that that plays a big part of why. >> bret: well, philip holloway, jonna spilbor we appreciate you coming on last minute here as we get word that the jury has reached a verdict in the alec murdaugh trial in south carolina murdering -- accused of murdering his wife and son. for continuing coverage of this as the verdict comes in, we go to "jesse watters primetime" right now. jesse. >> jesse: thank you, bret. ♪ >> jesse: the fox news alert, a verdict has been reached in the trial of south carolina attorney alex murdaugh. murdaugh is accused of murdering his wife and his youngest son in an effort to cover up financial crimes. jury deliberations began just this morning so it looks like we are reaching a conclusion to this six-week trial. let's bring in jonathan serrie with the latest. jonathan? >> i had there, jesse. we got word from the pool liaison in the court that the jury reached a verdict at 6:41.

announced that they had done so to the clerk. and now they are just waiting for court personnel to return to the courtroom, in which the jury will announce its verdict. they went in to deliberations at 3:50 eastern time this afternoon, so this seems like a relatively quick verdict for what was a very complicated and lengthy trial. prosecutors trying to prove that alec murdaugh killed his wife and son. they say to create a distraction as his admitted financial crimes were beginning to catch up with him. the murders took place on the same day that people from his law firm approached him and started questioning him about large sums of missing funds. alec murdaugh eventually admitted to stealing money from clients, from other attorneys, vulnerable individuals, some of his closest friends but throughout the trial he insisted

and his attorneys insisted that he was not a murderer, that he would never bring any harm to his family. the defendant, mr. murdaugh, suggested that the killings were somehow related to his son paul's 2019 boat accident that killed a 19-year-old passenger and injured many others. he said that his son had been receiving social media threats as a result of that accident, that allegedly occurred while he was intoxicated. but then they placed it in the hands of the jury and after just a few hours of deliberation, the jury announced that it has had a verdict and as you can see in the courtroom, the judge is returning to the bench, let's listen in. be seated. >> i understand that there's a verdict. you may bring the jury.

[silence]

bailiff bailiff the jury is present, sir. >> thank you, madam forelady if you will stand for me. have you reached a verdict. >> yes, sir, we have. >> is it unanimous. >> yes, sir, it is. >> all right. if you will pass it up to the clerk who will pass it to me. and you may be seated.

ithe defendant will rise. >> madam clerk. you may plush the verdict starting with the back, not with the -- tell you again. starting with the back. flip them over one by one. >> docket number 2022 gs

1500592. the state of south carolina county of collagen in the court of general sessions. in the term of 2022, july. the state vs. richard alexander murdaugh, defendant. indictment for murder sc code 16-3-0010 cdr code 0116. okay. guilty verdict. signed by the forelady. 32/23. docket number 2022-gs-15-00593. the state of south carolina county of as you will son in the court of general sessions the july term of 2022. the state vs. richard alexander

murdaugh, defendant. indictment for murder sc code 16-3-0010 cdr code 0116, verdict guilty. signed by the forelady. date 3/2 of 23. docket number 2022-gs 15-00595. the state of south carolina county of coal tan, court of general session july term 2022. the state vs. richard alexander murdaugh, defendant. indictment for possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime sc code- code-16-23-0490. cdr code 0549. verdict, guilty. signed by the foreperson of the jury date 3/2/23. docket number 2022 gs-15-00594.

the state of south carolina county of culoton court of general sessions july term 2022. the state vs. richard alexander murdaugh, defendant, indictment for possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime sc code 16-23-0490 cdr code 0549, verdict guilty. signed by the foreperson of the jury 3/2/23. >> thank you. madam forelady and members of the jury, if that is the verdict and each and every juror please let it be known by raising your right hands. all right. thank you. any individual polling requested? >> we do, your honor. madam clerk you will need to individually poll the jury

according to their juror numbers. >> number 193? was this your verdict? >> yes, ma'am. >> is it still your verdict. >> yes. >> juror 254? >> yes. >> is this your verdict? >> yes. >> is it still your verdict? >> yes. >> juror 326, was this your verdict? >> yes. >> is it still your verdict? >> yes. >> juror 6 -- juror 530, was this your verdict. >> yes. >> is this your verdict? >> yes. was this your verdict? >> yes. >> is it still your verdict? >> yes. >> juror 572, was this your verdict? >> yes. >> is it still your verdict? >> yes. >> juror 578 was this your verdict? >> yes. >> is it still your verdict? >> yes. >> juror 589, was this your verdict? >> yes. >> is it still your verdict?

>> yes. >> juror 630, was this your verdict? >> yes. >> is it still your verdict? >> yes. >> juror 729, was this your verdict? >> yes. >> is it still your verdict? >> yes. >> juror 826, was this your verdict? >> yes. >> is it still your verdict? >> yes. >> juror 864, was this your verdict? >> yes. >> is it still your verdict? >> yes. >> your honor, the jurors have been polled. >> thank you. the jury has been polled and the verdict is a unanimous verdict. if you will bring the alternate juror out and have her have a seat in the audience, please.

