work, your family, your personal obligations, maybe some of you missed vacations. but you've been here in a three-week trial and here we are at the end of six weeks. i want to thank you personally and on behalf of all of us and especially on behalf of alex murdaugh. in his opening statement it was explained the law governing your service requires each of you to engage in an unnatural task. in every criminal case, jurors are required to begin the process by presuming the defendant innocent. in this case, you were required under your solemn oath as we began to presume alex murdaugh innocent of these charges. and frankly that's not natural. when you hear on the news a crime was made and the defendant

was arrested you were relieved. i wouldn't be surprised when you read in the paper that alex murdaugh was charged with the murder of his wife and son that you thought oh good, they got him. but those opinions and each of you when you filled out your questionnaire agreed and affirmed that you would leave those at the door of the courthouse. and that you would decide this case solely on the evidence. and that's what the law requires. and when we began, the law also requires you to presume him innocent of these charges. now, i've been doing this a long, long time and up until the advent of instant replay in sports, it has been very difficult to explain just how to do that to jurors. how jurors can do this, apply this presumption of innocence. if you are not interested in

sports i apology for this analogy but the analogy is the instant replay. whether you are a clemson or georgia fan. on a saturday afternoon is play the called on the field and it is reviewed. the call on the field stands unless there is visible evidence that the call on the field was wrong. we see that every weekend in sports. here the call on the field that alex murdaugh is innocent of these charges. that's what the law requires. and that unless and until the state proves his guilt to each one of you individually voting individually, proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then that presumption of innocence stays with him. you aren't being tasked to give your opinion in this trial. you are being tasked to apply

the constitution, the bedrock principles that protect us all from a government. bedrock principles are first you get tried by a jury of your peers, second that the jury of your peers begin presuming you innocent and third you will remain innocent until the government, if they can, proves to you individually in your mind that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. now, the judge will give you jury instructions on what that means beyond a reasonable doubt. but the definition has been defined that reasonable doubt is doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate when making an important decision in their personal affairs such as to buy a house, get married, any consequential decision. you will be making when you get this case probably later this

afternoon, you will be making one of the most consequential decisions you will have ever made in your life, i suspect. i don't know all your backgrounds but it will be a very consequential decision. if the proof the state has put before you causes you to hesitate when you go to fill out that vote as you are deliberating in your jury room. each of you will have a vote. you will have the right to vote guilty or not guilty. each of you will write it down. if there is any reasonable cause for you to hesitate to write guilty, then the law requires you to write not guilty. this burden of proof that we have, many of you may have had experience with civil cases and in civil cases the burden of proof is much lower. it is called by a preponderance of the evidence. you may have seen lawyers or

judges or watched on tv as they give a visual image of lady justice who is blindfolded so she is not biased for one side of the other and scales on lady justice. those scales are the scales of justice. and in a civil case, if one party proves their case by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning ever so slightly tilt the scales in their favor they are entitled to the verdict. there is another heightened level of burden of proof in a civil case clear and convincing evidence. things to prove fraud or some intentional acts you have to prove by clear and convincing evidence. that's an intermediate level of proof. so it is not just tilt the scales ever so slightly in the favor of the party that prevails

but you have to get 3/4 of the way there. now proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof the law recognizes and it is -- you have to tilt the scales all the way to one side in order for the state to meet their burden. now a little bit about the verdict. you will have an option of guilty or not guilty. my friend over here travels a lot. he has been to a lot of countries and he frequently -- recently returned from scotland where he attended a jury trial in scotland. he tells me it is much libeling this except the lawyers wear a wig. i might benefit from something like that. but in scotland, rules are about the same until it gets time for the verdict in a criminal case. the jury in scotland where we

derive our laws from, they are given three options. one option is guilty. second option is not guilty. third option is not proven. not proven. now here in america we have combined the verdict of innocent and not proven into one of not guilty. so when you go to render your verdict, if it is a verdict of not guilty, it is either you concluded that the defendant is innocent of the charges or that the government has not met their burden of proof. their heavy burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. now, one of the reasons that defendants are presumed innocent and that government has such a high burden is because in

