>> i'm going to move this to approximately 24:56. correction, 12:28. >> he doesn't like to go to doctors, making him get his blood pressure checked. you know, it was a big huge deal. >> what's that? >> you know, we hung around the house for a little while.

i know that maggie went to the kennels. i don't know exactly where paul went, but he left the house too. >> how did maggie get down to the kennels? >> i don't know exactly. on normal occasions she would drive a buggy, drive a four wheeler or very common for her to walk. >> how about paul? >> paul wasn't much of a walker, but he would use all of the others. but, i mean, could be anyway, you know. i don't know exactly. i wish i could help you with that. >> so they left and went down to the kennels? >> well, maggie went to go to the kennels. >> and paul left. >> and i'm assuming, you know, i'm assuming paul left because of, you know, what happened. went to the kennels. >> okay. and what did you do once maggie

and paul left? >> i stayed in the house, and i was watching tv, looking at my phone, and i actually fell asleep on the couch. >> okay. >> and what time did you wake up? >> i don't know exactly what time i woke up, but when you all get my phone, i think one of the first things i did when i got up was call maggie because i was going to my mom's, and i know i texted her, because i checked my phone, and what time did we say the text was, jim? like 9:06? so, you know, i texted her. i called her just before that, and then i mean, she didn't answer at that point. and i left to go to my mom's. >> okay. y'all just have to look. i'm not sure if i called paul.

>> and that's why we're getting nailed down the times and everything. >> that was lies, wasn't it? >> the part about me not being at the kennel was a lie. >> also not knowing that paul went down there, not being sure, that was a lie, too, wasn't it. >> not knowing when paul left. everything about me not going to the kennel was a lie. >> you're able to just do that so easily and so convincingly, and so naturally, don't you? >> that's not for me to judge. >> that's true.

>> get the room going. >> you don't have any good clues? >> so we're trying to clear back to get an answer quick, and hoping that's going to tell us something. >> by evidence, i mean is things you think are going to be helpful? >> well, i mean, like the shot shells out there, the casings, the dna swabs that we took from the door handle to see if anybody touched the door handle, any other places we think somebody may have touched while they were out there, you know, we're trying to collect dna from that, analyze that.

what i also ask is that we get a dna swab from you. >> no problem. >> your dna is going to be there. but we need to eliminate it once it's developed. >> it actually is a family member. >> we have talked to close to a hundred people, trying to track people down, and we're still tracking people down, and that's why, you know who paul was with. >> i want to tell you one thing while i'm thinking about it. paul was really an incredibly intuitive little dude, and, i mean, he was like a little detective. and -- >> he was like a little detective, is that what you said? >> that is what i said. and he was very intuitive, like i said. >> and that was what marion

described as maggie's term for how he was, keeping tabs on your pill usage, wasn't that correct? >> that was what maggie said about him. >> for some reason you decided to bring that up in this interview, didn't you? >> i mean, that was a trait of paul's personality. i think anybody who knew him would tell you how intuitive he was. for the record, i'm at 46:30. >> thank you all, very much. >> so you don't have to call.

when you and paul got back to the house, maggie was there, which has been prepared, and you said you laid down and took a little nap, and when you got up, maggie and paul was gone, or did they leave when you laid down? >> i believe that -- i'm not sure. >> they weren't there when you woke up. >> nobody was in that house when i left. >> and just try to narrow -- the last time that paul and -- you

saw paul and maggie is when you-all were eating supper? >> yes, sir. >> your answer was yes, sir. >> that's correct.

>> going to the august 2021 interview, but between that june 10th interview and the august interview, you were not working very much, is that correct? if at all? >> no, i definitely wasn't working very much. i think i was working a little

bit but, no, not very much at all. >>. >> did you go to johnny parker to borrow $250,000 in order to cover the fees? >> i did. >> you did? >> did you tell him what that was for? >> no, i did not tell him what that was for. >> did you go to russell at palmetto state bank and get $350,000 in order to help cover some of the ferris fees you had taken to send to chris wilson? >> i did. >> did you get those fees before you signed any paperwork or documentation? >> i've heard testimony about that in this case, but i can't -- i can't tell you the specifics of that. >> you don't recall that? >> do i recall when i signed