>> you can stand there or sit back there. whatever you prefer. okay. are there any post-trial motions? >> none from the state, your honor. >> >> your honor, we would just renew our previously argued motions for directed verdict and at this point on the grounds -- on those grounds, we would make a motion for a mistrial and to set aside the verdict. >> by the state, response? >> your honor, based on our previous arguments we would submit that the case properly went to the jury and the verdict was proper and we will rely on those arguments. >> we have been here now 28 days. first few days of jury selection and the remainder receiving

testimony, an overwomenning amount of testimony and evidence that was presented to the jury for the jury's consideration as i indicated to the jury on the jury charge or the charge to the law that this was a matter solely for the jury to dete determine. the court found at the end of the state's case that there was sufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty, if the evidence was believed by the jury, likewise at the end of the defense's case when the motion was renewed the court found that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the defendant guilty. the jury has now considered the evidence for a significant period of time and the evidence

of guilt is overwhelming and i deny the motion. mr. murdaugh, you now having been found guilty of two counts of murder involving your wife and your son, two counts of possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, the burden now comes upon the court to impose a sentence. given the lateness of the hour and the victim's rights that must be taken into consideration and complied with under the victim's bill of rights, and consider what i anticipate to be a number of people who might

have something to say regarding sentencing, we will defer sentencing to a later date. of course, the minimum sentence for murder is 30 years. the maximum sentence is life imprisonment as to each count. and the -- on the weapons charge, the sentence is up to five years -- or five years which has to be concurrent, if a life sentence is imposed. when would you all like to reconvene for sentencing? i would like to give everyone an adequate opportunity to prepare for it. >> the state will be ready at 9:30 in the morning, your honor.

>> we can do it at 9:30 tomorrow morning also. >> all right. the defendant is remanded to the custody of the colleton county sheriff's department. and he may be taken away. >> jesse: so that was alex murdaugh, a wealthy lawyer from a prominent south carolina family just found guilty of murdering his wife and son.

showed very little emotion as he heard the jury's decision. let's bring in bill hemmer co-anchor of "america's newsroom." he is going to spend the rest of his life behind bars and sentencing tomorrow morning. >> bill: stunning to me, jesse. the jury deliberated to the extent that they did deliberate for a grand total of three hours. they barely stayed for dinner at this courthouse tonight. this is stunning speed. when we were watching this earlier today on newsroom around 10:00 a.m. today, the defense attorney jim griffin was arguing a few things. foot impressions around the kennel were not carried out by the state. there was no d.n.a. taken from the clothing of maggie and paul. he was arguing that there was hair clutched in the hands of maggie that was never examined. the jury didn't buy any of this. the tears on the stand, the kleenex that he used during his own testimony, they threw it all out in what i would argue is record speed for a jury trial of

this magnitude. >> jesse: we watched a lot of his cross-examination. you remember the bulldog district attorney was pretty rough with him for about 48 hours, and everybody's opinion was he basically did a nice job. everybody believed he was guilty but he did a nice job taking the stand in his own defense for a double murder. >> bill: well, he was trying to convince the jurors that he was addicted to opioids and, therefore, everything all of his actions should be thrown out. they didn't buy it for a minute. this is pretty extraordinary stuff when you consider the history of this family. alex murdaugh's grandfather had a portrait hanging in that courthouse. it had to be removed before the trial began. he is third generation in colleton county an area 38,040,000 west of charleston, south carolina. nancy grace told us this morning anywhere she goes in town anyone

she meets has a connection to some member of the murdaugh family. that's how significant they are. >> jesse: he got a lot of special treatment throughout this entire case in the beginning, especially with the son and the boat accident, and what does that tell you that the jury, obviously from the community, didn't care at all who this guy was. >> bill: his wife was 52. his son paul was 22. at age 54, with a 30-year minimum he will spend in all likelihood the rest of his life behind bars. remember, he -- there was talk in south carolina, his attorney was dick harpootlian, a well-known prominent lawyer in south carolina. well-known in politics in south carolina as well. there was talk that harpootlian did not want murdaugh to go on that stand. it's unclear what happened the night before, but murdaugh thought he had an opportunity to defend himself and took that chance and has failed miserably. >> jesse: you think that he

thought he could basically beat the prosecutor up there and it backfired and now he is going to spend the rest of his life behind bars? >> bill: i don't know what they would have done whether he would not have taken the stand. that's all hypothetical at the moment. he is a lawyer himself. >> jesse: a good one. >> bill: is he thinking i'm the best lawyer in this county. i'm the best lawyer in this state. i can talk my way out of this. >> jesse: he didn't. >> bill: he did not. >> jesse: so they are going to have this sentencing tomorrow, and you're going to hear, what? you are going to hear victim's testimony, family testimony, people in the community, and your assessment of how this judge is going to handle tomorrow? >> bill: that is clifton newman and pretty impressive guy i would say, just the way he handled himself and talking about the rights of the victims, too. and that comment he made where he said the evidence of guilt is overwhelming. >> jesse: overwhelming. >> bill: so the suggestion that a mistrial should be considered was thrown out immediately.