criminal cases the defendant really doesn't have the ability, doesn't have the resources, doesn't have the lawful authority to execute search warrants, subpoena documents, to prove his or her innocence. and so a defendant cannot secure a crime scene, cannot lift the crime scene for fingerprints, shoe impressions, cannot secure telephones and get electronic data in the course of an investigation. so the defendant is limited on what they can do. in this case, on june 7th, 2021, alex murdaugh called 911 and officer deputy green and then followed by other deputies rolled up on the scene and he is standing on his property. his wife and son lie dead in a

pool of blood. he is within yards of him and he just put a shotgun down. what would that look like 90 out of 100 cases when an officer rolls up it would look like the person who had the shotgun and two dead bodies may have done it. probably have done it. certainly someone who should be strongly considered. and all the officers in this case told you that. one deputy said he was a suspect but there were a lot of suspects out there. everybody was a suspect, fair enough? agent owen says we have a

circle, immediate family members, especially if they found the deceased, the victims. he is in the circle by virtue of calling 911. that's fair enough. but what doesn't strike us as fair is that the next morning on june 8th after the gruesome murders of maggie and paul, this is what is issued, a joint press release carleton county that says at this time there is no danger to the public. at this time there is no danger to the public two people have been executed within -- y'all are out there, 100 yards, 200 yards from moselle road? they have been slaughtered. at this time there is no danger to the public? does that tell you that on

june 8th law enforcement had decided it had to be alex murdaugh? it's a fair question for you to ask yourselves. a question that has not been fairly answered in this trial. what we know from june 7th to june 8th alex is a suspect and he is in the circle. from that day forward, he is at the mercy -- he is at the mercy of the ability of sled to exclude him from that circle. they have the ability to do a forensic work. they have the ability to interview witnesses and they have the ability to gather electronic data. and we believe that we've shown

conclusively that sled failed miserably in investigating this case. had they done a competent job that alex would have been excluded from that circle a year ago, two years ago. but he would have been excluded. what did you hear from the witness stand? you heard from chief barry mccroix. i didn't know him until i got involved in the case but his reputation is outstanding and he is a consume -- he was concerned cars were pulling up and tire tracks not being protected and that they could have evidentiary value. and then you heard from mark ball who had a conversation with

chief -- sheriff hill, who is another fine public servant here. and he also said we have to stop cars from coming in here to preserve these tire impressions. and it was not done. it was not done. captain chatman from the carleton county sheriff's office testified about being other sets of tire tracks, as you came in off moselle road you probably saw where deputy green's vehicle had stopped right at the kennels but then on the other side where you saw that alex was parked and pacing on some of these videos, that's where captain chatman had talked about seeing tire tracks and he tried to track them. sled was -- it was like a trail to nowhere. it was a trail to nowhere.

one deputy talked about seeing hair in maggie's hands. you didn't hear anything about the hair in maggie's hands from that moment forward. was it tested? was it sent off for analysis? there was no evidence of what, if anything, happened to the hair in maggie's hands. was it as a result of a struggle with her assailant? was it her own hair? we don't know the answer to that. we know they failed to take fingerprints and they should have. they failed to properly take footwear impressions from the feed room or at the apron right outside the feed room. i think that's -- i don't think that's uncontradicted. the agent worley who is doing the best she can did not go

there to document footwear impressions. did not do that. you heard from our expert what is required and i believe another of our witnesses also agreed. and both -- i will get to the shot angles in a little bit. but both dr. kensy and mr. palmback have the murderer for paul standing on the concrete. whether one foot is in or out, both feet are in, but there should have been footwear impressions. but we'll never know because it was not preserved. it was not taken. the thing that has baffled us,

has completely baffled us, is why did they never take dna samples off of maggie's clothes? her dress? why did they never take dna samples off paul's clothes? they never did. they never did. we asked their investigators why didn't you? that's somebody else's job. that's somebody else's job. it was never done. but you know whose clothing they took dna off of extensively? alex. and you heard an agent talk about all the different grids on her shirt where dna was -- samples were taken. was alex assaulted? no. was alex wrestling with the assailant on june 7th? there is no evidence of that.

