fraud he had been committing for years, the defense pointing out that doesn't make any sense, all that did was landed him in law enforcement's focus. so, what we see here is the defense trying to eat away at the prosecution's case. they did that earlier by attacking forensic evidence. they spent a lot of time talking about blood splatter evidence and why that might not be a reliable indicator of guilt. and while the prosecution has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution, in essence, has to convince the jury on each of these points. the defense only has to make that one small inroad, that's their strategy here here. >> joyce vance, thank you so much. that does it for me this hour. i'll be back tomorrow. "jose diaz-balart reports" starts right now. and good morning. 11:00 a.m. eastern, 8:00 a.m. pacific, i'm jose diaz-balart. we're keeping our eyes on south carolina courtroom where former

attorney alex murdaugh stands trial for the murder of his wife maggie and son paul. there is now a 10-minute break as the defense presents its closing arguments in which murdaugh's lawyer has so far told the jury there is not enough evidence to convict him of murder. after the prosecution presents a rebuttal, this case will be in the hands of the jury. tasked with deciding if prosecutors met the burden of proving that murdaugh was the one with the means, motive and opportunity to kill his family members. just before the defense began, a juror was dismissed this was this morning, for expressing opinions about the case in recorded interviews with parties not associated with the case. he was replaced with an alternate juror. joining us now is nbc news correspondent ellison barber outside the courthouse and also msnbc legal analyst charles coleman, civil rights attorney and former prosecutor, and nbc news senior legal correspondent laura jarrett. so, we're just waiting for that

ten-minute break that the judge announced just a short while ago, but, charles, how have -- do you perceive the effectiveness of the defense so far this morning? >> well, jose, i think that so far what we have seen from the defense is exactly what i would have expected, the defense does not necessarily have to convince every one of those jurors that he's innocent, however, they do have to at least convince the jury that the prosecution has not met its burden beyond a reasonable doubt. i think that's what you're seeing. i saw them attack the narrative that was trying to be advanced by the prosecution, which is one thing i expected. i also saw them speak to the lack of physical evidence, which was another thing i expected. so, again, keep in mind they don't necessarily need everyone to believe their client. i think that's one thing that people sometimes get confused, it is not a question necessarily of whether you believe the defendant. it is whether the prosecution has met its burden, whether they

have satisfied this burden beyond a reasonable doubt and in this case, it appears as though the defense is making the argument that, look, they have not and that's why you need to acquit my client and they're doing a fairly good job at pointing out the ways in which reasonable doubt still exists -- with the evidence that has been presented. >> yeah, i mean, the attorney over and over talking about how the fact that, you know, his client is a liar and is a drug addict, but that jump from going to that to be the killer of his wife and son, is that -- that jump which is kind of tough for the prosecution, laura, to be able to prove. >> not only that, but the lack of motive at least for the defense team. they have never bought into this theory as they wouldn't being the defense that he had any reason to commit such heinous crimes. the prosecution's theory is that he wanted to try to distract from this impending financial

doom, and invoke sympathy in the public and everybody -- everyone there by killing his wife and son, so that they wouldn't get on to the fact that he had all of these financial frauds going on at the same time. that is a theory that is just not intuitive. and that's what you see the defense trying to call out there, saying that's just not something that jives for most people. and i think that's pretty effective. you heard witness after witness testify this was a loving family, they got one witness on the stand there, a prosecution witness, calling them lovey-dovey. another one saying how much hef, you also see the defense leaning into what is perhaps the most damning evidence, which is this video that is taped by his son before the murders and you hear the defense saying, there is no animosity, there's no screaming, there's no fighting, and you would think if that was a video that was recorded right before the murders take place, you

would think ladies and gentlemen you would hear some anger there, but you don't. it is effective you hear them for the first time embracing that video when the prosecution sees it as its strongest piece of evidence. >> so, ellison, walk us through what we can expect for the remainder of the day. >> reporter: yeah, jose, we should probably have another hour from the defense here. if i can pick up on what laura touched on in the kennel video, it was also an interesting moment, i thought, when you had the defense attorney jim griffin also seemed to try to touch a little on what the prosecution had of late, where they had been raising questions about the sincerity of alex murdaugh's struggles with addiction and when they were talking about that kennel video, they seemed to make an appeal to the sympathies of the jury saying he lied being down there because he's an addict, saying addiction is real, and addicts lie and steal and that's what happened here. in terms of what else to expect

