♪ inner voice (kombucha brewer): if i just stare at these payroll forms... my business' payroll taxes will calculate themselves. right? uhh...nope. intuit quickbooks helps you manage your payroll taxes, cheers! with 100% accurate tax calculations guaranteed. hello everyone. welcome to cnn newsroom. >> we are waiting for accused double murder defendant alex murdaugh to return to the stand in south carolina. we of course will take you there live as soon as that happens. the ex-attorney has been

undergoing a blistering cross examination by the prosecution. they are trying to poke holes in his claim he did not kill his wife maggie and youngest son paul. >> on the stand murdaugh admitted he lied to police about where he was in the moments leading up to the killing and confessed to being addicted to opioids and stealing from clients. we'll have more in a few moments. first, it is hard to believe it has been one year to the day since russian troops and tanks rolled across the border and ukraine still remains in place. >> translator: if we all do our home work, victory will be inevitable. i am certain there will be victory. i don't think, i want it this year. we have everything for it. we have the motivation, certainty, the friends, the diplomacy. we are helped by our friends for our shared values so this war doesn't spread, so this aggression doesn't spread. >> in addition to vowing ukraine

will see victory, president zelenskyy met with wounded soldiers at a kyiv hospital to thank them. a year ago russian rockets lit up the skies near kharkiv as residents sheltered from the missiles in subway stations. >> ukrainian cities have burned. we've seen the flames. including in mariupol where a maternity hospital and theater were bombed. in bucha russian troops tortured and killed civilians before ukraine liberated the kyiv suburb. the front lines have shifted over the past 12 months. thousands of ukrainians killed. millions now displaced in their own country, scattered around the world, and still russia occupies barely 11% of ukrainian territory. but to win ukraine needs global support. president biden met today virtually with the g7 leaders to shore that up and announced another $2 billion in security aid and $10 billion in humanitarian aid for ukraine along with new sanctions on russia. >> cnn's alex marquardt joins us

from eastern ukraine. what is the situation on the latest from there and what more are we hearing from president zelenskyy today? >> waking up on this anniversary of this first year of the invasion, there was a lot of sadness and reflection and some trepidation about what could come today. this country is bracing for potential attacks by russia on this anniversary. provocations as ukrainian officials put it. there has not been anything major so far. it is going on 9:00 p.m. here in ukraine and things could change at any moment. there could be a strike out of the blue as we've seen so many times before. we did hear a number of times from president zelenskyy. he did say that 2023 is the year of victory as you just played. he did say that victory is inevitable. he kind of softened the timeline later on but did say ukraine has all the tools it needs in terms

of diplomatic tools and international support. he did quite interestingly talk about a new peace plan put forward by china. china of course being very close to russia. we have heard warnings from the united states in the past few days that china might soon decide to start providing lethal aid to the russians for this fight in ukraine. of course president zelenskyy does not want to see that happen and has been pressuring the chinese to not let that happen. here is more about what he had to say about the chinese peace plan. >> translator: i believe that it would be correct to think that if there is consistency for international law territory, integrity, and certain security issues, i believe that we need

to use it in the good sense of the word and work with china on this. why not? >> so he is not rejecting it out of hand. he says he wants to work with china on it and he is zeroing in on that term of territorial integrity, because in ukrainians' minds that means getting russia off its territory. the u.s. has been a little more critical about this chinese 12-point plan. secretary blinken saying china is trying to have it both ways. both he and the national security adviser in a cnn town hall last night pointing to the first point in the plan, which is respecting countries' sovereignty. the top u.s. officials saying that russia could end this war tomorrow if they simply respected ukrainian sovereignty. the u.s. is also making news today announcing a new $2 billion military aid package, basically $2 billion budget with which ukraine can buy new

weapons, including more artillery shells, drones, ammunition, so heading into the second year of this war we can continue to expect to see those kinds of major military aid packages for ukraine. as zelenskyy said time and time again it is not just the size of the packages but the speed with which that aid is delivered. good news for ukraine today. they are getting those leopard 2 tanks, german leopard 2 tanks from poland and would be expected to be used in a looming ukrainian counteroffensive. >> thank you so much. leon panetta served as defense secretary, cia director, white house chief of staff across several administrations. mr. secretary, good to have you back. so there have been tens of billions of dollars of u.s. military aid delivered and pledged to the ukrainians. i want you to listen to defense secretary lloyd austin here