so why are they taking dna evidence off alex's clothing in june of 2021. there is only one reason and it goes back to this right here. there was only one reason. only one reason. they had decided that, unless we find somebody else, it is going to be alex. unless we find somebody else, it is going to be alex. the -- i will get into more detail about maggie's phone. maggie's phone was not secured properly. maggie's phone was -- well, let me just go right into it.

maggie's phone was found on the side of the road in the morning or early afternoon on june 8th. whoever killed her threw that phone on the side of the road without a doubt, without a doubt. alex from the get go has said you get maggie's phone, you get my phone, and you get my on star data and you will not see my car traveling down the road with maggie's phone because it did not happen. it could not happen. detective owen have you got any yet? no, we sent the black box on the chevy to the f.b.i. it was a new model. turns out the data is encrypted and so we haven't got it yet. what about general motors? i'll do whatever i can do and have to do.

so we're looking into it. we're looking into it. what we learned in this trial is sure sled sent a subpoena via fax machine to somebody in detroit, i believe, and whoever got it in detroit, whether it was a number off, i have no idea what the reason was, but we do know the initial response was we don't have anything. we don't have any onstar data that you are looking for. there is no indication that sled followed up with a phone call. no indication sled followed up with a letter. no indication sled did anything other than put it in a file. put the response in a file. and that was it. that was it, ladies and gentlemen, until somebody watching this trial somewhere contacted somebody at general motors and said why don't you guys cooperate with the f.b.i.

and sled on this investigation? what are you talking about? so friday during -- sometimes in the last six weeks low and behold here comes all the onstar data that you got to see. and that would be great, that would be great but for the fact that when they seized maggie's phone, it had -- they put it in airplane mode. they knew how to do that. excuse me i'm losing my voice. i need some water. i apologize. that was pop or something else. they put it in airplane mode is the location services were still on meaning still pinging off gps satellites. and the phones don't hold that

much memory. they hold a lot of data as we have learned but they don't hold that much memory and it writes over itself. and for gps location services, the ping points that we see from paul's phone on all that data, that would have been on maggie's phone for the 7th but for the fact that it wasn't extracted until sometime in like june 16th. i think that's the date. if i'm wrong, i apologize. but it is around the middle of june. that pinging information that we see on paul's phone from maggie's phone goes back to june 9th. a lot of good that does. we don't have it. we would have had it had they extracted it earlier. they say we didn't have enough data to upgrade the software

that would read us. took us a while to get it. there is no explanation about that. you heard about fair day bags so it is not pinging against satellites. they didn't do that. it's lost. had they done it, i hope we wouldn't be here. i hope because i know it would say -- we have enough evidence in the record and we have to go around their elbow to get to our thumb to get there but there is sufficient evidence to show alex murdaugh was not driving down moselle road or tossed it. i don't know what time they think it is tossed but it would have gotten him out of the circle, i would hope. but probably not. because they have been so focused on him. now as i mentioned, alex asked multiple times -- i think the

testimony was five times. agent owen, agent owen, if you get this data it will show i wasn't there. and, you know, we didn't learn why they didn't get it off alex' phone until very recently. you will remember on june 10th he gave sled his phone. yeah, you can copy it. please copy it. it will show -- it will show that i wasn't driving -- my phone was not with maggie's phone going down the road and i did what i said i did. well, they did extract it but what we've learned the extraction was a superficial extraction not because alex requested it, that's just what they did. so the logical surface extraction. they didn't go in and pull out any gps pinging data like you see on paul's phone. they have didn't get it off

maggie's. now if alex had not made those requests to owen. they're disputing that. you can be 100% sure of they would have called detective owen on the witness stand during their rebuttal case to say no, he is lying. he didn't ask that of me. we got sheriff smells if here to say i didn't give him permission to put a blue light in his car. they came and challenged whether he had authority from the sheriff or maybe a deputy sheriff to put a blue light in his car but they didn't contradict anything you said i have oh he been asking, i've been asking for this data that would get me out of the circle. and now we know why it took so long to get the stuff from his car.