paperwork? no, sir. >> you don't recall that you got the money a month before you signed the paperwork? >> no, sir, i don't recall that. >> do you recall your phone being on the console. >> i'm not disputing that, but i don't recall it. >> all right. >> did you go to your best friend chris wilson and convince him to cover $192,000, the remaining $192,000 in order for him to send that e-mail to your law firm as if those fees had been there all along. >> i spoke to chris wilson, and did not have the full amount of the fees and i got chris wilson to put the remaining fees in his trust account. >> and when you did that, you didn't tell him the truth about your life, you just asked him to cover you, correct? >> i did not tell him. >> and he agreed to do that because of his belief of who you really were or who he thought you were? >> he agreed to do that for whatever reason. i assume that was a big part of

it. >> and once that $600,000 was transferred, chris wilson sent an e-mail to you saying those fees were in his trust account? >> that's correct. >> and you forwarded that e-mail to lee cope and jeanie seckinger. >> i believe that's correct. >> why did you not get it all from dsd? >> because at that time, there were limitations on how much i

could borrow because max was past. and so i was limited. >> okay. i couldn't get a loan against moselle and had to get a loan against palmetto state, i mean against edisto. >> going to the third interview. >> okay. okay. >> i'm going to go to 17:45.

apparently having some technical difficulties. >> i mean, again, you reemted the same lies over and over again. >> i did. >> effortlessly and convincingly? >> i don't know about that. >> they can see it there. >> i agree with that. >> nobody yelled at you. >> nobody yelled at me. nobody -- none of these guys were ever discourteous to me.

>> nobody what? >> i said none of those guys were ever discourteous to me. you made a comment earlier that david owens was mean or something about being mean and he was never mean to me. >> all right. but you decided to lie in part because you distrusted david owen. >> i distrusted sled in general, and i particularly distrusted who i thought was david owen at the time. >> okay. >> who turned out not to be david owen. >> i want to be clear, you're saying now you thought this was some david owen that had something to do with greg alexander ten years ago. >> no, sir, i'm not saying that now, i said that all along. the person that i saw and watched in greg alexander's trial that was clear to me was just -- it was terrible what they did to greg alexander, and

the person at sled who was responsible for that was a guy named david. i'm not even going to get into his last name. i thought that was david owens that night was that guy. later, down the road, and it was a while. i checked into that and i found out that i was mistaken, it was not david owens. >> we went back through that first segment, you're telling me you were sitting there thinking this was a completely different guy the whole time, and that was on your mind during that entire interview? >> yes, at the time i thought that david -- i didn't think david owens was a different person, i thought that david owen was the person that my dad and i had watched just -- i mean, my dad and i truly thought was evidence was manufactured and i thought it was david owen, and i was wrong about that.

>> okay. >> but that's what i thought that night. >> any other factors or details you want to add about your decision? >> i'm going to answer any question you have. do you have anymore questions, sir? >> any more about your decision to lie? get it all out now. >> do you have any questions, i'd be glad to answer. >> well, i do. tell me about the replacement blackout. you initially told law enforcement that you weren't sure whether or not there was one, correct? >> oh, no, sir, you're absolutely wrong about that. >> what did you say, then? >> shortly after this, it became being told that paul's gun had been stolen. and the one you heard talk about being stolen from the thing, and

i'm not sure how i learned this, but i learned that somebody -- i believe sled had gone to john bettingfield who made those guns and could only find paperwork for two blackouts, one of which they were saying was stolen in '17. and that's what they were telling me. and i was certain and told them that i was certain that there was a third one. >> but initially, in june 8th and june 10th, or june 10th, you were saying that you thought they replaced it, and then you kind of wavered and eventually said you did replace it, correct? >> i don't believe that's correct, no, sir. >> did you say to law enforcement that you thought that this third gun, the replacement blackout had gone missing in christmas of 2020? >> it did go missing in christmas of 2020. >> so you're telling them that one also had been missing six

months prior, correct? answer my question first, and then you can explain. did you tell law enforcement that gun had been missing since christmas time. >> i told law enforcement that when we looked for it at christmas time, we could not find it, and that was accurate. we'd looked for it when we were trying to shoot hogs when we had a group of people out there, and we could not find it. >> but you now know that it was there as late as turkey season? >> no, sir. i know that will loven and pau-pau had it right before turkey season, like will loven testified to. >> so it was around actually? >> it was around there at some point in time there, yes, sir. >> all right. so you're saying it got stolen a second time or you just don't know? >> no, i'm not -- >> the 12-year-old stole it a second time? >> i never said a 12-year-old stole any gun?