after the defense rests, we will have a rebuttal from the state, from the prosecution, then this will head to the jury. my producer was able to go into that jury room to see where they would be deliberating when they do get to that point. it is a very small room, jose, a very big table in there. not a whole lot else and when we were speaking with a court official, they said that the jury will be able to have the physical documents that have been entered into evidence with them. that's photographs, that's documents, the timeline, all of that, but video, they will not have access to that in that room. if they want to do anything on the computer, play back any videos, go through that evidence, they have to make a request to the judge and have to go back into the courtroom to see that there. we have also been told by court sources that the judge plans to have the jury deliberate until 10:00 p.m. tonight and tomorrow if it is necessary. jose? >> so, charles, talk about how important or big a deal was it

that right before today's deliberations, the process started this morning, the judge removed a juror. >> very significant, jose. this is why you have alternates regardless of the stage the case is in. you keep your alternates the entire time, especially in the case as high profile as this. it is pretty interesting because what happened was apparently this juror was having a conversation with someone else, and then someone else basically informed the court that the juror was speaking about the case to a person who was not affiliated with the court, an sent the judge's instructions. this is something that calls for many different interviews to take place. apparently the juror wasn't entirely forth coming but the judge decided it was in the best interest of justice to remove this juror and insert an alternate. it goes to show how much conversation is taking place around this trial. this is a really big deal. not just that, but the fact that someone knew that they were

talking to a juror, and then told the court and informed them shows how many people are watching this, how closely it is being scrutinized and how much is at stake in terms of the size, the scope and the impact that this is having on the surrounding south carolinian community. i would say that it is not a normal occurrence to have something like this happen, but the fact that it did just tells you how invested people really are. >> and, laura, how -- this comes one day after prosecutors painted murdaugh as a liar, a thief, under immense pressure. how has the defense strategy today been able to -- has it been at all successful in, like, as a counterpoint to what was said and shown yesterday? >> i think they have been able to sort of attack the general theory of motive. what they haven't been able to do, for obvious reasons because it is really hard, is that there is so many videos that the prosecution has been able to play of alex murdaugh lying on

camera. he is on tape in multiple different scenarios, telling law enforcement that he was not down by the kennels, by the shed, where the murders later take place. he says it with a straight face, he says it calmly. the prosecution was trying to use it to show the jury, look, ladies and gentlemen, how easily he lies. and if you see how easily he lies in these videos, you can see how easily he lied to you here on the stand. that is not a thing that is easy to counter and that's what the defense has challenged to do here today. >> ellison barber, charles coleman, laura jarrett, thank you so very much. we're keeping an eye on what is happening in that south carolina courtroom. we'll get back to it as soon as it begins. i want to give you other breaking news this morning. we just heard from secretary of state antony blinken on the sidelines of the g-20 summit where earlier today he met with the russian foreign minister, sergey lavrov, for the first time since russia invaded ukraine over a year ago.

allie raffa joins us from washington, d.c. to walk us through this. what did we learn about blinken's meeting today? >> reporter: good morning. that's right. this is the first face to face meeting these two have had since the war in ukraine began. we know that they have shared some phoneconversations, but this is the first time they met in person since that milestone. we know blinken initiated this meeting that lasted around ten minutes and says he hit on three main topics discussed with lavrov. he urged lavrov to convince president putin to reverse his decision to no longer commit in that last nuclear arms treaty between the u.s. and russia, that was cut a little over a week ago now. remember, that was set to expire in 2021. then presidents biden and putin agreed to an extension of that treaty. of course, then, president putin decided to bow out of that treaty a little over a week ago. blinken also saying that he