because the f.b.i. wouldn't go to general motors on the -- the f.b.i. brought a suburban and reverse engineers these systems to try to come up with reports and they come in here and tell you this is what we got it's not complete or accurate. get onstar. thankfully we did. thankfully we did. so then we roll into labor day weekend of 2021. where alex long-time drug problem, his financial issues, misconduct were exposed. and that made him an easy, easy, easy target for sled. i have hate to say this, but the

evidence is crystal clear from that moment they started fabricating evidence against alex. mr. griffin, that's an awful charge. don't all lawyers accuse law enforcement of fabricating evidence. this guy right here, a federal prosecutor, was a state prosecutor, and some of my best friends are in law enforcement, and i don't make that claim lightly. here what you have heard is they came up with a report that says alex' t-shirt had high velocity blood spatter on it. what's that? that means you are within feet of a shooting and they didn't just say any shooting. they said -- in their report it says as a result of paul's murder.

that was number one. let's stick with number one. why not say it's fabricated? well, you heard the agent say we did confirmatory blood tests on that shirt. that means there was two types of tests, a presumptive test, what they use on a product called lcv and makes it turn purple where it might be blood. but it turns purple on other stages as well including bleach. you also heard the sheriff said it smelled like detergent. they spray it, turns purple in places so they think that must be blood. next thing they do at the sled lab is do a confirmatory test to see if it's blood. 0 for 74. not blood. not blood. that didn't stop sled from going out and pursuing with vengeance

this report. they didn't give the no blood test result to the guy in oklahoma and when it surfaced, they had a problem on their hands and they were pushing it. up until this trial. you heard the testimony from the stand, that they went from mr. bloody shirt leading up to this trial to mr. clean during this trial. and they asked him and raised issues during the trial where were his clothes. no one is asking about the man's clothes he had on the snapchat video back at 7:00 with his son until november or so i think is what she said. the issue of changing clothes,

it was late to the dance because when they went -- as you heard when they went to the carlton county grand jury to get an indictment they told the grand jury they had expert report that said high velocity blood spatter. i asked the agent when you went to the grand jury and you got the report, how did you not know that there is this test that says there is no blood? well, i didn't get the email. say it in somewhat jest but dig the dog eat his email? as the lead investigator in the case, how does he not get the lab report that says there is no blood on the shirt? we were raising cain about it

and how can you say this on one hand and that on the other hand and here we are with a mr. clean theory that he washed off after brutally murdering maggie and paul. he takes a hose and washes himself off and gets in a golf cart buck naked i guess and drives to the house? so that's the blood spatter fabrication. the other is this blue rain coat with gsr and you remember that testimony, shelly smith who worked for miss libby and mr. randolph had told sled after september, after alex's problems had been exposed, after she had a conversation with a police officer following an accident investigation where she was in

an accident, that on the morning, she said it here, as she told you on wednesday after mr. randolph's funeral, that turns out to be june 16th, that alex shows up at the house at alameda at 6:30 in the morning trying to get in and has a blue tarp and this blue tarp he -- she lets him in. goes upstairs with the tarp. he comes downstairs and lays out the tarp on her rocking chair in the living room and then he leaves and then she leaves to go to her day job, and when she left the blue tarp was laying out on miss libby's rocking chair. that was her testimony. and so sled gets that, gets a search warrant, goes to alameda and they seize a blue rain

jacket. they seize a blue rain jacket. and when they do, they take that blue rain jacket and they show it to just about every family member. that they can think of. and it's defendant's 87, doug, if you can pull it up. put they show this blue rain jacket to all the family members that they can get in contact with and the rain jacket is -- no one recognizes it and sees it. no one says alex or paul or buster has ever worn it or maggie has ever worn it. had not seen the blue rain jacket. one more thing about the blue rain jacket. when they did the search at alameda, when they did the search there, marvin was there

and john marlin asked hem did you find anything? we found a blue rain jacket back on the property. back on the property. back on the property. he said well my dad drives a buggy around. maybe it fell off the back of his buggy. clearly he was understanding it was back on the property and then they asked him to come look at the blue rain jacket and he was told it was found in the closet. and he said that doesn't sound right and they never clarified it. now here is a picture, 411 is a picture of the closet and you can see the blue rain jacket that is sort of folded up and stuffed down here at the bottom right. that's the blue rain jacket. and apparently right before this trial they showed shelly smith this picture and said does that

