he was in the driveway. but close to the kennel, but not in the kennel like he is in the video. >> so the video happened after that? according to you? >> video happened after i got there. >> when you first saw paul you said he wasn't in the kennel. why did the video happen? >> i believe that to be the case. >> after you arrived, correct? >> very shortly after i arrived but after i arrived. >> and did you tell maggie at that time that you were going to go to alameda? >> i did not. >> did you discuss it at all according to these new facts you are testifying to? >> i don't believe so. >> did you have any conversation with her? >> oh yeah. >> had you had a conversation -- did you have a conversation with paul about the dogs about cash's tail prior to going down there? >> prior to going down there?

i -- did i have a conversation with paul about cash? >> did you talk to him about cash and a problem with his tail prior to going down there. did you have any knowledge of that prior to going down there? >> i'm not sure. as i sit here today i don't recall that but i don't -- i don't think so. >> when you first arrived in the golf cart where did you pull up to? >> i pulled up right where maggie was. >> which is where? >> she was standing in the spot where she could see in between the chicken coop and the storage room of the kennels. where the dogs were back up in the planted pines behind the kennels to the left of the chicken coop. >> and what did you do after that? >> i went back to the house. >> no, you pulled up, get out of

the golf cart. >> when i pulled up i stayed on the golf cart. >> how long did you stay on the golf cart? >> however long i was down there. i got off to take the chicken from bubba? >> how long were you down there before you took the chicken from bubba? >> a very short time. >> like what? >> a couple minutes? >> what were you doing during the couple minutes before you got over there to deal with bubba. >> talking to mags. >> what did you talk about? >> i do know maggie was very concerned about pawpaw and -- >> you remember a lot of detail about all these new facts but don't remember what you talked about? >> i don't remember the exact

details of what we talked about. i believe that at that time we may have talked about pawpaw, but i'm not certain. >> were you withdrawing at this time? >> at this time, no, sir. >> you weren't withdrawing at all? >> no. i would only withdraw when i didn't have pills. >> you are saying you had pills? >> yes. >> down there for a couple of minutes i think you've said before you get off the golf cart? >> about, yes, sir. >> all right. and where do you go at that point? >> i take the chicken from bubba. >> so you get up -- >> bubba, you know, bubba has come out there with this chicken. he is showing us hey, i caught this chicken, and i take the chicken from bubba. >> the dog came up to the golf cart?

>> he came up by the golf cart. he came up to maggie and i. i was on the golf cart. he is coming to us. >> is this during the kennel video or after the kennel video? >> you hear maggie say he has a chicken. that's what she is talking about is bubba caught a chicken. >> all right. so is the kennel video still going on before you go get the chicken? you've heard it in this courtroom. >> i don't know exactly. i don't know exactly but in close time into bubba coming out of those woods with the chicken i got up and took the chicken from him. >> let me ask you this, were the dogs barking and carrying on or going out into the woods or acting like they sensed somebody was around they didn't know? >> were the dogs acting like there was somebody around they didn't know?

>> like dogs do. >> there wasn't nobody around that the dogs didn't know. >> to your indication they didn't sense anything out of the ordinary. they were just chasing after the guinea. >> there was nobody else around. >> okay. >> for them to sense. >> you've heard the kennel video. would you agree with me that it lasts for about 50 seconds? >> i agree with that >> it would have ended at 8:45 and 45 seconds? >> i agree. >> did you have the chicken out of bubba's mouth at the end of the kennel video or did it take longer than that? >> i can't remember when in the video he came up with the chicken. i would have had the chicken out his mouth within 10, 15 seconds

of maggie saying he's got a chicken. >> all right. and so then what did you do? >> i put the chicken up. >> did you get out of the golf cart to do that? >> i did. >> you had to go off to where it was? >> well yeah, i mean it -- a few feet but i did that, yes. >> how long did that take? we're at 8:46. how long did that take? >> seconds. >> just seconds. what did you do after that? >> got back on the golf cart. >> what did you do after that? >> i left. >> you left. you jumped on the golf cart and left. >> that's what i was getting ready to say. did i get on the golf cart and leave that second probably not. did i get on the golf cart and leave quickly after that, i did. >> you testified yesterday i got out of there. >> i did. >> why did you get out of there so quick, mr. murdaugh? >> because it was chaotic, it