probably not uncommon in a case like this. but we will see what happens tomorrow morning. back in court at 9:30. one of the intriguing things that happened earlier today is they had two alternate jurors on this case. just two. so there is 14 men and women and one was excused right before closing arguments were delivered by the defense during court today, which got you down to one. and so if there was a problem on the jury panel from that point forward, you were right on the line as to whether or not you could get a mistrial but you did not get this. >> jesse: how did you read into the fact that this guy was shedding a lot of tears during this trial and then when he found out he was guilty, he didn't express any emotion? >> bill: i felt one of the more stark images that the state prosecutor creighton waters painted for the jury is that his 22-year-old son, remember that snapchat video they were playing around 8:45 at night on this massive ranch in southeastern

south carolina, beautiful place i would argue, 1700 acres in the low country, looked idyllic to me based on the video that we saw. his son was playing with a labrador retriever in that pen. night had already fallen. he has got his camera out. the state argues that alex murdaugh shot his 22-year-old son in the back of the head and then when his wife maggie saw his son -- her son go down, she went to help and he fired another weapon into the side of her head. that is brazen. >> jesse: he is an animal. >> bill: that's what the jury believed tonight in south carolina. >> jesse: thank you very much, bill hemmer. let's bring in attorney brian claypool. so, brian, you have covered a bunch of these trials for us here. your reaction to how speedy the jury deliberated? >> hey, jesse. great to be with you. i'm not surprised by the verdict

but i am shocked by how quickly the verdict came in. because of what bill was saying. there was very -- there is virtually no evidence at all of d.n.a., any blood, gunshot residue was in question. in fact, one of the experts even said that the gunshot residue could have come from a year ago on that blue jacket and then you also had two weapons. you had the argument that there were two shooters so i thought this deliberation would go, you know, at least a couple days, two, three days and a potential for a hung jury. but i have got to tell you jesse, what convicted alex murdaugh three things. that snapchat video puts him in the scene in the kennel within minutes of the shooting his own testimony going into court was a massive mistake. he came off heartless. his soul was vacant, jesse, when he testified that case. and i think what the defense should have done in that case to explain the lie, you know, he

lied, said i was not at the kennel, what they should have done is used trauma hey, look, i lied about this because i was traumatized. he just came off -- he came off like a lawyer sparring with the prosecutor as opposed to a grieving husband and father. and the last piece of evidence that hung him, jesse, the shilll casings, the shell casings found around the body matched the shell casings found around the area of the compound and all those shell casings matched the guns owned by murdaugh. so the rebuttal closing was brilliant. the prosecutor said there's nobody else that could have done this within that short amount of time knowing that maggie and paul are at the kennel, right? and then they show up with no weapons and then use those two weapons? i mean, it was brilliant. >> jesse: see, he had some other theories that they floated about the cartel or some payback for the son's boat accident.

the jury didn't buy any of that. >> yeah, yeah. jesse. they didn't buy that because of what the prosecutor said in rebuttal. his theme was three words. csc, common sense case, right? people watched. they watched these shows on tv and they are expecting all of this, you know, forensic evidence but rebuttal closing was really, really good. he brought it to the jurors like what does your gut tell you? what does your instinct tell you. jurors tend to be overanalytical, right? we figure we spend six weeks in trial we are going to spend days going through what you just said. we are going to talk about all these theories? was it a drug dealer? was it somebody that really wanted to get after paul because of the boat accident? when you break it down to common sense, then that's what this jury looked at. and one other thing, jesse, that i thought was really good is how

the prosecutor said you can prove guilt through circumstantial evidence if it's consistent, right? and it has to prove conclusively that crime was committed and he did a great job of going through each piece of circumstantial evidence, right? the blue jacket, the shell casings, murdaugh's behavior afterwards. that all added up and the jury just didn't buy all of the other, you know, fixal theories. >> jesse: you sure are right about that. thank you so much, brian. bring in co-host of "the five" judge jeanine pirro. i know judge is on the phone right now and has been following this trial very closely. your reaction to what we just saw, judge. >> judge jeanine: well, i have said all along that i believed that he was guilty. the only question was, you know, how this jury would interpret the evidence and i have to tell you i have a new found respect for people in that county in south carolina. the bottom line here is that the prosecutor proved that alex murdaugh was the only one with