about how he expects this will end. >> most likely it will end with some sort of negotiation. what the ukrainians are interested in is getting russians out of their sovereign territory. that is probably going to be their going in point but i'll let the ukrainians speak for themselvesment. >> here is the uncomfortable question, not the first time it has been asked. if this ends with negotiations is there conversation at some point with president zelenskyy if it hasn't happened already to say that you're going to have to give something, and it is time to start deciding what that is as we start year two? what is your view on that. >> look, i think the most important thing right now is not to really talk a lot about what a possible negotiation might result in. i think the key right now is for

the ukrainians to put as much pressure as necessary on russia, pushing them back out of the donbas, pushing them back out of those areas, because that is the best way for putin to make two decisions, one of two decisions. number one, that he is facing defeat and he needs to withdraw or, number two, that he wants to engage in negotiations. but right now the key is to apply as much force as necessary on putin in order to bring about that result. ultimately, i think the more force that is applied, the better the terms of any negotiation will be. >> it appears a contrived armistice at this point would only help putin regroup, reconstitute his forces there. secretary, how much of a game changer would it be if china does in fact decide to provide lethal aid to ukrainians and game changer both on the battle field and in terms of how the united states continues to play a role in this war?

>> i think china will have crossed a very dangerous line if it makes that decision. it is for that reason that i really think that president xi is going to think twice about whether he wants to get into the middle of this war. it can only impact adversely on china. the united states and our allies have made clear china would pay a price if they did that, probably a price with serious sanctions that could damage their economy. i think xi is going to think twice about whether or not he wants to do that. i think the fact they have now made a proposal that ukraine is looking at and others are looking at tells me they want a negotiated peace there. they don't want to suddenly become another party to a war. >> how much influence do you think the red line the u.s. says chinese involvement would be plays into the chinese

considerations of getting involved in this war? >> he think it plays a big role. you have to make very clear to china if they decide to do that they're going to pay a price and that the united states and the world and our allies are going to apply very tough economic sanctions against china. china's economy is already hurting. xi doesn't want to damage it even further. i think they need to know that if they make that kind of decision they are going to pay one hell of a price. >> mr. secretary, it appears every time ukraine asks for certain more advanced weaponry the u.s. and west say no and then a few months later it ultimately turns into a yes. president zelenskyy says the quickest way to end the war is to give them the weapons they want now. given that, do you think the u.s. should start providing longer range missiles and at some point f-16s? because you know this administration, their current stance is no on those requests.

>> you know, i'm getting the sense that there is a willingness on the part of the united states to give consideration to the weapons that ukraine needs in order to defend itself and that in many ways everything is on the table. there are going to be concerns obviously with some weapons. we understand that. but i think it is important that the message be that the united states and our allies are going to give serious consideration to all of the key weapons that ukraine needs in order to defend itself. that ought to be the primary message now, plus delivering those weapons that we've already committed to, delivering them as quickly as possible, so that they can use them to maintain the initiative against russia. >> what is the evidence that you see of the u.s. giving considerations seriously to

f-16s? >> i think when secretary blinken was asked that question he made the point that, look. it takes training. you've got to be able to train pilots. f-16 is not that easy to just jump in and fly. you have to be able to be well trained. you also have to maintain these planes and develop maintenance. that's critical to being able to have an effective air force. so he recognizes the challenges and i think if those challenges can be addressed it is going to take time, but ultimately i think we'll get there. >> training is an important factor considering that ukrainians are used to flying old soviet migs. thank you so much for your time. we appreciate it. well, it is day two of alex murdaugh on the stand. one of the biggest bombshells so far, the accused murderer admitted to stealing more than $3 million in one year alone.