look like a blue tarp you saw? yeah, sure it looks like it. they never showed her this. and she said this, 87 that's on the screen, she had never seen this. never seen this. but they did gsr testing on this and says oh, that's hot. a lot of gsr on there. and then -- and then there is this issue of misrepresenting what are the type ammunition found in the shotguns at the residence at moselle. paul was murdered with first shot was the buck shot through

his chest. he was turned this way. went in here and then out under his arm. that was buck shot. the second shot was into the head. depending what expert and pathologist sees it this way or this way. but into the head. and that was still duck shot. i learned that you can't shoot ducks with anything but steel pellets because they don't want lead in the water. you have to have steel pellets. agent owen admitted regrudgingly he testified to the grand jury there were four weapons found upon the property in the gun room 12 gauges that were loaded -- i'm not saying 12 gauges. four shotguns loaded with buck

shot and bird shot. there are four other ones. so that matches. guess what? totally not true. that was totally not true. he admitted on the stand it was not true. he admitted telling alex during the interview he said well, i can do trickery. i said are you trying to trick the grand jury? no, i didn't say that. we walked through it and he did say it. he didn't remember it. you remember the testimony. i said look, people make mistakes, don't you? >> that was a mistake. it's okay to make a mistake, right? you can make mistakes about time. that's the most common thing people make mistakes about. it's not all right for alex murdaugh who is in the center of the circle, who -- not all right

for him to make mistakes about time. according to the same investigator who says it's okay, it happens all the time. but here we go. then eureka, they finally get into paul's phone in april of 2022 and they see -- they see cash, the dog and they see paul's feet walking around and they hear voices in the background. one sounds like alex. and off they go. they go off and get an indictment from the carleton county grand jury relying about high velocity gun spatter and four guns having the same load and relying on a rain jacket with gsr on it and alex' lying

about being down at the kennels. we know after we've been here six weeks of those four things. [ >> return the updated items on your screen. >> that was turned off. >> i will turn it off. >> what we know is three out of those four things presented to the grand jury that you will be deliberating on for the indictments returned aren't true. no blood spatter, no gsr rain jacket that has ever been connected to alex whatsoever and no loaded gun. we're left with the latter. we are left with the latter.

that alex lied about being down at the kennels and why did he lie? that is certainly a fair question and that's -- frankly, i wouldn't be sitting over there right now if he had not lied. but he did lie and he told you he lied and he told you why he lied. he said he lied because -- i tell you he lied because that's what addicts do, they lie. he lied because he had a closet full of skeletons he didn't want any more scrutiny on him, which is the most ironic thing in the world because depending on which day of the week, their theory is that he slaughtered his wife and son to distract from an impending financial investigation. he puts himself in the middle of

a murder investigation and he puts himself in the spotlight of a media firestorm. that's their mode of evidence. but he lied. he lied because of his drug paranoia kicked in and he was clearly in the throes of addiction. he lied for all those reasons. but what he didn't lie for is covering up the fact that he killed maggie and paul. that is not the reason he did it. doug, will you play the dog kennel video, please? i will play the dog kennel video. >> please listen to the voices. [[inaudible].

>> four minutes later the state would have you to believe that alex murdaugh up and blew his son's brains out of his head and murders his wife after having that conversation about bubba having a chicken or a guinea.

four minutes later their case wants you to believe that this is a family down at the dog kennels doing what families do. they are checking on a dog, bubba is out running around and they are saying bubba got a chicken. now, why would alex not want law enforcement to hear that? there is nothing on that tape -- there is nothing on that tape that indicates there is any strife, any conflict, any anger, any planning, anybody being afraid, anybody running, anybody scurrying, nothing. it's maggie, paul, and alex down at the kennel. that's it. and their timeline is based on

the fact that this automatic thing kind of messes me up. i'll open this up and say under their theory if your phone is not moving for some period of time you're dead right then. you could be run over by traffic two hours later but if you are not answering a text two minutes after you receive it you are dead at that point. that's their case. that is their case on time of death is phone stopped moving, you are dead. you've heard testimony from a lot of witnesses. i would say practically every witness who took the stand who actually knew alex and maggie and paul and buster testify

under oath how much alex adored maggie and describe paul as his best friend. his relationship with him was awesome. and that was unanimous. i want to just play briefly a clip from the testimony about the relationship with maggie. >> you also i think in multiple interviews with sled and other folks described, i think the words were --.