the motive, the means, and the opportunity to kill his wife and son. and the jury bought it. and all this nonsense about, you know, i was on drugs. you know, i'm even wondering, jesse, if his taking the stand wasn't a mistake. because the jury had to look at this guy and say, gee, he lies so well because in the end he said "i wasn't there at the kennels earlier and he was only mandated to admit that when they had the snapchat or that video with his voice on it. so, you know, this is a guy who is very much a schemer, who understood the one significant point where he could not be at the scene was obviously within minutes of the homicide. and he ended up putting himself and admitting finally that he was there but that that was the one one area where he actually, you know, forgot or was

traumatized or drugged up. and the judge gave the appropriate charge to the jury. he said the fact that this guy may have been -- may have been someone who was on drugs doesn't eliminate the malice that we were able to see or a necessary part of the criminal charge here. and this jury went right through it, and they must have, on the first round, made a decision that he was guilty. you don't get a verdict this quickly on this kind of case with 28 days of testimony unless that jury is totally in sync and bottom none of what the defense said. the defense, as far as i'm concerned, i thought their summation was terrible. i think that the decision to put murdaugh on the stand as good as he was, it didn't pull the wool over the eyes of that jury. >> jesse: so explain what the state said was the motivation to kill his son and his wife.

>> the state basically said, look, we have got to prove that he did it but we are also going to prove to you that the motive was that the financial disaster that he was facing in addition to the fact that he was also facing a civil disaster as a result of the killing on the boat of mall lerry, that young girl, that civil case was coming up. and, you know, his wife had seen matrimonial attorney. he knew he was in trouble. and if you recall, he referred to paul paul as a little detective. and we know that paul, the son that he blew his brains out, that he had said to him mom and i want to talk to you. we know we have got the pills. we found more pills. so this guy is furious. he is not just facing the finances of what's going on in terms of his law firm, but he is also facing a disaster as it

relates to the maybe his wife is going to divorce him. maybe if they are going to have a verdict against him for the civil case. so, all in all, i mean, it was a mess. and, by the way, the dog didn't bark. everything. the dogs didn't bark, this individual, the guns that were used were the guns that murdaugh liked, his favorite was that blackout rifle that was used to shoot his wife, the casings were found on the 1700-acre property. they have the bases covered. and as people talk about the loophole in terms of well, we don't have any fingerprints, no eyewitnesses, every murder case is basically a circumstantial case. every murder case involves the person who is dead who can't come to the stand and testify. but, paul spoke to us from the grave. paul is the one who sent the text message saying mom and i

found pills. we want to talk to you. and he says i'm sorry i did all of this to you guys. they knew -- they knew that he was in trouble and they were tired of it. and, in the end, this guy is never going to see the light of day again. he will go to jail until he is dead. >> jesse: and we are very happy that that's happening and i'm sure everybody involved with this family is happy that justice was served. why do you think of all cases because there is murder trials across the country every day of the week. why do you think this particular case captured the country's attention? >> well, i think that, you know, i think we are all somewhat fascinated by southern charm and, you know, plantations. you know, they had that piece of it. i think that also the other piece of it is the fact that, you know, how could someone seemingly so wealthy, so successful from such an incredibly regal family in terms

of the south, i mean, you know, the guy's grandfather photo was in that courthouse, how could he really get to the point where you could kill your wife and son? people used to domestic violence. people are used to a man killing his wife. they are not accustomed to a man blowing his son's brains out. now they are hearing for the first time that the guy was a pill addict. so he is a pill addict and, you know what? this guy is an upstanding member of the community. he is a druggy, you know, and he is shooting his wife and son. it makes no sense. >> jesse: yep. sometimes you look at someone it looks like they have everything going for them, and then behind the scenes, you are popping pills, they are stealing money, and they are murdering their family members. >> judge jeanine: stealing money and then they think the guy is so arrogant he thinks he can get away with it. i will tell you something, jesse, this judge was convinced from the get-go. the fact that he sent this jury

in with tea and coffee until 10:00 -- i understand the crackers, you know, chips and stuff like that, he didn't order dinner for them. the judge was serious. he wanted a verdict. and he got a verdict. because the judge can read a courtroom. he knew that verdict was coming back, and he denied the defense motion after the end of the people's case saying there is sufficient evidence here to go to the jury. and then the judge denied it at the end of the defense case when they moved to dismiss it again. he said there is enough for a jury. and then the judge comes out and he says the evidence in this case was overwhelming, the evidence of guilt. nobody was fooled by this evil man. >> jesse: that's sure right. thank you very much judge pirro. we will see you tomorrow on "the five." let's bring in fox news correspondent charles watson.