was hot and i was getting ready to do what i didn't want to do. >> you were getting ready to do what you didn't want to do. getting ready to sweat. to work. >> i went back to the air conditioning. >> so did you say goodbye according to your new story? >> did i say goodbye? >> yeah. >> did you talk to them at all or did you good -- >> i would have said i'm leaving. did i say goodbye or bye. there would have been some exchange, i'm not staying here. >> you have had such a phot graphic memory about these new stories, what happened here. >> that's not -- i can't tell you the exact words. >> you don't remember your conversation after you put the chicken up.

did you talk about the chicken? >> no, i don't think we did. >> did you talk with paul about cash's tail? >> after the chicken? >> yeah. >> no. i know i didn't do that. >> did you tell maggie i'll go check on him? >> at that point i don't think. >> it is hot out here i think i'll go back. >> i certainly would have said something to that effect. >> all right. so unlike everything else with the new story you just can't recall what that would have been. >> well you know, i mean, you are making that categorization. i think there are other things about that that i can't remember. if the question is can i remember exactly what words i used when i gave maggie some salutation when i'm leaving, i can't tell you what those were. it would have been something to the effect of i'm leaving. >> you can concede there was some conversation. you wouldn't have put the chicken on there and ran back to the golf cart and taken out.

>> i would have never done that without talking to maggie. >> well you want to say a minute, that sound about right? >> a minute for what? >> to have the interaction you had according to your new story to drive back. >> no, it would have been i'm leaving. i will see you in a minute. >> okay. so 30 seconds? >> i don't think it would have taken 30 seconds. you use whatever time you want to apply. i don't think it was 30 seconds. >> how people interact with one another and real life here. what you are telling this jury. you are fuzzy on these kind of details is that you jetted down there, dealt with the chicken and jetted right back. >> no, sir. no, sir. i didn't jet down there and i didn't jet back. i got up after maggie asked me to leave, maggie asked me to go

with her and i didn't. i got up, i went and got on the golf cart, i drove down there, i did what i did, i said i'm leaving or something to those words, and i went back. >> all right. if it's about 8:46 and the kennel video ends at 8:45 and maybe it was about a minute before you got on the golf cart and headed back, reasonable real life? >> maybe. i don't think it was that long but maybe, sure. >> all right. >> but i don't think it was that long. exactly what i thought was going to be going on on that kennel and why i didn't want to go there is what was going on and i left. >> are these also convenient facts in your new story that have to fit with the timeline now that evidence has been thrown in your face. >> no, sir. >> does it sound like real life

to you that you jet down there and jet back. >> as i just told you i didn't get on my golf cart and jet down there. i didn't jet back. >> there is a reason why you have to be so fuzzy about these details. >> hang on. >> let him answer before another question is presented. >> i'm answering the question. >> just a moment. are you responding to the last question? >> yes, sir. i'm responding to your question and you are using words that i am not using. and that's your categorization. >> i'm entitled to ask my questions. >> absolutely. and i will answer them. all i'm saying is i'm taking issue with the manner in which you are changing what i'm saying. >> do you disagree this is a new story? do you disagree with that characterization? >> yes.

this is the first time that this is being told openly. >> and you disagree to my characterization that you have a photographic memory about the details that have to fit now that you know these facts but you are fuzzy on the other stuff that complicates that. do you disagree with that? >> i do disagree with that. i think that -- i think i have a good memory about a lot of things on this. >> how about this? video ending at 8:45:45 at the kennel. just to take care of the chicken, put it up, i was going to say 8:47. somewhere around there. is that fair? just do whatever you need to do and get on the cart before you head back. >> the kennel video ended at 8:45. >> and 8:46. it could have been 8:47 before i left there. i thought it was sooner than that but it could have been.