we're live back in south carolina after the break. and i just didn't feel well. but then i found clearchoice. [ forde ] replacing marcia's teeth with dental implplants at cleararchoice was going to afford her that permanent solution. [ marcia ] clearchoicece dentl implants gave me the ability to take on the world. i feel so much better, and i think that that is the key. you love closing a deal. but hate managing your business from afar. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant matchnstantly delivers quality candidates matching your job descption. visit indeed.com/hire life... doesn't stop for diabetes. be ready for every moment, with glucerna. it's the number one doctor recommended brand that is scientifically designed to help manage your blood sugar. live every moment. glucerna.

i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too.

if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information. the morgan stanley client experience? listening more than talking, and a personalized plan ♪ to guide you through a changing world. ♪ okay everyone, our mission is complete balanced nutrition.

together we support immune function. supply fuel for immune cells and sustain tissue health. ensure with twenty-five vitamins and minerals, and ensure complete with thirty grams of protein. any moment now former south carolina attorney turned murder defendant alex murdaugh will return to the stand and often

contentious exchanges under cross examination, murdaugh was questioned about every movement leading up to the deaths of his wife and youngest son. >> he revealed new details about his extensive drug abuse and history of stealing money. >> you wouldn't agree with me that in 2019 alone you stole about $3.7 million? >> no, i think that's correct. >> all right. would you agree with me that figure was generally higher than any other year you've been stolen since 2011? >> in any year sure. i'd agree with that. i thought you were talking about overall, the whole cycle. but yeah. i would agree that in 2019 i stole more money than any other year. >> cnn's dianne gallagher joins us now from outside the courthouse in south carolina. we really got more in depth into

the scope of alex' drug abuse. >> reporter: we did. i can tell you this morning for the first time about mid morning the prosecution finally made its way to talking about june 7th, 2021, the day paul and maggie murdaugh were murdered. again, this is a murder trial. we've spoken about the financial deceit and the financial misdeeds going back for about a decade alex murdaugh is accused of for, well, since the prosecution began its cross examination. we're now in the thick of it. we broke for lunch and essentially a prosecutor is going through minute by minute in some cases second by second what alex murdaugh was doing that day. and as they have done that, it has gotten more and more contentious, with the prosecutor using terms like your new story, trying to remind the jury that alex murdaugh's alibi, the initial thing that he told family, friends, and

investigators about where he was that night was a lie, something murdaugh admitted on the stand yesterday. take a listen to when he was asked why he didn't offer this information up to law enforcement and the first time anybody ever heard about that alibi lie was yesterday. >> did i ever reach out to law enforcement to say i want to tell you about the kennels? no, sir. i did not. >> the fifth amendment line. >> what? >> this questioning about him volunteering information on these charges violates his fifth amendment rights and we strongly object. any more would have to make a motion. >> he brought it up your honor. >> the objection is overruled. >> what i did was -- >> so answer my question first, sir. >> your honor, for the record, he was talking about financial stuff. >> sit down mr. griffin. >> you mentioned the extent of alex murdaugh's addiction. he on the stand today said he

was taking on average about 60 pills a day. the pills he said he was taking predominantly, 30 milligram instant relief oxycodone. he said he also took time released oxycontin and other pills as well, saying he had been dealing with the addiction for roughly two decades but it had worsened in the past year or so. again, just an astounding amount. the prosecution reiterating that is about 2,000 mg of opioids a day that alex murdaugh claims he was on. >> all right. dianne gallagher, thank you. let's discuss with our cnn panel, correspondent jean casarez is with us. do you think it was ultimately a smart decision by the defense to put him on the stand? >> i think it was a necessary decision in retrospect. why do i say that among people

who say are you kidding me? what they had to explain was the timeline. now, certainly the time line with respect to the data that the police have used in their investigation, the cell phone data had him there, the data with regard to the car, and of course his voice being heard in that tape, so he now had to explain why on earth am i here? so it was a necessary decision i think to do it. the issue is, will it be effective? that's what we're getting at. what we're seeing is the prosecution, right, trying to set up this notion that he is a con man. he is a liar. he is a thief. he cannot be trusted. and then now we see why. pivoting to today, if you can't trust him about his financial crimes, he has looked at people in the eye and said i got your back and now he is looking at you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury in the eye, and telling you a story. but does that story match the timeline with respect to how the prosecution is laying it out? they argue, the prosecution, it

