to appear like a homicide.
By this level, the Murdaughs have been making nationwide headlines, so when Alex pleaded not responsible to the 2 homicide costs in 2022, he assured a media circus of a trial. However you want extra than simply proximity to a string of murders to safe a conviction, and with all eyes on the Colleton County Courthouse, the place the trial started final week, questions on what precise proof the state had in opposition to Alex loomed massive.
Right here’s what we’ve realized to date.
Each attorneys on this case have a aptitude for the dramatic
Opening statements kicked off with a bang on Wednesday, January 23. After a jury choice course of that winnowed a pool of over 900 candidates right down to 12 jurors and 6 alternates, chief prosecutor Creighton Waters led by describing Maggie and Paul’s accidents — two photographs for Paul with a shotgun, at the least 5 photographs with an assault-style rifle for Maggie — and really saying, “Pow, pow!”
“It’s difficult. It’s a journey,” he instructed jurors, describing the entire case as a puzzle they have been slowly placing collectively. He laid out the proof, a lot of it new and far of it forensic, that the jury might anticipate to listen to, together with gunshot residue throughout Murdaugh’s garments and automobile, and cellphone proof that apparently debunks Murdaugh’s alibi.
Then, with Alex Murdaugh overtly weeping at elements, his protection lawyer, Richard “Dick” Harpootlian, gave quizzical directions to the jury: “He didn’t do it, and you’ll want to put any thought that he did out of your thoughts,” he instructed them. “There’s no direct proof. There’s no eyewitnesses. There’s nothing on digital camera. There’s no fingerprints. There’s no forensics tying him to the crime. None.” He additionally repeatedly asserted that Paul and Maggie have been “butchered,” which arguably didn’t assist his case.
“He didn’t do it. He didn’t kill — butcher — his son and his spouse, and you’ll want to disregard any hypothesis that he did.”
Whereas his theatrics could also be off-putting to some trial junkies, don’t write Harpootlian off simply but: When he’s not serving within the South Carolina state Senate, the 74-year-old Harpootlian is a veteran trial legal professional who’s labored as each prosecutor and protection lawyer, recognized for hoodwinking opponents at trial with sneaky however efficient techniques. Within the Murdaugh trial, he was bringing his explicit dramatic aptitude to the courtroom lengthy earlier than opening statements started, trying to overturn a protecting order in August and accusing the prosecution of withholding essential proof from the protection. There’s no proof that that’s true, but it surely does point out that we will anticipate some grandstanding alongside the way in which.
Alex Murdaugh’s alibi could also be a bust
In Alex’s now-infamous 911 name on the day of the murders, he claimed he arrived at his household’s canine kennels at their “Moselle” property after spending a while together with his mom, solely to seek out the our bodies of his spouse and son. Prosecutors allege as a substitute that he lured his household there (his sudden curiosity in getting her out to the closely wooded home prompted Maggie to textual content a buddy that he was “performing fishy”) and shot them with two totally different weapons.
To attempt to show it, the prosecution opened with a never-before-seen cellphone video from Paul’s telephone shortly earlier than the murders. Whereas on the kennels, Paul took a video of himself taking part in with one of many canine. Prosecutors argue that within the background, you’ll be able to hear two extra voices — implying that one among them is Maggie and the opposite is Alex.
Prosecutors allege that this video, which was filmed on Paul’s telephone at 8:44 pm, occurred roughly 5 minutes earlier than the shootings, primarily based on when Paul and Maggie stopped taking a look at their telephones and replying to texts. That will place Alex firmly on the scene earlier than the murders, contradicting his model of the timeline.
The prosecution’s reliance on this video is essential, since they don’t have GPS location information from Alex’s telephone on the evening of the murders. Exercise information from Alex’s telephone, alternatively, signifies about an hour inside the timeframe earlier than the murders throughout which no steps have been recorded, indicating Alex might have been driving a car.
On the opening day of testimony, the court docket seen Alex’s preliminary, half-hour interview with police, which occurred shortly after the murders. In that footage, Alex is carrying a shirt that seems to be fully clear, and speaks in a means that has led to questions on whether or not he’s faking tears. Investigators on the scene have been initially suspicious of Alex due to his total calm demeanor when discussing particulars.