>> 75 seconds, correct? after it ends. ? >> if it ends at 8:45:45. it is a minute and 15 seconds. >> you characterized you got out of there >> that's what i did. >> if you're at 8:47, giving you the benefit of the doubt, two minutes to get up and back to the house, correct? >> approximately. >> all right. and when you got back to the house, where did you park the golf cart? >> same place i had gotten it from right where mark ball testified that it was. >> what door did you go in? >> i would have gone in the front door. >> and if you left around 8:47, and it took about two minutes to get up to the house, what time would that make it, mr. murdaugh? >> if i left at 8:47 and if it took me two minutes it would

make it 8:49. >> 8:49. you testified you went inside and the tv is on, right? >> i did go inside and the tv was on. >> okay. and you laid down, is that right? >> i did. >> before you said you had been napping for an hour or the entire time. now you laid down on the couch? >> that's correct. >> maybe dozed for a second? >> maybe. >> according to your new story. how long did you doze? >> if i dozed, extremely short time. >> extremely short time? you would agree with me at 9:02 you are up and moving according to the data. >> according to that data my phone is recording steps at whatever time it is, 9:02

something. >> how long did it take you if you were at the house at 8:49, how long before you went and laid on the couch? >> i would have gone straight to the couch probably. i may have gone by the sink or -- you know, i may have gotten the spit cup but it would have been basically straight to the couch. >> straight to the couch. >> yes, sir. >> you are telling this jury that that's what happened and you were back at the house at 8:49 and laid down on the coach and dozed for a second and you were up with more steps in a shorter time period than you had done all day. >> your number is 8:49. what i'm telling this jury is that i went down there, when i took that chicken from bubba, i would have said something to maggs. i got back on the golf cart and drove back to my house after

getting back to my house, i went inside and in short order i went to the couch. that's what i'm telling this jury. >> did you go anywhere else in the house? >> mr. waters, i can't tell you specifically about that. i don't think so. but i may have. >> did you have that tan blackout and a 12-gauge shotgun on the golf cart when you drove down there? >> no. >> you didn't? >> no. >> did you see them when you were down there? >> you are back at 8:49 and leaving at 9:02 and you didn't see any weapons down there. you happened to be back there and didn't hear anything at all. did you hearing anything at all during that time period? >> no, i did not. >> didn't you tell law enforcement you thought you heard them pull up. didn't you tell law enforcement that? >> i did think they had pulled up.

>> yes. >> now you are saying there was a car pulling up? >> no. >> you didn't testify to that yesterday in your new version of events? >> no, i -- mr. waters, i don't believe there was a car pulling up. >> that's what you told law enforcement. >> no, i told law enforcement i thought they had pulled up. >> okay. you are saying you couldn't hear blackout shots supposedly but you could hear that, correct? >> i didn't say i couldn't hear blackout shots. but i'm saying that i thought when i got up from taking a nap, if i took a nap, but when i got up from laying down, as i was getting ready to go to my mom's, there was a point in time where i thought maggie and paul had come back. >> you also told them that you thought you heard a wildcat maybe it was a person or something like that as well. >> no, that's not what i said. >> what did you say then?

>> i said when i went outside that there is a house cat that's gone wild and he hangs around and goes from hanging around the shop and the house different times. there will be times you don't see him. he had been around the house. and when i went outside, i believe that cat was over there. >> you made a point of mentioning that to law enforcement. >> i never thought it was a person. >> you mentioned that to law enforcement, correct? >> in the course of discussing it i did tell them that. >> but you never told them all this new story that you 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 in this investigation. >> other than lying to them

about going to the kennel, i was cooperative in every aspect of this investigation. >> very cooperative except that you were at the murder scene with the victims just minutes before they died. right? >> i did not tell them that i went to the kennel. >> we'll take a break at this time, about 15 minutes. talking to the jury. please go to the jury room. >> harris: a courtroom in south carolina and you see the judge there clifton newman saying that they will take a short break. while they do that, let's digest some of what has been going on. i'm harris faulkner and this is the coverage on fox news channel and what would be "the faulkner

focus" right now. so now we are focused on this trial of alex murdaugh. double murder trial on trial for allegedly killing his wife and his son. ted williams former police detective, defense attorney and fox news contributor. jonna spilbor defense attorney as well. great to see you both. ted, i will start with you. there seem to be some not just inconsistencies but disagreements on where it was that murdaugh lied. that we did in fact learn some things yesterday that were important for the very first time and there seem to be by this cross examination of him by the prosecution a push to get him somehow to say who knew if the court didn't know if police didn't know, if we as the prosecutors weren't told, who knew that you had lied about where you were on the night of the murders before they happened? why is that critical? >> it's critical because what