does not. final thing, they are allowing him, the prosecutors in this cross, to talk a lot. we attorneys generally don't like people to talk on cross. you answer my questions. i'm going to testify as the lawyer. you're going to either adopt my statement or rebuke it but here he is going on and on. what i am questioning is whether that is resonating with the jury and is it humanizing him more, making him more relatable or are they looking at him as if he is a sociopath? that remains to be seen. >> jean, we also have to remember alex murdaugh is an attorney himself and there is a bit of jousting here between the prosecutor and the defendant. >> yeah. he is listening so carefully to the questions and parcels them out for the details and then sort of turns it around either honestly or dishonestly. you know what's interesting, joey made some fantastic points, because normally in a case like this it's the forensics, blood, fingerprints, footprints, dna. they don't have that in this case. and so they've gone to this

iphone data, which even records how many steps someone walks, although there was testimony that's not completely accurate. and then also the on star data of the vehicle. they tdidn't get the gps data o maggie's phone because they didn't process it correctly in the correct bag. but what he is going over and over again is that timeline. and being down there at the shed. but he's also given an explanation, saying, look. my partners told me not to talk. i knew i was the last one to see them. my pockets are filled with pills. and, yeah. i got paranoid and i told a lie. the jury, that's all that matters here. you know, jurors, when you think about them, what is their life experience? when you think about law enforcement, some jurors believe that law enforcement is perfect, that they in every way we can trust them. he has said in his testimony he didn't trust them.

other people had bad experience with law enforcement so when he tells this story about those feelings do any jurors relate or not at all to what he is saying? that is important, too. >> that of course goes back to the testimony from yesterday where he tried to show murdaugh's close relationship with law enforcement to ask how can you now say you don't trust these law enforcement officers when you threw parties and invited them. >> we learned that answer. because he said, talking about alex murdaugh, he said later on, you charged my son with crimes. and so that is where the distrust could have come from. joey, excuse us if we interrupt you as we wait for jurors to enter the classroom. what did you make of the back and forth here where it seemed there were times where the prosecutor was a bit exacerbated and perhaps not only by alex' personality as a whole but also by his use of his own legal

expertise? >> without question, exasperated indeed. that is why everyone does something differently with respect to how lawyers control a courtroom and direct examination just by way of process is where you allow the client to speak, to explain, to illuminate, to otherwise give indications of where they were, what they were doing, and why. that is direct examination. here we're on cross. the distinction is you want to box him into the story. again, what happened, the defense made the calculated judgment this he wanted their client to address the issue of motive. i love my wife. i love my son. i'd never do such a thing. they needed their client to address the issue of the timeline. this is what happened. i lied. i'm going to tell you why i did. then of course the defense had to get out the alternative explanations of who else could have done this? he is involved in these pills. as a result could he be dealing with unsavory people? his son paul had the issue with respect to the criminal charge in which he killed someone and was getting a lot of blowback,

someone meant harm to him, but i get why they put him on but now the prosecution has to pin him down, right? you are familiar as an attorney with data, correct? you use it all the time, don't you? you won't dispute the data is accurate as it relates to the cell phone is that right? let's talk about what you were doing during that four-minute time frame. in this case as i noted what the prosecutor is doing is allowing him to talk, explain, question, illuminate, to do a lot of things and that is his style and that's fine but the issue will be ultimately does it serve his purpose or does that give him the lawyer who has made a lot of money speaking to jurors, who's made a lot of money settling cases, negotiated, dealt with people, knows how human reactions and interactions are, does it allow him to get that connection with one or more jurors who will say, you know what? what he is saying i could relate to. i'm going to give him a pass. it is either hung or they just don't get the conviction.

i think that is what murdaugh is banking on by using his very good skill of communicating in that courtroom. >> joey, jean, stand by and watch with us. we'll go back into this courtroom in walterboro, south carolina. >> -- will not allow an accused or person suspected to give contradictory information or to voluntarily give a statement or voluntarily give a misstatement as has been acknowledged here. i do not find any doyle violation and the record is protected. i certainly understand the defense raising any and all possible issues and they can be raised and you've done it here. the record is protected, but all motions are denied. let's bring the jury.