reinforced his commitment to ukraine for as long as this war goes on. listen to a bit of what he had to say during this press conference about that. >> i told the foreign minister what i and so many others said last week at the united nations and what so many g-20 foreign ministers said today, end this war of aggression, engage in meaningful diplomacy that can produce a just and durable peace. >> reporter: blinken also stressed to lavrov that the russia should release former marine paul whelan who we know is serving a 16-year sentence in russia for alleged espionage charges that the u.s. says are unreasonable, are not fair. blinken saying that the united states offered a proposal to russia that russia has not answered or agreed upon. so, just the fact that lavrov agreed to this face to face meeting is significant. but it underscores how important

it is for these lines of communication to continue as this war enters its second year, as well as russia enters a new phase in this war with a new countermeasure going into place in ukraine. >> allie, thank you very much. now to breaking news here at home, michigan attorney general dana nestle says the fbi told her she was a target of a heavily armed man who threatened to kill jewish-elected officials in michigan. that man arrested last month. ken dilanian is with us this morning. good morning. what do we know about this? >> good morning, jose. jackie jean carpenter iii arrested in mid-february. the documents say he made threats on twitter to kill jewish members of michigan state government, including the attorney general and congresswoman elissa slotkin, a federal official. court documents say he threatened to use deadly force if police pulled him over for

his expired license plates. the fbi said they learned he had been previously arrested on assault charges and he owned a number of firearms including handguns, shotguns and rifles. a twitter account that the fbi said is connected to carpenter says he was fired from the university of michigan for refusing a covid-19 vaccine. the university saying it employed carpenter for ten years and let him go in 2021 but has not said why. he's being held without bail in federal court, jose. >> ken dilanian in washington, thank you very much. the defense in that alex murdaugh trial is starting back to its closing arguments. let's listen in. members of the jury back in. so they are about to enter the courtroom. there you see murdaugh with his legal team, conferring. and they're about to begin this -- they took that short ten-minute break as the defense

arguments, the closing arguments were under way. just about -- a little bit after 10:00 this morning eastern time they began. the members of the jury are being brought in. charles coleman continues to be with us. charles, that ten-minute break gives them, i guess all sides, a little bit of time to confer, but it's a process by which we can expect, charles, the defense to go into all different aspects of this -- the accusations. >> well, absolutely, jose. i think one of the fatal flaws that the prosecution made during this is they tried to relitigate every fact of this case rather than streamlining their arguments and focusing on one or two central themes and telling the jury what the case is about. why that's important is because what they have done now is this opened up a number of different avenues for the defense to poke holes in their case and add reasonable doubt, which i think is what they're going to do as

we watch now. >> charles, thank you very much. back to the courtroom. >> -- fired by the same shotgun, that the shot shells, the things that rolled under the door, were fired by the same gun. that's all he testified to is the shotgun. they have put a lot of guns in evidence here, they have nothing to do with the crime. so we don't know which shotgun was used. could have been a shotgun bought at walmart that afternoon, could have been a 20-year-old shotgun, but all the evidence, ballistic evidence is shot shells were fired by the same gun. and that's -- don't know that you really need an expert for that, but that's what the testimony was on the shotgun. with regard to 300 blackout, you recall that the this guy, paul greer, testified that the cartridges found at the crime

scene, and maggie was shot with a 300 blackout, that those -- that the tool marks, called tool marks, that the extractor and ejector marks from the cartridges found at the crime scene matched extractor and ejector tool marks on some cartridges found at the house and some found at the driving range. excuse me, shooting range. what he didn't say was that where the firing pin breaches that cartridge, one of the most reliable cases, it did not match. no match. and he also did not -- did not compare projectiles, there was another projectile found, projectile, that's the bullet, that's the bullet thing, that goes -- it went into maggie's body and broke up, but one went

into the doghouse and was found in the dog bed. so they have that. and what they did not do is take that projectile and dig projectiles out of the berm where the shooting range was and compare it to see if they match. and notice he said the ballistic expert can't be 100% sure until you have the gun. you heard my cross examination of agent greer and this tool mark -- ballistic examination is somewhat soft science. coming under criticism. it is what they rely upon. not every investigative lab relies upon it. that's what they did here. but it is not gospel. it is not gospel. another thing about the -- about

the 300 blackout, he in his closing mr. waters repeatedly said that a, alex bought it, alex bought it, we're talking about the replacement, i don't know, alex bought it, well, alex didn't buy it, the evidence shows maggie bought kept saying defendant's. it is not the defendant's. it was paul's gun. it wasn't alex's gun. paul's gun. at one point in time during his closing argument yesterday, mr. waters re-enacted a shooting scenario, if you recall, i'll do my best, but he stands up here and he says that alex shoots paul in the chest one time.