>> okay. the 52 people stole it a second time? >> i don't know that it was stolen. i know when we looked for it at christmas time we couldn't find it. i know that i hadn't seen that gun in a long time. i've heard the testimony that people who were at my house using guns and hunting with us all the time, rogan, buster -- i can't remember about buster, but there was several people who didn't know that gun had been replaced. that tells me that that gun did not stay where our regular guns were, and i know that i didn't see it there, and that tells me that they didn't see it there. >> of course you didn't see it there because it's got to be missing. >> ask that question again. >> one more circumstance for your latest story to work is it's got to be missing as well. it was when you told law enforcement it was missing at christmastime, now we've had

testimony at this trial, and now you're still claiming you never saw it, it must have been kept somewhere else. where else would it have been kept? >> it could have been kept anywhere, mr. waters, the way paul did guns, the way guns were handled around there, i was terrible about that. >> you were terrible about that. >> i should have been stricter. >> but you know that that third gun was fired right outside the gun room door in turkey season of 2021, correct? >> i know that now. based on what will loven said. >> and you were it was also fired across the street at you all's shooting house around that same time, don't you? >> no, sir, i don't know that, but i know that it -- i would assume that it was fired at the shooting range, but i have no --

i don't have any reason to believe it was done in close proximity to that time. e in cloe proximity to that time >> a few months go by, couple months go by, and you get confronted about your thefts from the law firm, correct? >> september of '21. >> and unlike june the 7th, when jeanie confronted you, this time they had unassailable evidence, correct? >> yeah, that's correct. i mean, they had --

>> no wiggling out of this one, correct? >> i didn't try to wriggle out of this one. >> you'd been wigging before, right? you wiggled when you stole your brother's money twice, correct? >> i admit almost all of these things, mr. waters, but that's one of the things that i take dispute with. >> which one? >> that i stole that money that you're referring to. >> you're going to dispute that. let's hear about that, then. tell me why you dispute cashing that check twice. >> i don't dispute cashing that check twice. >> but you're going to tell this jury that you accidentally didn't realize that you were supposed to be receiving some $125,000 check or however thousand dollar check two times? >> how many $120,000 checks do you receive? >> i got that check, and this is several months after.

i mean, you can look at my finances, and you can see how i was doing. i didn't balance a checkbook. but the fact of the matter is when i got that check, i asked about it. and i was told mistakenly that it was for me that i had done participated in that year, which i did sometimes, not often, but sometimes. apparently a new check got cashed. i cashed that check, then a year later -- >> yeah, where did you keep that for a year? >> i don't know where it was. it was obviously in my desk. >> so you found it in your desk? >> i didn't find it. >> you said it was obviously in your desk, so you remember that? you remember finding it in your desk? >> no, i remember when we -- >> did you go to finance and say i found this year old check, is this right?

>> no. in our law firm with the way accounting is and that i can cash a check twice and think that that's impossible. so to cash a check that's already been cashed, there's no question it's going to throw that off. what happened is i had a -- we used to get a rent check, we'd get little checks, i'd have checks, and they'd pile up. the small checks. that check got mixed in, and it got sent to the bank, and it got deposited. and that was a year after. >> okay. >> but i do dispute that i stole that money. that money.