>> joey, if you are trying to plan how long to go today, does the prosecutor go all the way up to fill up the day as to not give his defense attorneys an opportunity to leave the jury with undercutting some of the points they've made before the weekend? >> critical question, victor. absolutely. what you want to do is leave the impression you give as a prosecutor in the jurors' mind as they go for the weekend. you want to pin him down on everything -- the timeline. you want to make the notation as the prosecution has been that he is a liar, he has no credibility. it's a story. you hear the complete mocking of him. today is the first time you said this. no one else heard it before. when was it that you decided to tell that lie as you were being questioned. all that in the jury's mind is

powerful over the course of a weekend. you don't want to give the defense any ability to rehabilitate him in the interim, that is alex murdaugh, such that they would be left with any other impression if you are the prosecution than that he is guilty. >> jean, the prosecution has already admitted he is a liar because he has admitted that himself. it is a different story now trying to say since you've lied -- hold that thought. we're going back to the trial right now. >> get that mic up a little bit please. >> excuse me. >> thank you. >> when we left off we were talking about at what point during that interview in the car that you decided to start lying about the murders of your wife and son. i'm going to pick up this video real quick. not going to play the whole thing. but i'm going o it start from

2:09. >> just start it out. take your time. >> like when i came back here? >> mm-hmm >> i mean i pulled up and i could see 'em, you know, i knew something was bad. i ran out. i knew it was really bad. my boy over there. i could see it was -- i could see his brain on the -- and i ran over to maggie. actually i think i tried to turn

paul over first. you know, i tried to turn him over. and i don't know how i figured it out. his cell phone popped out of his pocket. i started to try to do something with it thinking maybe -- but then i put it back down really quickly. then i went to my wife. and, i mean, i could see -- >> did you touch maggie at all? >> i did. i touched them both. >> okay >> i mean i tried to do it as limited as possible but i tried to take their pulse on both of them. and, you know, i called 911 pretty much right away. and she was very good.

i talked to her. i told her i was going to get off the phone to call some family members. i did that. >> what family members did you call? >> i called my brother randy. and i called my brother john. and i tried to call a little boy, real good friend that's right around the corner from here but i didn't get him. >> okay. >> what all was around paul when you walked up? >> blood. >> any other -- anything else? >> i mean, there was some body things, yes, sir. >> i mean like any other evidence? i know you said the phone fell out of the pocket.

but did you see anything else that didn't belong or shouldn't belong or that wasn't part of paul? >> no, sir, not -- no. not that -- no, sir. >> what about maggie? >> no, sir. >> you didn't see anything around them? what made you come out here tonight? >> i went to my mom's late stage alzheimer's patient. my dad's in the hospital. my mom gets anxious when she does. i went to check on them and maggie's a dog lover. she fools with the dogs. and i knew she was gone to the kennel. i was at the house. >> just to be clear, you say you hadn't made the con sus decision to start lying about your wife and son's murder right there, correct? >> i don't believe so. >> okay. let's continue on. >> mr. waters, i can't tell you

exactly when that decision occurred. >> okay. you can't describe to the jury the moment you decided to lie about your wife and son's murder? >> i can't tell you exactly when that moment occurred. >> all right. >> i left the house and went -- >> you did say earlier that when david owen asked you about your relationships that was a trigger point, correct? >> well, that was certainly one of the things that contributed or made me paranoid. >> okay. >> now, you know, there were already things that had gone on that occurred as i said that put me in that mind set. >> yeah. >> but exactly when i decided to lie about that i can't tell you. >> so the things again you talked about, your dope