and 999,999 times out of 1 million, that person is dead. he puts the shotgun down, and he has 300 blackout right here, because he is so smart and so diabolical that he's going to stage it so it looks like two shooters, so he's got a 300 blackout here, a shotgun that he just took his son out, but his son was 1 in a million, he says. 1 in a million, comes this way, so alex has to put the 300 blackout down, pick up the shotgun, and shoot paul. where in the world does that scenario reside other than in mr. waters' mind? it doesn't. it doesn't.

there is no evidence to support anything like that. none. none. and the fact that he has to go to such gymnastics to come up with alex staging a two-shooter theory, i ought to tell you, there is two-shooters out there. i ought to tell you someone to do that. another curious point in mr. waters' closing argument yesterday involves paul's intuitive talents. you will recall that alex informed agents that paul was an intuitive little dude. that merriam procter, maggie's sister, said that maggie referred to paul as her little detective. and particularly when it came to trying to root out whether alex was still doing drugs.

and he sort of left it there. left it there for you to then take it and run with it as if, oh, paul must have -- paul must have found alex using drugs, there must have been a confrontation down there at the kennel, and that must have been what happened. now, he didn't go that far in his argument, but he laid it out there for you to run with. but that was clearly the implication. and i want to tell you first, there are no facts to support that, none whatsoever. let me add another scenario, this equally as plausible. what if paul, the detective, learned the source of drugs that were being sold to his dad. what if paul, the detective, goes to that drug source. says cut it out. that's my dad, you're hurting my family. and if you don't, i'm going to tell on you. turn you in.

and what if sources -- dangerous drug gang. >> i object. >> those were plausible scenarios they were throwing out to you and that you can think up many equally plausible scenarios. but you have to decide the evidence based on the facts that the state puts before you. not theories, not inferences, not speculation, but cold-hard facts. mr. waters also said that alex, the master liar, accused shelly smith, blanca and perhaps another witness of lying. he never did such a thing. he never accused anybody of lying from this witness stand. now, i've been around long enough to know, long enough to know that witnesses can

misremember things. and believe them to be true. and frankly, i'm the biggest offender of that trait in my household. i convince myself i remembered something accurately, and i will have an argument with my wife until she shows me photographic evidence that i'm just wrong and that's what it takes. that happens. people misremember things. but because we point out that there is an inconsistent fact, doesn't mean we're saying someone lied. and we never did that. we never did that. the -- one example, sister marion, one example of misremembering, sister marion said she spoke with maggie about 7:00 p.m. while she was at edisto and alex wanted to come to moselle to visit her father. we know that her recollection is mistaken, because we have cell phone records, we have fbi records, we got a phone bill, we

got -- that shows she was in mount pleasant and traveling to moselle around the period of time where sister marion thought she was in edisto. did not happen. that doesn't mean -- that doesn't mean she was lying about that. absolutely not. that's just how she remembered it. and she also said when she talked to maggie that maggie was, you know, going to go over and visit mr. randolph at alameda. but we know from the records that mr. randolph re-entered the hospital. that's in the records and maggie knew it. we have maggie's text to blanca, i think, in the day saying they're putting mr. randolph back in the hospital, you know, we're scared for everybody and hope alex doesn't go down to the hospital. this is how marion remembered it. but if she remembered it incorrectly. and that happens.

because we point stuff out like that, we're not saying they're lying. now, with shelly and the blue tarp, she remembers something, we're not sure what. but the evidence clearly is she says it was on wednesday june 16th. and we got the fbi cell phone forensics, we got records and we got testimony that alex is in summerville, he spent the night with his in-laws, on tuesday, and he stayed there toward the end of the week and then went to the mountains. so alex could not have been knocking on the door of the alameda house on the morning of june 16th. and told you she relieves shelly, she works all night and she leaves and works at the school district. barbara ann comes in and relieves shelly.