charles? >> yeah, hey, jesse. a lot of activity out here in front of the colleton county courthouse. a lot of the members of the media running around right now. you can see a lot of lights and members of the media here behind me. we expect a press conference in the next few minutes or so, presumably from the attorneys who were involved in this case. not sure if attorneys from the defense or the prosecution. but we are expecting a press conference here behind me in a few short minutes from now. look, a lot of folks you are going to sense a lot of folks down here on the ground and in this community and across the country are quite frankly shocked at the speed at which the jury came back with this verdict. we all know now that the jury has convicted alec murdaugh on two counts of murder and two counts of possessing a weapon during the commission of a crime. he is looking at a mandatory 30 years to life in prison per south carolina law.

we heard the judge in the courtroom just a few moments ago say that sentencing will take place tomorrow morning at 9:30, so we should get a sense of how long alec murdaugh will spend in jail. you got a sense from a very beginning of this case that the prosecution knew that this was a long and complicated case and that they needed to make it as simple as possible for the members of the jury. and we heard the prosecution over a six-week time span really go through the painstaking process of going through all the financial crimes that -- financial crimes that alec murdaugh has admitted to and then, also going through that crime scene on the family's mizelle property where alex's son paul and his wife maggie were killed. the prosecution and the last couple of days we really heard them tell the jury to focus on three elements in this case. motive, means, and opportunity. you talk about motive, the

prosecution said it was alec murdaugh, a man who they painted as a prominent wealthy man in south carolina's low country who had fallen on some financial times. and because he wanted to keep up with his ritzy lifestyle, a life that the prosecution said was a lie, he concocted these really sophisticated financial schemes where he was able for a span of a decade to not only steal from clients of his law firm but also -- but also partners at his law firm as well. we are talking about millions of dollars that he was able to steal over a 10 year span. the prosecution said alec did not want these crimes, these schemes to be exposed and they were about to. you remember they had the cfo of alex former law firm get up on the stand and testify that on the day of the murders she confronted alec about missing funds. and the prosecution also pointed

to the fact that the family of 19-year-old mallory beach the young woman who died in the drunking boaten crash son paul they were about to file a civil lawsuit for alec -- against alec that the prosecution said could have opened up more legal troubles for alec and possibly exposed some of these financial crimes that he has admitted to. but, because of all those things and because he did not want any of that information to be exposed, the prosecution laid out to the jury that he concocted this plan to kill his wife and son not only to distract attention away from these financial crimes but to also gain sympathy from the community who would then focus on this man who lost his family and, you know, focus on trying to figure out who committed these murders. you talk about means. the prosecution laid out to the jury that it was alec who had,

you know, access to his son and his wife. he called them to the property on the night of the murders. it was alec who had -- who had access to those dog kennels and he later admitted being down there and, you know, we saw the jury come back and a good amount of time with that guilty verdict, jesse. >> jesse: you have been down there for a little while. you mentioned the community. are there murdaugh supporters at the courtroom? is there anybody defending this guy or is it pretty much going the other way? >> look, it's been pretty quiet out here in the last hour or so since we got word that a jury -- that the jury did have a verdict. >> we did see some of the members of the murdaugh family walk in just moments before that verdict was read in court, including his eldest son buster. we have not seen them since. so, we don't really have a sense of how people certainly supporters of alec murdaugh are feeling at this moment but you

have to imagine that it is a tough feeling certainly for the family to come to the realization that alec has been convicted on these two counts of murders for his wife and son, jesse. >> jesse: thank you very much, charles, we will go back to that press conference. let's go back to bill hemmer, your thoughts as you digested. >> bill: we are kind of amateur lawyers, right? we rely on jeanine and jonna and mercedes and everybody to help us through a lot of this legal talk. but it strikes me just listening to carlos and just watching the trial the past 28 days, this is america's first iphone trial. america's first iphone trial when you consider the evidence entered on behalf of the state. they have been using digital footprints in trials now. we haven't paid attention as a country to a singular case like we did here in south carolina. we think about the cell

transmission tower, jesse, the evidence they entered about the iphone light being on and off again. i thought that was very interesting how they could enter into evidence how the camera would turn one way or the other. all that, the steps you would take across a field, how long it would take to get there. and how you can put this timeline together, that really struck me as this was the state's case and you could argue that it was circumstantial evidence is. >> jesse: biggest piece of evidence seemed to have been that video where he denied being at the scene of the crime and then boom they got it. how do you explain why you lied. >> bill: exactly right. america's first iphone trial. that was a video shot and delivered on snapchat minutes before he got his brains blown out near the kennel of this ranch. the other thing i want to say is just yesterday i mentioned harpootlian the defense attorney. he argued successfully to have the jurors and then two alternates go to the ranch yesterday, because he wanted the jurors to see how massive this

complex was. he wanted them to understand how the main house was a certain distance away from the kennels and they had to take golf carts or atvs or maybe all of it or maybe pickup trucks that were property of the family. he was trying to convince the jurors is that murdaugh could have been in the house taking a nap as he said and not heard a gunshot being fired in the south carolina night. not hear it. fired once, fired twice and alec murdaugh would not wake up from his so-called nap? so that was a field trip they made yesterday late in this trial. >> jesse: that is another mistake if you look back and maybe having him go and take the stand might have been another mistake. do you think they did a good job defending this guy? >> bill: i listened to a lot of analysts for the past week telling me that it wasn't raining outside.