paranoia, the fact they had taken gsr, you talked about the advice of your law partners and sheriff hill and greg alexander and then you talked about your distrust of sled somehow from the circumstances and demeanor of this interview right here correct? >> no. my distrust of sled didn't rise from this interview. my distrust for sled arose from a couple things. really several things. it arose from the way they had been involved in -- sled had been involved in the investigation into paul's criminal charges. they had been involved in, there were some issues that had gone on about buster and paul. they had been involved in that

where, you know, buster nor paul had anything to do with what i'm talking about. sled never said that. even though they told their lawyer that they never say that. there had been another incident where sled had charged greg alexander, my friend in this case, they charged him and, in fact, i thought the agent involved in that was david owen, but the charges against greg alexander were so -- they were so wrong that my dad and i made a conscious decision even though he was a career prosecutor, made a decision to go to the courthouse and sit with greg alexander while his trial wend on because -- >> ten years ago, right? >> it was a while back. >> you don't know if dave owen was at sled ten years ago.

>> no. i checked on that because that night the officer who was involved in that case in bringing clearly manufactured charges against greg alexander -- >> you're saying the night before you sat down for this interview you were asking somebody about whether or not, about greg alexander ten years ago in the wake of what had occurred? >> oh, no. i didn't ask anybody. >> so that wasn't what you were discussing when you were sitting in this car. >> no i wasn't discussing that. i'm just telling you that i thought david owen was the same agent that was involved in that case. now i learned later because i checked on it, i learned later that it was a different david sled agent, first name david with a different last name. i learned that later. i'm just saying that was all part of that process going on in my mind. >> you're saying you're sitting right here thinking this dave owen and the circumstances and demeanor of this interview, you're thinking that guy had been involved in the prosecution or investigation of your friend ten years ago. >> i did. >> okay. so here's a new one you just mentioned to us correct? >> no that's not a new one.

>> okay. >> that is part of -- >> the circumstances are new. >> no, no. >> that is fairly specific don't you think? >> well, no, sir. >> the story keeps evolving. keep going. >> you asked me about there, mr. owen. what i said -- >> i'm not mr. owen. >> i mean mr. waters. the whole part of this whole process involved my distrust for sled. that was part of a big part of my distrust for sled. >> we can all see it on your face in this interview, can't we? >> i don't know. >> all right. but you said, what you just said a little bit ago that wasn't the lie, the conscious decision yet. let's keep going. >> i'm not saying that. i'm saying i don't believe that it was. i don't know exactly when i made the decision to lie about that. >> okay. all right. when you see it let me know. okay? go forward. >> just a little while, tried to call her when i left, texted her, no response.

when i got back to the house, the house was -- obviously nobody was in there so i figured they were still up there fooling around. paul was going to be getting set up to plant -- our sun flower seeds got sprayed and died and he was refiguring to plant the sun flower seeds. >> okay. >> so i came back up here and drove up and saw and called. >> had maggie and paul been arguing over anything? >> no. >> what was their relationship like? >> wonderful. >> wonderful? how about yours and maggie's? >> wonderful. i mean i'm sure we had little things here and there but we had a wonderful marriage, wonderful

relationship. >> yours and paul's relationship? >> as good as it could be. >> how old was paul? >> 22. >> that line of questioning right there, just asking very general questions about your relationship, you mentioned that before didn't you, mr. murdaugh. is that the moment right there? is that the look on your face when you decided to lie about an important fact in your wife and son's murder? >> i don't know as i said, mr. waters, i don't know the exact point i made that decision. >> you specifically earlier mentioned that very exchange as somehow triggering you to lie about the last time you saw them alive. >> no, i'm not saying that that's what made me lie. i'm saying this whole set of circumstances caused me to be in a state where i had paranoid thoughts.

>> okay. that normally mr. waters i could take a deep pregnant and making away in a -- i could take a deep breath and making away in a second or two seconds or three seconds at the most and on this night i wasn't able to do that. but all of those things i mentioned i believe contributed to that. >> any more you want to add now since you keep adding? >> i'd be glad to answer any question you have. >> i'm asking you. the factors went from yesterday to today and now even after lunch we got new ones so anything else you want to add right now as to factors? >> mr. waters, i don't believe i've added any new factors. i believe that's what i said yesterday.