the prosecutor is trying to do, harris, is shake this man up but unfortunately this prosecutor is not doing that. he is not shaking him up about the many lies that he has told. the prosecutor, i believe, is losing the jury in this case by virtue of the manner in which he is cross examining this man murdaugh. alex murdaugh is a lawyer. he is very sharp and he is very shrewd. he knows what to say and he knows what not to say. at times i think he talks too much but there are times that he is able to get a clear shot at the prosecutor and make the prosecutor look like he is off his game and doesn't know what he is doing. at this stage i'm deeply concerned. all of this stuff about the

financing and financing. i would assume that jurors went home last night and say we don't want to hear any more about financing. we want to hear about what happened on june 7th. >> harris: we can't speak for the jury but i can tell you when the attorneys went home last night something happened yesterday such that they wanted to stop the cross examination today and bring in two more witnesses for the defense. >> well, this is amazing because i have to continue with what ted was saying. this prosecutor is getting out lawyered by his witness. >> harris: have you shocked by that? he is a prominent attorney. >> no, i'm not shocked by it but i would think the prosecution would figure out that's happening. i agree -- you know what ended up happening yesterday? very powerful for the defense. what we had was a five-hour forgive me father for i have sinned except it wasn't in a confessional but in a courtroom. not with a priest but with the

prosecutor. that turned the tables. once somebody admits and lace bear their wrongdoing and apologizes, that will increase the credibility or restore credibility with this jury. and i think it's very powerful for the defense and that hasn't changed with today's cross examination. which incidentally isn't -- this is more like a deposition. he hasn't asked any leading questions. >> harris: at one point murdaugh stepped in something that he kind of couldn't get out of and it was interesting to watch this. i don't have the legal acu men that both of you do but i did study and did very well on at one point wanted to do what you do. i'm very analytical by nature and when i was watching, i thought this stood out to me. the prosecution is trying to 0 in on why did you lie about where you were on the night of the murders? he said well, i tried to tell

you. watch this and it is a bit of manipulation on his part and ted i will come straight to you. >> up until the time that y'all charged me with murdering my wife and child, you would never give jim griffin a response to our invitations to sit down and meet with you. >> so you are telling me i never responded to jim griffin is that what you're saying today? are you saying that you ever before yesterday reached out to anyone, yourself or through our attorneys and reached out to anyone in the law enforcement and told them the story about the kennels. are you telling me that? answer my question first please, did you ever reach out to anyone in law enforcement or the prosecution and tell that story that you told this jury yesterday about the kennels before yesterday? >> did i ever reach out to law enforcement to say i want to tell you about the kennels, no,

sir, i did not. >> harris: ted, what was apparent there is that it went a direction perhaps that murdaugh did not see coming. and he opened a can of worms there. i was surprised that the prosecution didn't have receipts of well, i can tell you that that didn't happen. i can tell you how many times we reach out in the other direction. >> harris, first of all i think you would have made a great lawyer but -- zbloofrjts- >> harris: you're kind. >> i thought it was brilliant on murdaugh's part. he got something into the jury that no one knew. that was that his team had reached out before he was charged and said hey, prosecutor, i want to sit down with you and talk to you. the jury is absorbing that. murdaugh was able to pivot.

what the prosecutor is doing -- i don't know why murdaugh's team is not objecting more, but they are digging a hole for themselves by asking the same question in a compound way to try to get a response from this guy. and this guy is outsmarting them. it is just terrible watching this because i want to see them go directly at this guy. we had maggie's phone found along the route that murdaugh was supposed to have taken to go to his mother's house. we don't hear anything. we had the caregiver that got on the stand and said that murdaugh came to her and wanted her to lie about the amount of time he was there. we don't hear any of that. so there are a lot of things that this prosecutor could work with but murdaugh, i believe, outsmarted him when he was able

to get in the testimony and before this jury that hey, we wanted to cooperate with you but once you charged me, my constitutional rights came into play and we wasn't saying anything. >> harris: wow. and so then, jonna, you have to ask the question of where the prosecution is going. yesterday with the defense i felt like the car was being driven in a certain direction. i feel like now we are driving around in the golf cart looking for where we parked the car. >> that's a great way to put it. i'm not sure the prosecution even knows where he is going. i'm saying that based on the way he is asking questions. he seems to be still trying to get facts from alex murdaugh when we're more than a year and half down the road. he should know all the facts but for the revelation that happened yesterday. low and behold he was at the kennel. that's not a new fact. they had the witness statements.