but i was feeling something. >> jesse: right. >> bill: just personally, it was, look, you don't know what happens inside these jury rooms when they get together. we follow it through television. >> jesse: through television it doesn't translate. >> bill: they have been following every minute of every hour. and three hours. >> jesse: that was it. >> bill: case is over. >> jesse: all right. thanks so much. let's bring in jonathan serrie who we are still going to await that press conference. jonathan, what's going on. >> we are already getting some reaction. eric bland is the attorney that represented the children of gloria satterfield. she was the housekeeper, long-time housekeeper for alec murdaugh who died. at the time it was reported that she died from injuries in a trip and fall accident on his front steps and then he took the family under his wing said i will show you how to file a claim and then the family never collected money because he was

allegedly pocketing all of the money. eric bland is clearly happy about this verdict. he describes the jury as courageous. and is saying that alec murdaugh, his power, prestige and money afforded him no special treatment. so, clearly the people who have been wronged by not just the people who were directly affected, you know, obviously his wife and son killed and advocates for them saying that they are getting their justice from the grave. but people in this world who suffered as a result of his financial crimes are beginning to come out and express appreciation for the jury's verdict. and, again, a very speedy verdict, the jury reached this verdict in less than three hours, jesse. >> jesse: jonathan, he is still facing additional financial crime charges, embezzlement, tax

issues, i mean, is he going to then, i mean, 9 guy is obviously spending the rest of his life in jail but he is probably going to have to be back in court, right? >> yes. he faces nearly 100 individual counts of these financial related charges and in this trial his testimony he admitted to many of these crimes. stealing money from close friends, from some of his most vulnerable clients. you look at the family of gloria satterfield this was a woman who was working for the family for years and years. told her children that he was going to help them collect the insurance money and then pocketed this huge shows how many people were wr were wronges man. he knew he was probably going to spend the rest of his life in

prison. proven he was not a murderer and he failed in that regard as well, jesse. >> jesse: he sure did. this guy looks like some sort of callus sociopath who was leaving a wake of dead bodies in his path. thank you very much, jonathan. let's bring in now retired nypd inspector general paul murrow go to guy when it comes to crime. your interpretation of the physical evidence not a lot of it but i guess it was enough. >> really this came down to a very sort of modern case in the sense that it is a phone video case. we haven't had too many of those and that was really dispositive and along many of his lives and there is a myriad. one inflection point i'm convinced there is nothing original about this. it is that video where you hear his voice shortly before the murders. i think here's the key. the jury got to see a video of an interview that he gave with the police where he is claiming he was nowhere near this scene

then they get to hear his voice near the scene. they compound it because they have to call an audible during the trial. they have to say oh yeah, all right, that it was me and i lied because i don't trust sled and i was on oxy and there was all this other stuff going on. to me, that was the inflection point right there because not only is he a liar but now they see him backing out of something that he was telling the police and it's very clear he made that decision during the trial. here's the jury essentially saying wow, we witnessed him do this stuff that he has been doing apparently to everybody in that county. they had a front r row seat to e kind of nonsense that this guy lived his life by. i felt like right there was the point where i really felt no possibility of an acquittal. i'm going to be honest with you, jesse. i thought there was a good chance of a hung jury. >> jesse: you did? you thought maybe one juror would hold out? >> i actually don't think he was that much of a debacle. retrospectively people would say he never should have taken the

stand. if he hadn't taken the stand i think the jury would have taken an hour. he had taken on so much water at that point for one of the reasons being just what i just articulated the fact that they have him on tape saying that he wasn't at the scene to the cops and then we have him on a different tape audibly very clearly there. >> jesse: i'm sure you've had to testify at trials before? >> yes. >> if you look at it through television, and we're television people and you are reading into the performance of the cross-examination and how you think the performance of the defendant is, it's different when you are inside the courtroom and especially if you are a juror. what is that difference specifically. >> it goes to what i was just saying is they got to watch him call an audible during the trial. it's almost like they were saying well we got one story out of this guy oh, he just changed it. that's almost like they were at the scene of an incident and