>> all right. well, i mean, you brought it up, so any other money you dispute stealing. >> you brought it up. i was just telling you that was the one i was disputed. >> and you heard ronny crosby and mark gal testify about that. >> i heard ronny and mark testify about what they thought about it, yes, sir. >> all right. right >> you testified yesterday about the side of the road? >> yes, sir. >> and then you heard the testimony during the state's direct case about what you said on the 911 call? you heard that? >> i did hear that. >> you heard the 911 call where

you said you had been attacked by an unknown assailant and described them? >> i did. >> and you saw the video from the ambulance where you said you'd been attacked by an unknown assailant and described him? >> i did. >> and you heard the testimony from ryan kelly where you, again, went into detail and described this attack from an unknown assailant? >> i did. >> and you heard the testimony about your interview on september 6th with law enforcement in which you went into great detail, and again, described this unknown assailant? >> i did. >> and you heard the testimony, and in fact, the image was put in about how you sat down with a sled sketch artist, and spent a period of time with her going forward and creating an image of the supposed assailant? >> i did sit down with her.

i was in the hospital and they came in, sat down with me, asked me a bunch of questions. i answered their questions, and -- >> yes, you did. >> and came up with a composite, yes, sir. >> sat there and answered their questions, just as effortlessly and convinceingly as you have been trying to do for the past two days, isn't that correct? >> no, sir, that's not true. in that hospital, i was -- i mean, i couldn't sit still. i was standing up. i was walking around. i was using the bathroom with the lady sitting right there. you know, i was two days into not taking -- three days into not taking pills like i had been. so, no, it wasn't effortlessly, but, i mean, i told them what i told them. i don't dispute that i lied. >> it was all lies, though, is the point, correct? >> correct. >> you were able to pull off lies in great detail?

>> i lied to them. >> and the lie that you told of an unknown assailant was to try to make people think that the quote, real guy bad guys were back again to finish the job. isn't that true? >> no, sir, that's not true. >> that's not the effect that you intended that story to have? did it have that effect on people that you knew? isn't that the exact effect that it had? >> i don't -- i don't think there's many people that believe that, no, sir. i know the people that were -- i mean, the people that were closest to me didn't believe that. so no, sir. >> accountability is at your door, mr. murdaugh, bad things

happen, isn't that true? >> when accountability is at my doorstep, bad things happen? what do you mean by bad things? >> june 7th happened, september 4th happened. >> i don't believe that june the 7th happened because accountability issues were at my doorstep. now, i do believe in september that i tried to get a man to help me kill myself because issues were at my doorstep. >> every time -- i'm sorry, for the first time in your life of privilege and prominence and wealth when you're facing accountability, each time

suddenly you became a victim and everyone ran to your aid, isn't that true? >> i mean, i disagree with that, but -- and you're -- >> extraordinary provocation, isn't that true, mr. murdaugh? >> you seem to be implying two dates, june the 7th and september in talking about accountability issues, and, i mean, to me those two things are totally different. there were no accountability issues on my doorstep on june the 7th. >> that's what you say. >> and in september. >> that's not what other people say -- >> i was trying it -- been a lot of people -- well, in september

that wasn't designed to gain me sympathy. that was designed for me not to be here because i didn't want my son to have to deal with the wake of the things that i had done. >> that's not the story you told. the story that came out of your mouth right away was the story of you getting attacked by some unknown assailant while you were trying to change a tire and run flats, that's the story that you told. >> that is the story i told but that's because the man who shot me did not shoot me that day as i intended. and i had to have a story as to how i got shot, so i lied. >> so you lied? >> and you're saying that people in your family and friends didn't instantly believe that whoever these 12-year-olds were back it finish the job.

>> you keep using the 12-year-old -- >> it happened two hours after you had been confronted by chris wilson. >> i think some people may have thought that when it first happened, but i think randy, ronny, mark, those guys, i think they knew very quickly that this was not -- that this was something that i had done. >> shame for you, i asked this before issue but shame for you is an extraordinary provocation, isn't it, mr. murdaugh? >> shame for me is an extraordinary provocation? i don't like to be shamed.