i'm sure that was also turned over to the defense and discovered because it had to be. can i just again to go along with what ted was saying, i think what alex murdaugh did by throwing that in the prosecution's face. we wanted to reach out to you pre-charge you put your hands up goes along with the theme this was a my opic investigation and set their sites on alex murdaugh and never investigated anybody else and it is proof of that. i think that was very smart on the defense case part. >> harris: glaringly made a fact during the defense questioning of their client yesterday. they were talking about and even with the prosecution a little bit today were the dogs reacting to anybody else being on the property? they are trying to say if the dogs didn't react nobody else could have been there? the bigger point is how contaminated we know from reports and details in this case the crime scene was. the defense was able to further

this notion of if anybody else had been there you would have known. like there was nobody else up there, you would have known if somebody else would have been there. they should have looked but how could they look if the place was contaminated. around and around we go. you used my favorite legal term, but for. but for this. that's what we have to do now is a take a break while they're taking a break but for more, stay close.

first psoriasis, then psoriatic arthritis. even walking was tough. i had to do something. i started cosentyx®. cosentyx can help you move, look, and feel better... by treating the multiple symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting...get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections some serious... and the lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms... or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. tell your doctor if your crohn's disease symptoms... develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. watch me. ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. (woman) what would the ideal weight loss program look like?

no hunger, no cravings, no isolation, more energy, lasting results, and easy. is that possible? it is with golo. these people changed their lives with golo without starvation dieting. whether you have 100 pounds to lose or want to shed those final 20, try golo for 60 days and never diet again. (uplifting music)

veteran homeowners: to combat today's rising prices, lower your monthly payments with the 3 c's. pay down your credit cards. pay off your car loan. consolidate your debt with a va home loan from newday. >> harris: fox news alert as we continue to cover the trial, the double murder trial of alex murdaugh, the prominent attorney in south carolina who has quite a past of lying and finance crimes and he said on the stand yesterday and said it over and over and over today that yes, he did all of those things but those things don't make him a killer. he did not in his words intentionally kill his wife or

son. i want to bring back ted williams, former police detective, defense attorney. fox news contributor as well and jonna spilbor, criminal defense attorney. ted, i want to start with the word intentionality. they are in a break. the we choose to show it, we can show you the seal inside the courtroom where the camera gravitates to when the judge says we'll take a break. when that camera shot pulls out from that seal and back into the courtroom and people go back in, we'll go back to that live case. ted, intentionality. >> well, when you look at the intentional killing here, it would show that this was some kind of a planned killing on the part of alex murdaugh. that's what the government is trying to show. the problem they have is -- and they don't use the best evidence that has come out in this case

so far. let me give you an example, harris. they talked about a golf cart. when the case in chief was being put on for the defendant, they talked about that the fact they put an expert on that says the shooter would have had to have been at least five fought two inches. he couldn't have been six feet like alex is, above six feet. guess what? alex said he drove a golf cart out to the kennel. so what they should have questioned him on is the fact that he was sitting down in the golf cart and could have had a gun and he would have at that stage been less than six feet. that was there. they made him a sympathetic person. the one problem i think alex murdaugh has right now is he is talking too much. at some stage that may cross him

up in this examination. he right now thinks hey, i'm in charge, i'm powerful, i'm doing it. but at some stage his own words can cross him up. >> harris: that's fascinating because when you started a few moments ago before we took a break during this courtroom break we took a commercial break you said this is working against the prosecution because he is taking over -- he is taking over the conversation. but as with anything else, if you don't really know where they are trying to direct you and you insert and go in your own way it can be problematic. maybe you'll give them information you didn't intend to give them. i totally understand that. your drilling down on the intentional and the golf cart and the height and the gun is brilliant. they didn't hire you, though. the state of south carolina doesn't have you today. so jonna, as you look at all of