shelly recalled it as the tarp was laid out when she left for work. barbara ann came in and said, well, i didn't see it. no time during that week when i worked was there a blue tarp. you know, shelly remembers something, but not a blue raincoat and certainly -- certainly alex could not have come over there on wednesday. shelly also says he spoke to me about times, and i am -- and that bothered me, i called my brother. we're not disputing that. what she didn't say is alex told me to say i was here and 45 minutes or things like that, and frankly it doesn't make a lot of sense because alex kept saying, you get my phone records, you get my phone records and you'll know what time i was there. i'll get to this little bit more in a moment, but mr. waters

keeps talking about oh, he's hurrying to get over there, he's hurrying to get over there to compress the time, compress the time, so that it looks like he's been gone from moselle longer than he was. fair enough argument. i understand his point, but the point evaporates when you talk about how long you are at alameda. does it matter if he's there 45 minutes or 20 minutes? does it really matter how long he was there? i guess before you have the onstar data, they could be be saying he says he was there 45 minutes, but only 22 minutes and spent the other 10, 15, minutes traipsing through the woods, burying bloody clothes and getting ready of murder weapons. well, we may have heard this in this trial, had we not gotten the onstar data from general motors in the middle of the

trial which shows conclusively, he drove over there and drove straight back. another small point, he said there is biological material on the polaris. i don't think this was ever tested. it looks like it. but what we learned in this case is things aren't always as they seem. they thought they had blood on the shirt. turns out there was no blood on the shirt. and that this biological material showed that maggie was running toward her baby. i don't know that there is any evidence which way maggie was running or which way she was running to or not. it is a fair inference. and everyone who knows maggie would know that's what she would do. we're not disputing that would be her -- that would be her mother instinct. and did that probably happen? it probably did.

but it's just to state it as a fact there is no evidence of that. one thing he also said, the cell phone back light turning on, and i don't have an apple phone, but so here is the issue, and mine will do it because i don't have an apple phone, i don't think. if you take a phone flat and pick it up, light comes on. and why is that important? why is that important? i probably turn this phone off. and if i'm -- making a point, you know the answer too, i apologize, it is important you do know the answer why this is important. this is important because now that we have the onstar data, we know alex drove his suburban by the spot, where maggie's phone was found at 9:08. a few seconds in there, but 9:8

and we know her phone is in the woods at that point. so the question is did alex throw it out the window at 9:08. and the answer is, no, he didn't. because if you throw it up the window, at a minimum, the display light is going to come on. at a minimum. and when that display light comes on, it registers. these phones say a lot. i was -- lesson learned in this case. it registers in this knowledge c database and it says, display light on. and it has a time that display light came on. well, there is no -- on maggie's phone, the display light does not come on at 9:08. so, means alex didn't throw the phone. and yesterday, mr. waters says every single expert testified

that the back light comes on and sometimes it doesn't. when the phone is raised aggressively. that's not true. only one person testified to that. mr. manning, who over the weekend, works for the sheriff's department, i don't know why they got him to do it but he says he got a phone, similar to the one that maggie had, not maggie's phone, had software, but not the same version as maggie, and he spent all weekend throwing the phone on the ground to see what would happen. many hours of the day throwing the phone on the ground. and he comes in here and says, hey, folks, sometimes the light comes on, sometimes it doesn't. our expert, mika sturgis says it comes on, it comes on. that's what we're talking about. that's what we're talking about. folks, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if they had secured maggie's phone and not allowed the -- did not --

and put in a fair day bag so that the gps coordinates on the 7th would not have been overwritten and they were. so now we got a guy down in charleston throwing the phone around all weekend. because they are desperate to prove alex threw the phone out, they got no evidence of that. the evidence is the concontrarye did not. you get the onstar data, you get gps data, you get my gps data and you'll know i'm not traveling with her phone. never got it, wrote over it and now we have a guy tossing the phone in the office that doesn't even work for sled. not every expert says that. the guy -- he said that's not his area of expertise.