>> all right. >> i've explained some of those factors because of your questions but i don't believe i've added any factors. >> okay. all right. let me move this forward just a little bit. most of this was stuff from -- you had talked yesterday in great detail about the boat case you brought up on the 911 call and then daniel green and of course in this first interview, correct? >> i did mention the boat wreck. >> all right. and you described that. do you remember what you said in this interview about the boat wreck? >> not specifically. >> about specifically the other people involved in the boat wreck?

you don't remember specifically? do you remember specifically? i guess you said no. >> i remember talking about the boat wreck. >> all right. i'm going to play it now from 17:14. >> any direct threats between any of the people on the boat specifically but i do think there's been a small amount of yip yap between a couple of them but not recently. >> okay. >> what was the term you used for that? a small amount of yip yap? >> yeah. just to be clear, mr. waters, there was never, ever a point in time where i thought that the people that were involve in the boat were ek did this to paul and maggie. i've never thought that. >> never thought that but it is literally one of the first things you saw out of the 911 call. >> na. that's not what i said. i never, ever, ever under any point in time believed those kids that were riding in that

boat or their parents or their families -- i didn't believe that any of the families, the people that were involved in the boat wreck had anything to do with hurting maggie and paul. >> okay. >> but i can tell you that at that time and as i sit here today that i believe that boat wreck is the reason why paul paul and maggie were killed. >> okay. >> i'm certain -- i believe that. >> random vigilantes, the vigilantes? huh? >> what i believe mr. waters is i believe when paul was charged criminally, there were so many leaks, half truths, half reports, half statements, partial information, misrepresentations of paul that ended up in the media all the

time. and when i tell you the social media response that came from that was vile. the things that were said about what they would do to paul paul. they were so over the top that nobody would believe anybody would get on social media and do that. but i believe then and i believe today that the wrong person -- the wrong person saw and read that. >> okay. >> because i can tell you for a fact that the person or people who did what i saw on june the 7th, they hated paul murdaugh and they had anger in their

heart, and that is the only, only reason that somebody could be mad at paul paul like that and hate him like that. >> got you. all right. so we've got, now -- >> that's why i did then believe it was the boat wreck and i believe now that the boat wreck had something to do with it. >> all right. so we've got random vigilantes because of the boat wreck >> i don't know that they're random vigilantes. >> you just said it wasn't a family or the kids or the family of the other kids in the boat, right? so you're saying it is somebody off social media. you don't have any evidence of that, do you? you just believe that and you're telling that jury that as you try to explain the lie you told for the first time yesterday. isn't that right? >> no, sir. that is not right. >> it's not right. all right. well let me ask you a question then. what you're telling this jury is that it is a random vigilante. >> that's your term. >> the 12-year-old five two people that just happened to know paul and maggie were both at mowsel on june 7th, knew they

would be at the kennels alone on june 7th, knew you would not be there but only between the times of 8:49 and 9:02 that they show up without a weapon assuming they'll 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 alameda. that is what your a he 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. >> all right.

>> you testified earlier that after this happened. let me ask you when you were driving to and from alameda why were you in such a hurry, rolling 70, 80 miles an hour down that dark, beat up road >> i wasn't in such a hurry. >> you weren't. >> no, sir. >> all right.

show you what's been mark as state's 573, see if you recognize this. >> i do. >> tell the jury what that is. >> mag's car. >> what is it in front of? >> the house at mozell. >> what is between the house and the mercedes? >> the golf cart. >> is that where it was on june the 8th to your recollection? >> no, sir. >> where was it left? >> it was near there but that is not exactly where it was no, sir. >> where was it? >> where would we normally park it would be a little bit closer to the shed. to the bushes. when was that photograph taken? >> do you recognize when it was taken? >> no. i don't recognize it no, sir. >> you wouldn't dispute it was around the time in the aftermath of the murders would you?