this, what makes the biggest difference? is it his testimony or something in the evidence of this trial? one way or the other whether it's a guilt or not guilty, what do jurors normally focus most on? >> this is going to be hands down alex murdaugh's testimony. a couple of reasons. number one, i think jurors always love to hear from the defendant. they want to hear from the horse's mouth. two, he is creating himself to be a very sympathetic person for the reasons explained before. number one, he is going into his opioid addiction. there isn't a person within the sound of our voice who doesn't at least know somebody who has suffered from addiction. we have to give empathy or sympathy to people like that. number two, he is admitting to all his financial misdeeds which remember have nothing to do with this murder. the prosecution is trying to

make it look like that's the reason, the motive why he killed his wife and kids. that's like sticking a square peg in a round hole. if they believe murdaugh the rest doesn't matter. >> harris: the judge has just gotten back in the courtroom. i told you when they pull that camera shot away from the seal, it means we will focus back in on the trial now. what we didn't get to is the things the prosecutors are doing well. everybody knows that there are always things going on that we cannot see. so we will watch to see and learn what we don't know with the prosecution continuing its cross examination of who jonna and ted have said is the star at the moment. the man on trial for double murder. thank you both. let's get back to the courtroom. >> there will be an opportunity to put something on the record. if it's regarding an objection, it can be done later. >> yes, ir.

>> harris: right now we're waiting for the jury to reenter the courtroom. you see alex murdaugh on the stand. it was several hours of testimony yesterday with the defense team leading the way. it switched hands to cross examination. late last night there was reporting that the defense wanted to stop that cross examination from happening straightaway today. put in a couple of its own defense witnesses, add them to the list.

the judge rejected that. so what we have today is starting off again a continuation of that cross examination by prosecutors here in south carolina. alex murdaugh on trial for the murders of his wife and son. maggie and paul. something that he has said over and over is that i would not intentionally kill my wife or son. those were his words. and the importance of intentional we got into. alex murdaugh cross examination. let's watch. >> was there any blood on that chicken when you picked it up? >> i don't believe so. >> did you wash your hands at all? >> at that point in time? i don't believe that i did. >> when you say you were there you said maggie was nearby you, is that correct? >> right by me. >> was she messing with the hose at all? >> at that time, no, she was

not. >> did she mess with it the entire time you were there according to your new facts today? >> while i was there she did not touch -- she was not fooling with the hose at all. >> to move this thing along, i will put up on the screen 519, the condensed timeline. like to have computer input, please.

>> condensed timeline, mr. griffin. >> that coming out all right? >> you see that up there, mr. murdaugh? >> yes. >> i'm on page five. you see that cell tower back there? >> up on my screen? i do see that. >> would you agree with me that it reflects no cell activity on your phone from 6:52 to 9:04? >> i do agree with that. >> let me ask you this, mr. murdaugh, did you take your phone with you down to the kennels according to the new

facts that you testified to yesterday and today? >> i must not have. >> you must not have. >> if this is accurate, no, sir. >> is that typical for you? >> sure it is, absolutely. >> tell me why it's typical? >> now, it would be unusual if i was going out for any extendsed period of time or if i was going -- even on the property if i was going somewhere for an extended period of time i would usually have my phone. but for me to go knowing that i am going to the kennel and coming right back it is not unusual at all. you've heard the testimony about the service out there. the service is terrible. you have to be in a particular spot. and you have to find a spot. >> the answer is you don't know whether or not you took it down there? >> i believe i probably didn't based on this data. >> based on this. unlike your photographic memory about other things you don't

recall -- >> i never claimed to have a photographic memory. i do not specifically remember if i had my phone that night. i do not dispute it based on these -- on this data and it is not unusual for me. >> just like you don't remember according to your new story the last conversation you had with maggie? >> no, i remember having my last conversation with maggie. >> looking at this screen, you have the map up there on page six and it shows you arriving back at moselle at 6:42. you don't dispute that now, is that correct? >> no, that's what the data appears to show. >> looking at the data, moving on to page seven you have paul arriving about 7:04, is that correct? you don't have any reason to