>> the prospect of humiliating the legacy is an extraordinary provocation to you, isn't it mr. murdaugh? >> what do you mean by an extraordinary provocation, what do you mean? >> it affects you deeply. that's your biggest concern, isn't it? >> that's not my biggest concern. >> you're a middle aged man, like me. >> i'm 54 years old. i'm not sure. you look like you're in better shape than me, so i don't know. >> i was actually a couple of years behind you in law school, but we never knew each other, did we? >> i never knew you, no, sir. >> had a very successful career? up until this point? it's a simple question. >> and the answer to that, no, mr. water, i was an addict for more than 20 years. >> all right. so making millions of dollars

over a decade is not having a successful career, is that what you're going to tell the jury? >> no, that's not a successful career. >> okay. let me put it like this -- >> hang on. you know, it might have been what you perceive as a successful career. but, you know, i was the one who was fighting that. you don't have a very high self-esteem when you're an addict. so i don't deem myself a success. >> all right. would you agree that at least outwardly you were perceived as successful? >> i made a bunch of money, if that's what you're wanting to get at. >> no, i'm actually asking about

the perception, you were perceived as a prominent, powerful lawyer? you were president of the trial lawyers? >> i sure tried to be. >> lived a life of possessing authority? >> possessing authority? >> yeah, we saw the badges, you just admitted your prominence in the legal community. >> i don't think i lived a life as possessing authority, i never saw myself as that way. >> you don't think you lived a life of privilege? >> i think i was very privileged. >> as we move to june of 2021, you were suffering from a drug addiction? >> absolutely. your father was terminally ill? >> when. >> as we move to june of 2021? >> no, sir. >> he was very ill. >> he was very ill.

>> and you were coming to a point of financial crisis? >> i was having financial issues like i'd had many times until the past. >> mr. murdaugh, are you a family anighlator? >> a family annihilator? up like did i shoot my wife and my son? >> yes. >> no. i would never hurt maggie murdaugh, i would never hurt paul murdaugh, under any circumstances. >> you say that.

>> excuse me? >> you say that, but you lied to maggie, didn't you? >> i did lie to maggie. >> you lied to paul? >> sometimes. >> you lied to your father? >> i'm sure i did at some point. >> did you tell him all the stuff you had been up to over the years before he died? >> no, i didn't tell him. >> did you lie to your brothers? >> about financial things? >> yes. >> i would have lied to randy at some point i'm sure. >> did you lie to him about the last time you saw your wife and son alive? >> i did. >> did you life to their wives? >> i'm sure i did. >> did you lie to mayor proctor? >> yes. >> did you lie to bart proctor?

>> yes. >> did you lie to the bran stetters? >> yes. >> did you lie to your best friend, chris wilson? >> probably. >> did you lie to your other friend barrett when you took his money? >> no, sir. >> no? >> i didn't lie like i told you. i didn't lie directly to him. i lied to him by omission like we talked about. i didn't talk to him. i didn't see him at that time. >> did you lie to your law partners? >> i did. >> did you lie to them about kennels? >> some of them. >> did you lie to mark ball? >> yeah, based on what mark said, i believe i did. >> did you lie to ronny crosby? >> according to what he said, i believe i did. >> did you lie to johnny parker?

>> i don't believe i ever discussed that with johnny. >> did you lie to him about the finances when you borrowed that money in july of 2021? >> i don't know if i lied it to him about -- johnny, i don't think johnny asked me, i don't think i had to lie to johnny about that. so i don't know. >> you certainly didn't disclose the truth when you borrowed $250,000. didn't we say before not telling the whole truth is the same as telling a lie? >> sure it is. >> you don't think it's a lie, though? >> i'm not taking issue with that. i don't know that johnny and i, i mean, johnny had loaned me money numerous times. it wasn't a long sit down discussions where johnny wanted to know exactly what i was doing with it. the conversation would have been, i needed it. johnny was always willing to help me, and that would have

been the conversation, so on that specific event, did i lie to him? i don't know. >> he ended up being out $477,000, didn't he? >> he ended up being out a lot of money. >> thank you for your qualifications as to that. did you lie to lee cope? >> i don't know. i don't know if lee cope was around when i said that or not? >> did you lie to danny henderson? >> i did. >> did you lie to jeanie seckinger? >> about finances, yes, i did. >> you didn't talk to her about the kennels? >> i wouldn't think so. >> did you lie to annette griswold? >> i did. >> did you lie to christy gerald, your other secretary or paralegal? >> i don't believe she and i discussed, i would have at some point, i'm sure. >> did you like to michael gun? >> i'm sure i did at some point, but i mean, michael wasn't