so, oh, yeah. last one is about me. mr. waters says that i did an hbo interview on november 2022 and he references some things i said in the hbo interview. well, i didn't. he knows i didn't. there is an hbo special, i'm on it. i'm not telling anybody to watch it, but that was still back in -- i don't know, spring, summer of 2022. well before he was charged with murder. i'm not on tv talking about his murder charges. but he wants you to think that. i don't know why. i take a little bit of offense to that. i really do. >> and we object. >> i was not being

interviewed -- >> objection overruled. >> not being interviewed in november 2022. not. so i asked why, why, why, they can't answer that. they don't have an answer as to why. now, how. how? how could alex in the time period we know -- we're going to get to it, but how could he have butchered maggie, paul, without leaving a trace of evidence within a matter of minutes? how, how? we went from why. now how. the answer to how is he couldn't. this is the wrong question to be asking yourselves. because the question that you are tasked with answering is has the state presented evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt showing that alex

butchered maggie and paul without leaving a trace of evidence all within a matter of minutes? matter of minutes? have they proven evidence, do they present evidence of that? proof beyond a reasonable doubt? he was able to make bloody clothes, bloody guns, who knows how much, whatever, disappear in a matter of minutes without leaving a trace? without leaving a trace. of course they haven't. the reasonable doubt is doubt that causes a reasonable person to hesitate on one most important decisions of your life. and here the -- there is no direct evidence of alex doing anything other than he's at the kennel, and 8:44, and it is just pleasant family talking about bubba the dog, getting a

chicken. so the state's trying to weave this story of this guilt based upon circumstantial evidence and the judge will charge on circumstantial evidence and i have no dispute with what the state put up here yesterday, that's the law and you're going to get it, he's going to give you the written document with the charge. and you will see in there, when they rely upon circumstance evidence, this is good as direct evidence, but there is some things that it has to do to be as good as direct evidence. and that -- and what it has to do, the circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances must be consistent with each other, and when taken together point conclusively, conclusively to the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. and if these circumstances portray the behavior of the defendant as suspicious, the proof has failed. as circumstantial evidence.

so what are the circumstances that the state relies upon? well, he was at the kennel at 8:44, paul last used his phone at 8:48. he replied to a text with a friend about a movie recommendation. maggie's phone locked for the last time at 8:50 and 8:49 and 50 some odd seconds, but 8:50, but however her phone recorded significant steps around 8:55, and we're going to see that, and her phone tried to activate the camera at 8:55, and it registered an orientation change at 9:06. i think pretty much understand orientation change, but when the phone goes from landscape to portrait or -- beats me, goes from that to that, that is an orientation change. and the phone will tell you. it did that at 9:06. and they got 300 shell casings,

extractor and ejector markings with casings around the house and the shooting range. that's pretty much it. and then of the circumstantial evidence of his guilt. they want to say, well, he lied about it, so his consciousness of guilt, but i'm talking about what evidence they have, put all the circumstances together, proved he shot and killed maggie and paul and that's pretty much it. and how have they established the time of death here? solely on cell phone use. solely on cell phone use, and using the phone or not using the phone doesn't dictate or define whether you're dead or alive. i mean, i say most everybody in this courtroom does not have their phone with them right now. under the state's theory, i mentioned before, you know, if they die, while they're not using their phone, they're dead, the moment they stop using their

phone. that's what they have here. that is their case. there are a number of reasons that paul would stop using his phone. first, well, first, two testimonial clips, one from rogan, remember rogan, he'll play that quickly. this is rogan testifying about paul's phone. >> you asked a little bit about paul's cell phone usage, he was on it a lot. >> he was on it a lot, yes, sir. >> and -- >> all right. >> what is the objection? >> i think the testimony -- >> legal basis for the

objection? >> irrelevant. >> all right. mr. griffin? >> a clip from the live feed of this trial, your honor. i can't believe who is being depicted, but it is my voice asking -- >> how many weeks? >> six weeks. >> so not going to replay the trial. >> it is a clip of a few seconds. >> i sustained the objection. >> all right. take it down. so you will remember that rogan said that when paul's phone and, by the way, if you don't remember it and you have questions about it, in jury deliberation, you can always ask to have testimony replayed for you -- >> can we play the audio without