dispute that? >> well, that's what it says he arrives at 4147 moselle road, the address of the shop. the house is 4157. i believe that paul actually got there a little bit before that but i think that's approximately accurate. i think paul got there a little bit closer to 7:00. >> all right. you would agree that's the ye earliest data point that shows. >> i don't dispute if that's the earliest data point but again i believe he got there a little bit earlier. i tried to look at these records to see if i could -- if that could be refuted and i believe he got there a little closer to 7:00 or a little bit before 7:00. >> you looked at these records a

lot before you had your testimony yesterday and today, didn't you, mr. murdaugh? >> i have looked at these records other than the on star records that just came when they were provided to me. sure i've looked at them. >> right here we have some steps on your phone, 29 steps. and then down at the bottom we have 89 steps. is that consistent when you and paul were together on the property? >> sure. we would go to different locations on the property, sometimes we would get out. sometimes we wouldn't. we would get out and walk around and look at stuff. you saw me messing with the tree. there would be other ones may get out and look at a feeder and other ones look at hog signs where hogs are rooting. so it would be perfectly consistent with what pawpaw and

i were doing that day. >> and 8:05 to 8:09, would you agree that's the last steps recorded on your phone before 9:02 when you become a very busy bee? >> if that's what these records show. i see i took steps, records show i took steps between 8:05 and 8:09. >> would you concede you are at the house around 8:09? >> i would have thought so, yes. >> okay. and you said paul was already back at that point? >> no. i said just the opposite. >> when did he get there? >> all right. are you talking about when i left the shop and went to the house when maggie was there?

>> before you ate dinner. >> paul and i were at the shop. maggie got home. i left paul at the shop and i went to the house. i think you were saying that i said i met paul at the house and that's incorrect. >> paul was still down at the shop when you were at the house, correct? >> when i first went to the shop paul was still at the shop i believe. >> was maggie there when you arrived at the house? >> i believe she was. >> 8:09 is the last steps you have on this phone before 9:402 correct? >> that's what the data shows. >> looking now at page 15 -- i'm sorry, page 14, your steps that you say when you got to the house is 8:09 and paul was still out at the shop. don't these records reflect that

paul is pinging with gps data at the house at 8:08? >> this record appears to show paul at the house at 8:08. >> all right. so those records don't fit with your new story that you testified yesterday and today. is that correct? >> no, i don't believe even right now, mr. waters, that's right. what you are doing is taking 8:09 and saying that i'm at the house. and that may or may not be right. but what i'm saying is that when maggie came through, i left and i believe that paul stayed at the shop. did paul come right behind me? i'm not sure. but when i left him, i believe that when i left to go to the house i believe that paul stayed at the shop for a minute. >> when you got to the house did you put your phone down? >> i'm sure i did.

>> did you put it in the suburban? >> did i put it in the suburban? >> when you got back to the house did you put it in the suburban. was it parked out front? >> it would have been parked wherever i parked it. >> which is where? >> i believe on the side. >> okay. did you put the phone in the suburban? >> at that time, no i did not. >> where did you put it? >> i'm not sure about where i put it. when i went in the house i'm not sure where i put my phone. i would think that i put it down somewhere probably by the couch. >> didn't you testify yesterday when you were being asked by your lawyer about that pause in all meet yeah when you were leaving and you had a very specif specific recollection you phone fell down and you had to get it out. you don't remember what you did with your phone at this point. >> those are two distinct different things.