involved. >> it is 3:41. i'm katy tur. we have been watching the double murder trial of alex murdaugh in walterboro, south carolina, this has been the cross-examination for the entire day. he's going back to once again establish which is something he has been establishing for more than a day that alec murdaugh is a liar, and he's admitted to being a liar. joining me is civil rights attorney and former brooklyn prosecutor, charles coleman, laura jarrett, msnbc legal analyst and criminal defense attorney danny cevallos, and criminal defense attorney in south carolina, jack swirling, a close associate of murdaugh defense attorney dick harpootlian. we have been watching him talking about how murdaugh is a liar, he had an addiction issue, he's a liar, over and over again. the one point from today that i

think was potentially very hard for murdaugh is when they went through the time line of the murders themselves, and i want to just play a sound bite of murdaugh explaining what he says happened in the minutes surrounding the murders. >> i can tell you that at that time, and as i sit here today, that i believe that boat wreck is the reason while pau-pau and maggie were killed. >> okay. >> and i believe that. >> it was random vigilantes, the 5'2" vigilantes. >> what i believe, mr. waters, is i believe that when paul was charged criminally, there were so many leaks, half truth, half reports, half sometimes partial

information, misrepresentations of paul that ended up in the media all the time, and when i tell you the social media response that came from that was vile, the things that were said about what they would do to pau top that nobody was believe anybody would get on social media and do that. but i believe then and i believe today that the wrong person, the wrong person saw and read that. >> okay. >> because i can tell you for a fact that the person or people who did what i saw on june the

7th, they hated paul murdaugh and they had anger in their heart, and that is the only, the only reason that somebody could be mad at pau-pau like that, and hit him like that. >> so bear with me because i think we should now play chief prosecutor creighton waters, summing up what he's describing as murdaugh's reasoning for why these murders happened. and this is interesting, listen. >> so what you're telling this jury is it's a random vigilante, the 12-year-old, 5'2" people that just happened to know that paul and maggie were at moselle on june 7th, knew they would be at the kennels alone on june 7th, knew you would not be there but only between the times of 8:49 and 9:02, that they show up without a weapon, assuming they're going to find weapons and ammunition there, they

commit this crime during that short time window, and then they travel the same exact route you do around the same time to alameda, that's what you're trying to tell the jury? >> how did prosecutor waters do with that? >> i think he did well with that specific point. i've had a number of different issues with him throughout the day, but with that point he did well. the issue is we didn't see what the jury was doing. part of the reason we haven't heard more objections coming from the defense attorney in this case is because he feels like there may be someone on the jury who is not enamored with the prosecutor, and that the more the prosecutor continues to essentially bully the witness on the stand, it's actually helping the defendant fall into favor with members of the jury or at least one member, because remember, all they need is one. >> while murdaugh's defense or his reasoning as to who might have committed these murders

seems farfetched or can seem farfetched, it's also kind of hard to imagine the motivation for murdaugh to kill his wife and his son, that he was in financial straits, and he was trying to cover it up, and that's why he committed these murders. i think it's one thing to kill your wife. we have seen so many instances of this, it's awful obviously. but a father killing his son, blowing his brains out as they've said in this trial, is that going to be harder for a jury to swallow, even if a case like this. >> this is why i believe the state has made a misstep with this financial evidence. imagine for a moment that they never introduced this. they could sit back on their other very powerful evidence on star data, location data. all of murdaugh's lies, to law enforcement about this crime. but instead, and i have to sympathize with him, prosecutors have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that encourages over kill. there's the fear that, oh my gosh, what if i don't introduce

every piece of evidence that i have. that's what you're seeing today is over kill. we have seen a whole day. the one moment was a good moment for the state. everything else has been some version of you're a liar, you don't tell the truth. you lie. all of that over and over again for hours. the financial crime motive theory is problematic for the state because like you said, some of those jurors might have a hard time thinking that's really why you -- i've known plenty of people with financial problems. i've known people who are prosecuted, they don't kill their wife and son to get sympathy. perhaps, and it's too easy for me to second guess this but maybe they would have been better off saying we don't have a motive, he's an addict, he does irrational things, and by the way, charles you may be agreeing with me. maybe they have been looking at social media, getting the feel from the outside, this motive isn't working great, so why don't we pivot a little bit to hey, you're just a massive addict, and addicts do irrational sometimes dangerous