>> aftermath being when? >> i'm asking you. >> a day, week, hour? >> i wasn't there, mr. murdaugh. do you recognize this? >> i recognize the car. i recognize the house. and i recognize the golf cart. but that is not -- that is not exactly how it would have been that night. >> >> can you describe where it would be different? >> well, it would more in line with -- first thing's first is with -- we drove the golf cart -- or when i drove it for sure, and i believe when the others drove it, you would come in and you would go across the little brick walkway that's in front of this so if i would have come in and gone this way or come in and gone this way. this is not a place that any of my family would have normally

parked. so what i'm assuming, this obviously was taken the day after. what i'm assuming is, it was taken when he came -- the earliest it was taken is when sled came to the house the next day, which i believe the testimony is in the afternoon. at this point in time, that golf cart, i would assume, would have been moved several times. but that's not how it was. >> where did you leave the golf cart when you got out of it at 8:49. >> in the manner i just talked about. >> help me out. where would it end up? >> in this picture, it's facing to the right. >> i gotcha. >> the night that i drove it, i believe i parked it facing to the left. it would be customarily how i did it, and i believe i did it that way that night.

and that is how i would have gotten into it. >> all right. that's a very specific memory. thank you. >> that's just how it normally is. >> you see mr. waters, you can see in the picture now, if you look to the right, you can see the actual steps. just to the left of that would be where the little brick patio starts. so i would normally park it, you would roll across those bricks and the end of the golf cart would be just past those. we all normally parked it that way, because the way you charge this golf cart is -- if you see that back seat, you can see the edge, this is a three-seat golf cart. you can see the back seat.

a lot of golf carts have the charger that sits on the floor or something. this golf cart has the charger plugged in and part of the golf cart. so you flip that seat up and it plugs in. and the outlets are right up there by the door. >> okay. anything else you want to say about that? >> i'm going to answer any questions you have, mr. waters. says appreciate all that information. >> objection to the comment. >> sustained. >> all right. >> it's just never parked that way. by the family. >> we'll take a quick break and be right back in this courtroom in walterboro, south carololina.

. [ laughs ] [ horn hononks, muffled talkin] -can't hear yoyou, jerry. -sorry. uh, , yeah, can we get a systm where whwhen someone's bike is in the shop, then we could borrow someone else's? -no! -no! or you can get a quote with america's number-one motorcycle insurer and maybe save some money while you're at it. all in favor of that. [ horn honking ] there's a lot of buttons and knobs in here.

we're going to take you back to the courtroom in south carolina for the testimony of alex murdaugh. >> i don't think she got back quite that early. i think she got back a little bit later than that. >> okay. >> umm -- >> what did you need to do? were you at the office? >> no, i was home. i came home and messed around. i -- i, umm, i was up at the house. i laid down, took a nap on the couch probably, i don't know, 25, 30 minutes. i got up, i called maggie. didn't get an answer, and i left to go to my mom's.

she said she might ride with me. she normally doesn't when i go over there. and i think i texted repeated t? >> i don't know. as i told you, mr. waters, i don't know the exact moment i decided to lie. >> but you did lie, correct? >> i did. and she's very good about answering the phone, so that was odd, or calling me back. so that was odd, but it wasn't that big a deal.

>> all right. we'll go to the second interview that's been previously admitted. you said earlier during your direct testimony that after these crimes happened, you were around family, family was around you, your law partners were around you every minute after that, correct? every waking minute. didn't you say that yesterday? >> yes. they were for a long time. >> this second interview was three days later, is that right? >> that's correct. >> at no time was any of your

close friends and family and law partners do you confess the truth, do you? >> no, i did not. >> did you say hey, man, i think i messed up, what should i do about this? >> no, i didn't. >> you're not telling that lie to anyone, are you, until yesterday. >> excuse me? >> you're not telling that lie to anyone until yesterday, are you? >> not telling what lie? saying i tried to tell somebody that i was lying? >> all right .

>> i'm going to move this to approximately 2456 . [ inaudible ] >> correction, 1228. >> making him go get his blood pressure checked. his sweet had swollen up recently. so it was a big huge deal. >> okay. >> you know, coming around the house fora little while, i knew that maggie went to the kenn