the video? >> you're asking me what you can do? i rule on objections. >> can he play the audio? >> paul's cell phone usage, he was on it a lot? >> he was on it a lot, yes, sir. >> and did the battery get down low pretty regularly? >> yes, he would let it die sometimes or he would lose it. >> and when it would get down low, did he have a habit of not using it trying to keep it from going all the way off? >> yes, i have seen him do that before. >> and yourself? >> yes, sir. >> and so, you'll know from the photographs and the evidence in the case that paul's phone is at 2%, at 2%, and it was on low power mode at the time he was texting this friend of his about a movie recommendation.

and then can he play the audio only of -- you remember nate tooten. he testified about paul putting the phone down when he was working around the kennels. >> and how would you describe the relationship between paul and alex? >> they had a really good relationship. >> would you say that alex -- >> i don't think that's the right clip. the -- so mr. tooten testified that when paul would work, he would put the phone down, forget where it was at times, and then it was pretty common for him to put the phone down at the kennel so it wouldn't get wet and you recall dale davis, they brought him to the stand, i think they brought him to the stand to make it seem like the hose was unraveled, and then it was used and put back and we know from

the video and you can see it again on the kennel video, we pointed it out, the hose is on the ground outside cash's kennel. and mr. davis said, yeah, that was not how i left it, someone had put it down, and then i'm going to show you state's exhibit. right here. doug, can i have the -- that's

awful. ladies and gentlemen, you'll have back to the jury room state's exhibit 503, which is a picture of the dog kennels from the murder scene. and what i'm pointing out on top of these two kennels are dog beds. you'll see exhibit 503, the dog beds are up here on top, and you recall bill davis says when you

clean out the kennels, hose it down, put the dog beds on top. on top. so it's pretty clear from these photos, this photo that paul and/or maggie had sprayed out those dog runs and put the dog beds on top. and that -- and put the hose away and put the hose away. alex testified that the -- bubba and grady had on collars and would see the collars in state's 45. so the collar is hanging here, but the collar is hanging here, here, and then there is collars here. and the dogs don't have collars on them in the dog picture. so, there is a fair conclusion

that after alex left, when he said he left, that paul pushed bubba up, paul puts brady up, grady up, after cleaning out the kennels, and then he goes back into the feed room to get his phone, where he was confronted. where he was confronted. or sometime later. i don't know. but they are relying upon cell phone usage for time of death. coroner said he did the armpit test, which is no test at all, just a guesstimate. the -- can you pull up in evidence -- now i want to talk about maggie's phone and the defendant's exhibit 158, please?

so this is maggie's phone. timeline that we put in evidence and this is going from 8:49 to 9:07. and if you'll just walk through it, you'll see 8:49.26, last text message read by maggie. next one. 8:49:28, back light off. 8:49:31, phone locks. 8:53, the back light comes on. back light comes on. it is being manipulated. 8:53:12, orientation to portrait starts. 8:53:15, phone begins logging 59 steps.

8:53:20, siri usage, testimony is you can get that by squeezing the button. 8:53:24, orientation portrait completes. so it switches and then 8:53:28, back light is off. 8:53:32, back light is on. back light is off again. and this is on again. keep going. 8:54:34, camera use starts. activated by touching the camera icon or swiping left from the lock screen. the -- there was a question whether that could be from facial recognition and lieutenant dove said that that information resides in the knowledge c database, but he did not look for it. michael sturgis said it was from intentionally activating the

phone only for one second. next slide. camera usage ends. next slide, orientation to landscape starts. 8:54:44, it ends. and then 8:55, the point is, a lot going on with maggie's phone at 8:55, keep going. keep going. and then at 9:03, the back light goes off. and 9:04, a missed call from alex. and 9:04:23, back light is off. 9:04:41, missed call from alex ends. let's back up to -- missed call from alex. this was the testimony on 9:04:23 and it is important. alex calls maggie.