happened with their own eyes. very hard to argue around that. the other thing is. this look, they put the sort of bad guy hat on the police a little bit, the defense did, right? they blew the crime scene. one of the cops had a difference between what he told the grand jury and what he said in trial. so they were trying to play that angle. but, you know, there is only one group that jurors tend to distrust more than cops? that's lawyers. [laughter] >> so i'm a double-loser. so when he got on the stand and he started lawyering his answers and they were very heavily lawyered. you remember bill clinton saying well it depends on what the definition of "is" is. everybody rolled their eyes? he had a few moments on the stand where he sort of devolved into that and they saw lawyer. >> jesse: and the judge, apparently, knew this the entire time that there was an overwhelming amount of evidence that was the exact word he used and as judge jeanine pirro mentioned, he sent the jury to deliberate with a few crackers. at what time in like the late

afternoon, no lunch, no dinner. this was going to be serious. >> that was his m.o. all along. he tried to keep this thing moving forward. there was a ton of evidence. late on a friday he would say no, call your next witness and everybody is already thinking about hey, isn't it time for dinner? he wanted to keep this going. he was aware -- remember, they lost, the defense lost every evidentiary ruling including the suicide attempt. there hasn't been much remarked upon in south carolina that comes in as an inference of guilt. if the accused tries to kill him or herself, the inference that goes to the jury is that is indicia of guilt. and that, by the way, was on almost certainly in the written jury instructions that the judge gave to the jury? they took that back with them to the room. they said the judge is telling us that's indication of guilt, that's very powerful evidence. >> jesse: that is critical. thank you very much, paul. let's bring in sean. is he a criminal defense lawyer. your reaction to what we have just witnessed?

>> look, i think the guy did it, okay? the problem is just what the last person said all the evidentiary rulings went against him. the ultimate problem in my opinion though is that the defense strategy was flawed. whoever actually goes on trial is going to lose. so if this is the trial of o.j. simpson loses. if this the trial of mark furnl o.j. gets reasonable doubt. for weeks and weeks what a horrible guy this is yeah they found him guilty for that reason. >> jesse: he admitted weigh as horrible person. half the time he was on the stand he said i'm a pill-popping thief. that didn't help. >> it didn't help. and he had to take the stand. he had to try to rehabilitate himself but, again, weeks and weeks, hearing about what a horrible person the defendant was, of course the jury is going to come back as guilty. >> jesse: would have you defended this guy any differently? >> i would have tried to find alternative theory of the crime. i would have tried to put somebody else on trial

hypothetically and hopefully gotten the jury to say, look, there is reasonable doubt because maybe this other person did it. i would have given them alternative theory. >> jesse: could that have just come off as preposterous if you have the guy on video footage at the scene of the crime 10 minutes after these people were murdered? what are you going to say someone flew down through the trees and did it. >> again, all you need is reasonable doubt. all you need to do is convince one juror. and, again, alternative theory of the crime needed to be presented. it wasn't presented and instead it's didn't do it. yeah is he a horrible person. when the jury heard all of the motives for the murders, yeah, guilty. beyond a reasonable doubt. >> we just heard from paul in south carolina, the jury is supposed to infer that if someone tries to kill themselves that might be guilt in their opinion. do you think that that's a reasonable thing to have in the criminal code?

>> i don't know what south carolina law is but they should have put some kind of person on the stand to say, look, he could have -- or attempted to commit suicide for any number of reasons. again, the problem is that when you put one person on trial, you're going to get one type of verdict. somebody else needs to be presented to the jury. they have had a long time to prepare for the case. the guy had lots of resources that he could have dug into to properly investigate it. and they just didn't have it. >> jesse: all right. thanks so much. let's bring back paul mauro retired nypd insp inspector. we are analyzing like a football game x's and o's. two people are dead and that's what should be remembered here. i don't know how you defend a guy like this? yeah, yeah you got a very expensive defense lawyers. you have got very influential defense lawyers. he himself is a trial attorney. better than anybody out there. and it didn't work.

they could not convince this jury that he is not guilty. >> yeah, you know, at the end of the day and there was a lot of criticism directed towards the prosecution about how they handled the cross-examination when he was on the stand. >> jesse: what was that criticism? he was a little gruff and he kind of belabored the cross? >> among the criticisms with that, you know, you let him speak too much. you let the accused ramble. you are supposed to be asking yes and no questions. you want to keep it narrow. you also focus, mr. prosecutor, too much on the financials. the thing began to feel like a tax case or something. people felt like, you know, you are taking it off track. you are not talking about the timeline. you are not talking about the on star data, you are not talking about this, this, this. what really did at the end of the day, it just made him -- at the end of the day something like this, when you take the stand, this is a referendum on your credibility. that's really what happened. 12 people in that courtroom just said to themselves we don't believe anything this guy is

saying and as far as an alternative theory. that's what let this in. they put a toe in the water towards having this idea that the murders might have come out of the narcoworld. that he was messing around with oxy. couple of problems with this. first of all oxy is not a cartel drug. you know who gets arrested for that pharmacists, doctors, things like that. that wasn't going to fly. when the defense started playing with that, that's when they said hold the phone, you have introduced cousin eddy, that was the narco connect. he is the >> that is how they came in. >> so that was in my estimation, in addition to letting them talk to lob defense before he was of a different arrested which put that stuff on the record . >> why would you do that knowing what you know about the law? and he is one of the best litigators in the state any speaks of the police without a