i don't have a routine spot i put it on right on this corner or right there. i would assume that when i went in the house i put it somewhere either on the table you go by going to the couch. i may have taken it to the bathroom. when i took a shower. it may have taken me -- a few minutes to go to the shower. so i can't tell you exactly where i put it. >> that story is a specific recollection when you need it to try to make the new story fit this jury's hearing and everyone's hearing yesterday and today with the data, correct? but you are fuzzy on far more important things aren't you? >> i will answer the first one first. no. i don't believe that's convenient and i disagree with your categorization of the

description. >> all right. but you remember the console story but you don't remember where you put your phone. whether or not you took it to the kennels or whether you put it in the suburban. you don't remember any of that but you remember that console story, correct? >> i don't remember the console story. but in that suburban and it's not the first time that it happened. but when that phone got down there you had to go to great efforts to get it out and you couldn't just reach over there and get it out. >> all right. you say when you got to the house that maggie was already there. >> yes. >> we saw your last steps were at 8:09. >> that's what you saw when my -- this data recorded my last steps. as you heard this testimony, too, mr. waters, you know, that's not a precise -- that's not a precise -- you heard the testimony and you know what it

is. >> how did you get back to the house? remind us. >> from the shop? >> yes. i went in the white pickup truck. >> okay. and when you got into the house, where did you go? >> we've already discussed this. i took a shower, whether i did things for a moment before i went to the shower. i'm sure i talked to maggie because she had been gone and if she came through the kennel, which i believe she did, we only talked briefly so i would have talked to her but i would have quickly gone to take a shower. >> okay. going over to page 16. you would agree with me that the data reflects maggie started logging steps and her phone disconnecting from the mercedes around 8:17, correct? >> i agree at 8:17 her phone

ends connection to her mercedes. >> and starts logging steps? >> i don't see that but i don't dispute it. >> you see the purple line disconnecting from the mercedes. >> i see where you are talking about. 8:17 her phone starts logging steps. i agree with that. >> okay. so would you concede that appears to be when she arrived? >> no, i don't believe that's when she arrived. i believe that -- it was very normal for maggie, when she is driving, to jump out of the car, run inside, go to the bathroom. do things and either send me or paul or go back or buster or go back to her car herself and unplug her phone. so i agree that's when her phone is unplugged but i believe maggie got to the house a little bit before that. that's the whole reason why paul and i went to the house. >> okay. but you are saying paul arrived

after maggie, is that what you are saying, at the house? >> i believe so, yes, sir. >> okay. that's what i recall. and -- and paul arrived at the house after i arrived at the house, i believe. and if paul got to the house around about that same time, he wasn't inside with maggie and i when i went to the shower. >> you say if paul got -- he was ont inside with maggie and you, is that what you said? >> sir? >> you said if paul got to the house prior to that he wasn't

inside with you and maggie. >> i'm saying he was not inside when i went to get in the shower. >> okay. again, looking back to this data point, 8:08 we see a blue dot there in the middle of the house, don't we? >> that's what these records show. >> okay. >> it also shows that circle that folks testified to what the range of what it could be within so it clearly could be -- >> look at that circle. right in the middle of that circle. almost like somebody dra circle around the house. >> yeah, i do but you could park a truck if you pulled up. so, you know, i'm not he wasn't in the house at some point in time there. by the when i went to get in the

shower, he wasn't in the house. and he very easily could have been there and parked in the yard. >> do you agree at the bottom of page 16 about 8:30 maggie starts again on her phone? >> yes, sir, that is what the data shows. >> i just hit the wrong button. and you would agree with me that 8:38, paul shows back up at the kennels? >> yes, sir, i agree at 8:38 --

let me see, it is hard to figure out each one of these rings but at 8:38, this shows paul in which ever one of those rings is 56 meters wide. and i have no reason to believe he wasn't at the kennel. >> 8: 44, eight: 55, he was at the kennel? >> yes or. >> you agree with me that it lasted about 50 seconds, cor correct? >> yes, sir, i agree with that. >> do you agree moving on to page 19 that both maggie and paul left about eight: 49. >> that is what the data shows.

>> after that you agree that maggie's phone around 8:53 show some steps being taken? >> the data shows that. >> that is what it shows, correct? >> that is correct. >> and then you would a agreed that 9:02 and 9:06, your phone starts showing a lot of steps? >> i do agree with that. >> what were you doing? >> i was getting ready to go to my mom's house. >> you took a shower already and were laying down on the couch. what were you doing? >> there wasn't any ready to get ready in that aspect. i was getting ready to go. i was preparing to leave. >> to do what? >> i don't know if i got up and went to the bathroom. i don't know. >> that is far shorter steps in