things. >> they don't need to look outside, the jury has been wiping away tears during his testimony. they handed him a tissue box during his own testimony yesterday. if that's what the jurors are doing, the prosecutors know they have to figure out a way to pivot. today they didn't pivot all the way. the best part for them is the time line, and they dove deep into that, and showed him most on shaky ground. >> can we talk about that a little bit. what they were able to do is pull data from murdaugh's cell phone, from on star to show what he was doing in the minutes surrounding when they believe the mother and the son were shot. just getting the number of steps he took at 9:02 to 9:06 in the five minutes, ten minutes after it's believed that the mother and son were killed, talk to me about how they were able to narrow down this window to say that we believe the murders happened at this time, and we can show that you were here at the start of that and then you

suddenly left the house only a few minutes later. >> so there's a four-minute window where he has taken his most amount of steps compared to other times in that day, and certainly in those surrounding minutes and the question for him was what were you doing that got you such a busy bee, i think was the quote there, what in the world were you doing, and he can't remember. that's a problem for him. that's a big gap that he somehow cannot explain. the other one of course is the minutes after he left the two of them down at the kennels, he says he went back to the house, lays on the couch, he thinks he may have taken a nap. he's not sure, and so he says if i took a nap, the conditional phrasing there, these are key moments that somehow have become muddled. >> there was a moment where he says the dogs weren't going wild because no one else was there, and the prosecutor, i believe, said that's right, no one else was there. >> only you were there. >> exactly. >> for any of this to matter, it

really is going to be dependent on the prosecutor's ability to sell it and focus on it during the summation. ultimately we don't know, and danny and i were talking about this earlier, jurors pay attention to a whole bunch of different things. you never know what's going to be the thing jurors seize upon. when you are trying a case, you are selling a narrative. one narrative competing against the other. the issue i have with the way the case is being prosecuted so far is right now i'm not clear on the narrative the prosecution is selling, and with that, if you want to make the time line one of the strongest pieces of evidence you have a central focus, you need to stop going down the rabbit holes around it because you're creating distractions that ultimately may play against you when it comes to jury deliberations. if you don't do a good job of summation, in terms of honing in on what you may focus on, they may not realize this is the key point. >> if it was not alec murdaugh,

and i'll bring you in this conversation. there's no real answer for who it could have possibly been. there's no evidence of anybody else being on the property. the time frame that prosecutors argued they were murdered is so narrow, and they point to at 8:49 or 8:49, suddenly neither one of their phones are opened one more time. they never get unlocked again, which is, you know, can be unusual if you look at the pattern of the person's behavior. if it's not alec murdaugh. is that what prosecutors have going for them right now, there isn't a clear indication that it could have been anyone else? >> no one else has been suggested at this point, and i don't know that there is any evidence that there was somebody else to raise that question to create some kind of reasonable doubt, but there's nothing in the record at this point about another person possibly being a candidate. the defense hasn't rested yet, and maybe something else coming, so i don't want to foreclose

that as a possibility. the crux of this case is on the time. it is very narrow. it is very tight. ought to be concentrating on that every single minute of that time line, and that's when the cross should be. they've already proved he's a liar and a thief. you don't have to keep going over that again, and right now, murdaugh is controlling the pace of the cross-examination. he's giving long answers, taking breaks in between, he's giving himself time to think about what he wants to say to any question that comes up. at this point, i think they have left the area that they really need to concentrate on, and that is the time line. it is tight. about as tight as you can possibly imagine. >> do you think he's a convincing defendant on the stand, jack? >> i think he's done pretty well, and that may be one of the reasons why griffin have not objected. i think they're letting him go.