lawyer for three different times? >> that is a very strong question and must be his arrogance. he had the whole county buttoned up because at the end of the day it's his decision. the lawyers can tell him that we'd like you to go talk to law enforcement here and you can only say no i'm not going to do it. my gut tells me it was the reverse. >> so this was ego, and the greed. >> yes. >> if you're a jury and looking at a guy who was extremely prominent and his family goes back generations, and is got the time wire, not only is he a thief, he's a liar, and then they take him to the property i don't know if that's gonna make a great impression on the ravaged juror when you take him to some hunting estate and then jabbed him around in golf carts. do you think that there was a class issue in play here? >> certainly it could be. we don't know the composition of the jury but they chose them very quickly. i was expecting a much longer.

but, i think that they want to go to the scene and i think they wanted some of that, they look at some of it and they said that this was a guy who had everything going for him. he was able to afford this, and yet somehow one way or another he decided that he had to start stealing millions of his clients money to keep all of this up? now was a year of his social class or not, that if they hate you is not right. you have to say to yourself that this guy had all of this, and he still had to steal $4.3 million from his housekeepers families. this is a guy who deserves our condemnation. and as i've said, referendum on his character. >> actively's character, he was stealing from people who were under 18. people who were vulnerable, and innocent, and if you're capable of something like that, what else are you capable of? >> and that was the basic computation that the prosecution made. they were highly questioned

about it, and there's no arguing with success. >> thank you paul, ruben a brilliant jonathan and i were still awaiting the post press conference jonathan? >> yes, we already hearing from some of the representatives of the financial victims including eric blanke, who his attorney representing his children and families of gloria satterfield's a long time housekeeper for the murdoch family. who died from injuries after what was reported as a trip and fall accident on the front steps of the murdoch family home. more doctor the family that he would take them under his wing and show them how to incorrect this insurance money as a result of the accident and help them to basically sue the families or states, since it happened on the property but the family never saw the money whenever gloria satterfield's son would call him he would testify in this child that alice modell will come up

with some excuse and say yes it looks good and money has not come in yet. but then it would turn out that he was pocketing the money and so, the attorney representing the family of gloria, saying which justice was served. and that despite alec murdaugh's wealth. and his power, and his privilege, he faced justice just like every other american citizen. if so, he called the jury courageous and clearly is very happy about the verdict. sentencing, the sentencing hearing will take place tomorrow at 9:30 in the morning. and, under south carolina law what is required by most state laws, victim impact statements will be interesting to hear. it'll be interesting to hear what victims will be testifying weather will be any of the victims of murdaugh's financial crimes or whether it will be people with more of a direct relationship with the people who died and the people who were

murdered and maggie and paul murdaugh. whether it is surviving family members or close family friends. jessie? >> and other money that he stole all we ever going to get it back to the victims? >> well, the law form is liable for that. the money that he pocketed from his law form, and from those clients. so, the law firm is making good on those payments. and, the attorneys who work with him, his former law partners, they are furious with him. because, they had to change the name of the law firm essentially ended be billeted. and they needed to rebuild their reputations and all of these good lawyers who were practicing law in good faith how to restore the rep mutation of themselves and the firm. and alec murdaugh had no regard for that. so they were furious when they testify. so yes, the victims will get at

least most of their money back. they'll get the money that they were owed from the law firm but boy, what are comforts and way to that money. >> thank you jonathan. >> this is just a disgusting creature and he is not a real man. he has destroyed his family's legacy from everything we know, he came from a very prominent family and they've done a lot of good things in the community and he has thrown it all away. he stone his son's life away, his wife's life away. and i guess there's one remaining sound that is probably never going to be able to show his face anywhere around town after that. we are going to awake this press conference, and we saw that the role of murdaugh being led away into that dark hole in the van. any he was in handcuffs. as you will never be free for the rest of his life he doesn't deserve to be free, and we hope everyone he stole from get financial restitution.

and we await those victim statements tomorrow morning. and you can catch up tomorrow morning at fox news at 9:00 a.m., dane and bill hemmer will be covering that. and occasionally in this country justice is served. and that is a good thing. in our system does work. prime time signing up for tonight's tucker carlson is up next. thank you. ♪ ♪ >> tucker carlson: good evening and welcome to tucker carlson tonight there is a verdict in that very depressing and also byzantine and interesting murder trial in south carolina tonight. we'll catch up to that in a moment will take you through what happened and what happened and what will happen next. the first, you always imagine a young minds are that it is evil men who destroy society. while diets st specs like dictas pounding deployed him to amended the annihilation of the enemies. at the hollywood version of it, but it will live people like that get ver