[no audio] >> please continue. >> isn't that what you told sled? >> yes. >> what did that mean maggie was his all? >> he adored her. he loved her and adored her. >> worshipped her. just treated her as somebody he adored, correct? >> yes. >> this was her testimony from the witness stand and then in every trial there is, you hope

you find some very authentic witness, part of the fabric of america that comes into this courtroom. and we had in this case dell davis. and remember what he testified about alex' relationship with his family. >> he was lovey dovey about paul and maggie. >> they loved each other. you described them as being lovey dovey, didn't you? >> yes. >> tell the jury what you meant by that. >> every time i was with them i notice that man even raise his voice at his wife or kids. i had not seen none of them argue. but he always -- anything she wanted or the boys wanted, he would try to get it. >> how would you -- what was your observation about his

relationship with paul? >> they liked to hunt and fish together. they drink beer together. >> that was dell davis. which brings us to the question why? why, why, why would alex murdaugh on june 7th execute his son, paul, and his wife, maggie, who he adored and loved? why? the state's theory is that it was a storm coming. clouds were arriving and that his financial house of cards is about to collapse and he is about to be exposed. and because of that, he does

what every rational person would do, he will kill your wife and son. that is their theory of motive. that is their theory of motive, that oh, it worked, too, by the way. he probably killed his wife and son and they quit asking questions for a few weeks. in the bunting case that won't be worth anything now that his wife and son have been murdered because he is sympathetic. have you heard such? one thing mr. waters and i agree on the best thing about jurors is you bring your common sense if here and you use your common sense. that's what it is all about. that's what your collective wisdom. and just collectively think, individually think, what kind of sense does that make?

alex financial house is a wreck, stealing money from clients. he has got to produce a financial statement maybe in a hearing coming up. and his dad goes back in the hospital that day. his dad goes back in the hospital that day and dies a few days later. okay. so i get a call. jeanne comes in. my dad is going to the hospital. paul is coming home. that would be a good time to kill paul, wouldn't it? that is their theory of the case. if you don't accept that beyond a reasonable doubt, ladies and gentlemen, i submit the verdict has to be not guilty. there is no reason for him to do it. no reason whatsoever. now you've heard a lot of testimony about these financial crimes, misdeeds, and he told you he did it. he told you he did it to support

a very expensive drug habit. that is not an excuse but is he an addict. addiction is real. addicts lie, cheat and steal to keep getting their drug. the evidence was permitted in this case for you to hear solely to consider did he murder his wife and son because he had this storm coming that he was going to be exposed. is that why he murdered? that's what they say and why you were allowed to consider it. judge neumann will tell you that's all you can consider it for. you can't consider it by saying man, i never knew he could do that. so if he could do that, he must be able to do the most heinous crimes in the world. kill his wife and son execution

style. that's another use of that evidence. the only permissible use of the evidence is, is that sufficient provocation, motive, for him to kill his wife and son? was it sufficient motivation, no provocation? and there was no impending financial doom on june 7th. that was a day which was no different than any other day in the frenetic lifestyle of alex murdaugh. he had so many balls in the air. even -- forgot his parra legal as name. he would come in like a tasmanian devil. he was frenetic. and then they were on to this $792,000 fee in the ferris case

and they were asking questions. but the reason they were concerned. they weren't concerned he was stealing money. they were concerned he was sheltering money trying to hide it from it being disclosed in another litigation. they didn't want any part of that. and that situation was the ferris fee, as jamie said, that was a one-off. it was completely on its own, different type conduct than all the other stuff you heard about. that was a one-off. and what happened on june 7th? she says i'm in his office and he gets a phone call his dad is put back in the hospital. and she thinks he told her it was terminal. he may have, you know.