creighton has scored some points, showed some inconsistent sis. he's shown that he has lied to everybody about whether he was at the kennel or not. i think that's where the crux of the case is. i don't know why we keep going back into whether he's a liar or not. we know he's a liar, he lied to his family, the police, he lied to everybody about whether he was at the kennel and the period in that time line, so i don't know why they just don't pick that apart piece by piece. >> you know, the defense is going to obviously have a chance to ask him questions after this. what do you think the defense is going to try to focus on? >> if they're smart, they're going to rehabilitate him number one on the notion of first and foremost, when did the lies start. when i have tried cases with defendants who lied, part of the tricky thing is if you can rationalize what the original lie came from, i was scared, i

was afraid, i had an addiction that i was trying to hide, and that lie is plausible, all of a sudden now some of the other things you did are not as problematic as they would seem. that's number one, and number two, i'm going to try to rehabilitate him around this time line in some way, shape, form or fashion. >> we have some news, the prosecution just rested. it seems like they were not going to go to the time line and dig into further, just from me watching as a layman here, it seems like a mistake, as charles said. >> look at what we focused on. even you asked the question about it. we talked about this motive that the state introduced. was it an unforced error? it might have been. i think the only real moment, the best moment for the state came when the prosecutor repeated the narrative, the theory that murdaugh is suggesting, which is one of three pieces of the third party theory, there was someone who was 5 foot tall with a firearm. number two, murdaugh said there

were people out to get paul, and murdaugh tried to boost that by saying after this, there were social media comments. by the way, where are the social media comments, introduce them, was paul threatened? put that into evidence. now, all you have is murdaugh saying it wasn't the families, the vigilante willing to put his life on the line and spend the rest of his life in prison to go out and teach paul a lesson. someone completely unconnected to everybody on that boat, and their parents. it's a stretch. >> laura, i'll give you the last word before we wrap this up. >> we heard closing arguments, a lot of times prosecutors do this, and the defense attorneys let them get away with it. you heard him asking murdaugh questions knowing that murdaugh would object to the framing or quibble with it or deny it but he got it out anyway and was able to make his point to the jury on things maybe he couldn't connect the dots in an evidentiary way he was able to do it through argument. >> such a weird case and a fascinating case to watch as

he's taken the stand today. thank you very much for joining us. we have other news we want to get to before we go. a senior law enforcement official tells nbc news that special counsel jack smith has asked a federal judge to force, former vice president mike pence to testify fully in front of a grand jury as its investigation into donald trump ramps up. pence announced earlier this month he would fight a subpoena. this new request from doj would essentially squash any attempts from donald trump to use executive privilege as a way of blocking pence from talking to investigators. joining me is homeland security and covers doj, julia ainsley, you are a jack of all trades for us today. walk us through this news from doj. >> always happy to wear any hat to talk to you. this news from doj actually comes from a motion that is sealed but the senior law enforcement official is telling

nbc news that jack smith, special council overseeing both investigations into former president trump regarding january 6th, also those classified documents found at mar-a-lago, that jack smith has asked the judge in d.c. overseeing the grand jury to compel testimony from mike pence. we know he's using this rather aggressive option because pence is at the center of what would have happened in president trump's role in the insurrection on january 6th. was there a coordination between them, did trump try to pressure his vice president not to certify the results of the election? was pence privy to any information while he sat inside waiting to be escorted out of the capital by the secret service? there's a lot that smith wants from pence. we know he's been fighting smith's subpoena since that was issued in september. pence has argued it's unconstitutional, and saying that he would use something called the speech and debate clause that would make what he did that day privileged because he would be serving in his role

as the president of the senate. it's a pretty wonky theory, you said it's something you could argue in a law school class paper but maybe it wouldn't hold up in court. we're going to see what that means. this also means that smith might be nearing the end of at least this part of his case. obviously pence would be one of those number one people he would hear from -- was described by smarter legal analysts than i am or former federal prosecutors who guide us through all of these proceedings. julia ainsley, thank you very much for joining us today. getting that one other news story in. that is going to do it for me this hour this friday. nicolle wallace picks up our coverage with "deadline white house" next. with "deadline whi house" next. ng, he's ready. and that's... how you collect coins.

your money never stops working for you with merrill, a bank of america company. [tap tap] my secret to beating sniff checks? secret dry spray. just spray and stay fresh all day. my turn. secret actually fights odor. and it's aluminum free. hours later, still fresh. secret works. (vo) if you've had thyroid eye disease for years and the bags under your eyes are looking more like purses, hours later, still fresh. it's not too late for another treatment option. to learn more visit treatted.com. that's treatt-e-d.com.