A variety of this forensic proof is circumstantial — however that doesn’t make it any much less damning
Among the many key proof the prosecution has offered is ballistics proof, primarily pertaining to gunshot residue discovered on Alex’s clothes and throughout his automobile, together with the seat and seatbelt. In his opening assertion, Waters additionally promised the jury they might find out about a blue raincoat that Murdaugh apparently took and left at his mom’s home following the murders — which had gunshot residue everywhere in the inside.
However gunshot residue, although compelling, remains to be shaky forensically — it will possibly switch to an individual who merely holds a gun with out firing it, and it will possibly switch simply from one individual to a different. The protection claims the gunshot residue is because of Alex choosing up one of many weapons after the homicide, although it hasn’t addressed why Alex would do this.
The presence of gunshot residue, nevertheless, presents a mini-mystery: It doesn’t clarify why Alex’s garments largely seem to don’t have any bloodstains, mud, or any dust from contacting the victims. In Alex’s telling, he checked the our bodies of his spouse and son to see in the event that they have been nonetheless alive. This lack of residue may very well be a mark in favor of the protection (he didn’t shoot them, so he didn’t get blood on himself) or for the prosecution (he modified garments to cover the blood or wore the raincoat to guard himself from splatter). One blood spatter skilled might probably testify that Murdaugh did have blood on his garments, however provided that this proof is fairly shaky forensically, it’s unclear whether or not the prosecution will name on him.
A lot of the opposite ballistics proof is extra damning — proof that the protection had beforehand fought and didn’t exclude. The prosecution claims merely that the ammunition used to kill Alex’s spouse and son matched ammo discovered everywhere in the Murdaughs’ appreciable property. Particularly, the 300 Blackout rounds used to kill Maggie and the 12-gauge shotgun shells used to kill Paul each matched ammunition on the property. Examples of matching ammo included unused packing containers within the household “gun room” and spent shell casings discovered across the property’s looking grounds. Witnesses have additionally testified that Murdaugh had a personalized AR-15-style rifle made for him. This sort of gun is appropriate with the bullets used to kill Maggie and aligns with the proof that Murdaugh used such a rifle to kill her.
“I” vs. “they,” and different unanswered questions
As issues within the courtroom heated up on Monday, one investigator claimed on the stand that, whereas chatting with him by means of tears, Murdaugh stated, “I did him so unhealthy,” referring to the state of Paul’s physique. This led to a melodramatic trade through which the protection offered a slowed-down model of the frankly indecipherable audio in query and requested him whether or not he heard “I” or “they.” Whereas the agent caught to his unique declare that he heard the phrase “I,” the Rorschach nature of the audio solely underscored that so far, the state’s evidentiary case has been missing in arduous proof.
It’s removed from the one unsettled a part of this case. With an inventory of 255 potential witnesses, this trial might go on for fairly a while. However to date, one week into the proof, we nonetheless have some main unknowns.
What was the motive? The prosecution has leaned into the concept Murdaugh wished to achieve sympathy for himself by killing his spouse and son, whereas drawing on the insurance coverage cash — and we all know that he wished that for his remaining son, Buster, as a result of he later admitted to attempting to stage his personal homicide to make it occur. But it surely appears far-fetched at finest {that a} double murder, timed because it was, would level scrutiny away from Murdaugh. Had been there different suspects who had good cause to kill both Paul or Maggie, or to implicate Alex of their deaths?
Did he have assist? Neither Paul nor Maggie had defensive wounds; it appears unlikely that Alex would have been in a position to kill them each with totally different weapons with out one or each of them placing up a battle. On condition that the proof factors to an “ambush,” per the prosecution’s opening statements, how would Murdaugh be capable to kill them each? And if he had assist, who was it from? Some have advised Eddie Smith, the alleged drug seller who wound up serving to Alex stage his botched faux homicide try. Alex had paid Smith greater than $150,000 within the months earlier than the murders, however we nonetheless don’t actually know why.
We look ahead to these questions being answered at trial. Up to now, although, this case has left us with extra questions than solutions — a lot of which, as a result of deaths of Paul and Maggie, will stay eternally unanswered.