but his dad is put back in the hospital. he wasn't terminal that day but the next day he got the terminal diagnosis. in any event she takes off her cfo hat and puts on her mama bear hat and hugs him and a friend hat and, you know, their theory is he slaughters maggie and paul to buy time from her investigation. that's it. that's their theory. that's their theory. it is totally fabricated. they have no evidence of that. no evidence that maggie was on to his financial misdeeds. no evidence that she was about to blow the whistle on him. no evidence that he had a $20 million life insurance policy on her. if he murdered her he could get out of the financial bind. none of that, none of that. and i asked jamie how long of a

delay did that buy alex? a month maybe? a month? that's their theory. that's what their case is built upon. and then this motions hearing is -- there is a motions hearing scheduled for thursday. it was previously scheduled two other times and it was continued at the last minute on the other occasions because two of the lawyers had cancer and receiving treatments. but it wasn't sure it would be continued previously. did he go murder anybody to get out from under those prior hearings? no. this had nothing to do with it. so they brought the plaintiff's lawyer in. an excellent lawyer like any plaintiff's lawyer i will clean his clock and take everything he has. a defense lawyer said it was a

negligent parenting case and wasn't worth the paper it is written on. that's what we are in the murder case and having to deal with. because that is their theory of motive. but even if the financial day of reckoning was pending and right there, alex would not have killed the people he loved the most in the world. there is no evidence that he would do that. we do have evidence of what he would do and did do and if you pull up defense exhibit 125. that's in evidence. on september 2, 3, 4 i forget the date.

labor day weekend, he gets his drug dealer curtis smith to shoot him in the head. said he couldn't go on because it would all come crashing down and he had a big life insurance policy. when alex is at financial collapse, he doesn't go kill somebody else, he tries to end it himself. this is a natural response. you don't want anybody to do it. but people kill themselves from being exposed. they don't kill their wife they have adore, son, the apple of his eye as some people have said. that's not -- that's not -- that is -- i don't have the adjective for that it is so outlandish. i don't have a word for it.

totally illogical, irrational and insane for someone to kill their loved ones when their criminal conduct is being exposed. thank you, doug. so yesterday we heard a lot from mr. waters and i have been in his position. i was a federal prosecutor and state prosecutor part-time mostly and i -- and i've done the job. it's a very rewarding job and i hold him and his office in very high esteem, but there are just sometimes folks just get caught up in a case, get a desire to win and get so intoxicated by the attention brought on by the case that they start sort of a win at all cost approach. i will go through some things

that mr. waters stated to you that just aren't facts and aren't supported by the facts and evidence that you heard. before i do that, i want to give you a cautionary statement. we lawyers aren't witnesses. i didn't take the oath to stand up here and talk to you. i have ethical obligations about what i can say and limitations under the rules, but i'm not a witness. i'm here to talk to you about the evidence. the same applies to mr. waters. you decide what the evidence is. you decide. and -- >> we'll take a short break for about ten minutes. please do not discuss the case. >> bill: wow, so we already have our opening there for the attorneys for alex murdaugh. i think he said a number of interesting things calling into

question the evidence about foot impressions not carried out. no dna taken from the clothing of maggie and paul. whether or not it's enough to convince jurors to walk i don't know. right toward the end he said there was no reason to do it. no evidence that maggie was going to blow the lid off of his financial wrongdoings. some had their -- >> dana: they got underway 9:30 this morning. almost 11:00 now. they replaced a juror. a woman juror, she was found to have been having conversations about the trial expressing her opinion of the evidence with three different people. they decided to remove her and replace her with the first alternate. defense didn't like that but didn't have a choice. the judge made a ruling and said everybody would go along with it. >> bill: one alternate remains.

one left there. i thought also perhaps, if you are looking for a friendly juror in this case, the video of the witnesses expressing the love that murdaugh had for maggie, maybe you make the argument that could be effective. we'll see when we get. >> dana: did at the fence trying to raise some reasonable doubt in the case. we'll continue to follow that as they come back from their break. harris faulkner is next. here she is. >> harris: we'll get back to the murdaugh trial, the double murder trial of that prominent attorney in south carolina alex murdaugh. we begin with this fox news alert. attorney general merrick garland's first trip to capitol hill this year and it wasn't easy. four hours of relentless questioning by republicans on the senate judiciary committee. i'm harris faulkner and you are in "the faulkner focus." those republicans directly accuse merrick garland of politicizing the justice department