and when that happens, you would her back light was on. go back one more. so her backlight is on at 9:03:52. and 9:04, missed call from alex starts. at 9:04:23, instantaneously the backlight goes off. now, you heard the testimony of that, it means when that call came in, someone came in, someo pushed on the side to stop the call. was that done by maggie because she was over on the other side of the workshop where we see those footprints that we heard about that were never really analyzed? she didn't want any noise coming through. or was that some bad guy or bad

person has maggie's phone and stops the call? something is going on with her phone at 9:04, i will tell you that. at 9:04, the next is missed call from alex ends. 9:05, backlight on. 9:06, orientation changes to portrait. 9:07, incoming call from alex -- excuse me, 9:06. keep going. keep going. and then at 9:07, her phone stops for good. one of the things that you heard

in this case is that orientation change was at 9:06 that we just talked about. doug, if you will go -- defendant's 156, please. so these are alex's steps on his phone that registered during this time period. if you will go to entry -- if you look at entry 28, and if you will pull that out, doug. 28, this is between 9:02:18 and 9:06:47. this is the time period that mr. waters in his argument said was

scurrying around because he took -- bring it back a little bit more, please. can we do it so we can see the whole line? that's fine. so here we see line 28, between 9:02 and 9:06, there's 283 steps. 208 meters. i want you to first -- they take the position that this is him scurrying around. if you do the math, which we have done here on this document -- 283 steps in 269

seconds turns out to be 1.05 steps per second -- 1.05 steps per second. multiply that by six. 63 per second. ladies and gentlemen, this is a slow walk. one step per second. one thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three, one thousand four. this is alex scurrying around according to the state's case. if you look at the distance in meters of the last -- when he gets to the house at 7:55 to 8:55, he goes 203 meters before it stops registering.

one thing you will remember during this time period between 9:02 and 9:06 -- at 9:06, maggie's phone has an orientation change. her phone has moved from here to here. but what her phone doesn't have -- go to the second page. what her phone doesn't have are steps. the lieutenant testified that it doesn't look like anyone -- her phone is moving at 9:06 but there's no steps being registered. alex is walking from 9:02 to 9:06.

it would be fair to reason that maggie -- excuse me, alex is not walking with maggie's phone. that's the time line data that i wanted to review with you. if you go to exhibit 524 -- defense exhibit 524, please. yeah, state's 524, i'm sorry. do you have that? if you will go to the slide where -- not 38. do you have the whole document? drop that.

i mentioned earlier -- state's exhibit 524, you will see he goes by this spot at 9:08 where maggie's phone was found. there was testimony that he sped up after he went by there. he sped up from 42 to 45 and back down to 44 miles an hour when he went by there. he was not speeding up when he goes by the area where maggie's phone was found, whenever it was tossed. they have a slide that talks about how long it took him to get over there and the speeds. mr. waters was arguing to you that that compressed the time line. the faster he gets over to almeda, it means he is gone longer from moselle and it gives him a better alibi.

as you know, he is orchestrating this alibi. he is driving fast over to almeda, according to their theory. we graft it out. he is driving -- passing some cars. he is a fast driver. okay. they say, he is compressing the time line. compressing the time line is what they say. then they say, he drives fast on the way back. why? he is driving the same speed over there, same speed back. there's no reason to compress the time line coming back. you would want to be driving slow as you can, make it appear you have been gone longer. he drives the same me -- it takes him the same amount of time. he is not compressing any time line at all.

what's the most curious part about maggie's phone? what's most curious about it is alex has her password. if he is wanting to change the time line when he calls her phone, he should answer her phone. when he texts her, he should reply to that text to show activity on her phone that she's still alive. if he is manufacturing a time line by speeding, the easiest way to do it is use both phones. talk on both phones. he didn't.

this whole thing about using maggie's phone, driving maggie's phone, throwing maggie's phone out is -- it's such a stretch for them to come in and try to put her phone in his hand. then you start thinking through, why would alex take her phone and not paul's phone? start there. why would alex take her phone and not paul's phone? that's a question i don't have an answer to. it makes no sense. it makes no sense why he would take maggie's phone if there's nothing on there. he knows her password. put it in. see what it is. we know from all the phone data her phone was never unlocked. he had the keys. if he is taking her phone to unlock or to do something with it, he didn't. why? why? why? why? these are