Did a SC police chief help conceal Murdaugh murder weapons?! | Hour 3

I want to welcome back to the program. Matt Harris, he is the co-host of the podcast Impact of Influence, and you can catch it on any of the major podcasting platforms, your favorite or even your least favorite ones. Matt, how are you, sir? I'm well, Mr. Pete. How are you today? I am well as well. So we got that. How was your live hit? Is it still Court TV or is it true TV now? I think it's still Court TV, but like it's they law and crime bought them or something. And it wasn't that it wasn't a lie that I thought it was. It's going to be recorded. You can see me on Vinny Palatine tonight at nine o'clock. OK, nine o'clock tonight on Court TV. Correct. OK. And what and so you're talking about the. uh, the latest developments in the Murdoch murder trial, murder, Murdoch murder trial, murder, which really like, it's kind of a Dickensian name. Like if anybody could have predicted that a guy named murder would, would conduct a murder like that, it kind of makes sense. But, um, people were so. Confusing at the beginning when I was trying to say it quickly and Murdoch murder, murder, murder, murder, even weird. Yeah. So, uh, for folks who may not recall, or maybe you're new to town or something, we're living under a rock. Alec Murdoch was, uh, Convicted back in 2023 for the murder of his wife Maggie and their son Paul. That verdict then was tossed out by the South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously because of a jury tampering. issue where, what was it, the clerk of court was talking to the jurors about how Murdoch totally did it and how he should be found guilty. So they threw out the whole thing. Now they're doing a retrial. So was there a hearing today, this morning? No, the next hearing will be the 16th. What happened over the last few days is there's been reports that there was a grand jury convened to look into Yemesee Sheriff Greg Alexander possibly hiding the weapons and the bloody clothes after the murder. All right. What's a Yemesee? That's a county. It's a town. It's a town. He's the sheriff there. This guy, Greg Alexander. And we all knew his name. There's been rumors... When I was down there doing the original thing, there was always talk that he was somehow involved. He's a big-time... He was mentioned a few times in the trial. He's a big-time family friend. Alec Murdoch says he doesn't understand the reason he didn't tell... SLED about that Snapchat video that showed him in the kennels right before the murders, because he didn't trust SLED, because SLED tried to railroad his good friend, Greg Alexander, years earlier. I remember this. Yes, so in case people aren't aware, this was the cell phone video shot by Paul right before the murders that put. Them all at the scene when Alec Murdoch's alibi was that he wasn't even there at the time. The video disproved that. That then forced Murdoch to basically have to take the stand and everything just collapsed from there. And I remember him saying that he did not trust SLED, which everybody thought was kind of weird because he was a prosecutor or like a volunteer prosecutor or solicitor. But history is all his dad and grandfather and great-grandfather were all the solicitors. Right. So the fact that you wouldn't trust law enforcement as one who tried the cases, that was kind of a bizarre thing to say. So this was the guy he was talking about, the Yemesee police chief, Gregory Alexander. Yep. And so the motions, I guess these were filed yesterday as to whether Alexander, Chief Alexander and another officer handled the missing firearms and bloody clothing hours after the shooting because they never did recover the murder weapons. No, no, no, no. Right. So and this was something that the defense pointed to that, oh, well, we don't even know for sure, you know, if the if the missing weapons, because the idea was that the weapons were owned by the Murdoch family. Right. That one of the one of the rifles disappeared from their from their house. Right. So, yes. So it was logical to conclude, OK, well, they use that weapon and then they they disposed of it somehow. And there's two weapons. The two weapons used, a different weapon on Maggie and Paul, different weapons. Right. And the defense also, if I recall correctly, tried to plant this seed that, well, that shows there were multiple shooters. Right. And so it couldn't have just been, Alec, why would you take a different gun or whatever? But then the prosecution was like, well, him being a trained solicitor, he would know that this would create a reasonable doubt. So that's why he used two different weapons. Um, all right. So there, so what are they, so they're asking for what, whether the state, uh, or whether the, uh, whether or not there was any investigation into Alexander. Right. Well, we know that there was because they, and it was weird. They called it now. So they called it to be in the grand jury to go after Gregory Alexander for doing this with a weapons and whatnot. So Alexander gets ahold of his attorney, Joe McCullough. And, uh, Then they say, well, we don't need you anymore, Alexander. So now McCullough has the summons for Alexander to go to the grand jury, because you know they're supposed to be secret or whatever. But now they have proof that the defense is saying, and the Post and Courier wrote an article, there's a news article, all their sources were the grand jury was doing this for Alexander. Well, now the defense has filed yesterday a motion to compel disclosure of evidence concerning the disposal of the murder weapons and they're closed. They said, if you're doing an investigation and you're going to change your plan in this next one where it's going to be, well, he had some help, then we need to know that. That's all part of Brady. You're not telling us all the things that need to be said. You said you would disclose these things. And if you don't disclose them, then it's an obvious Brady rule. And if you are going to use, say, Alexander... was the one who took the guns and hit him. We want to know all the witnesses who said he did that because we want to be able to decide whether or not they are credible or not. Right. Wouldn't that be something that the state would have to disclose as part of discovery? That's what they're arguing because they haven't disclosed it. And it was, what, about a week, two weeks ago. So then they haven't disclosed it yet. So they should disclose that. Now, I'm wondering if they're trying to put pressure on Alexander to roll on Alec maybe. If he was involved. If he was involved. Right. And here's the thing that's crazy, though. Everybody heard these rumors. In fact, right after the rumor, Jason Ryan, friend of mine, he works for Postal Courier now, said he reported it to SLED and said, I have one source. I can't report it because I need to double source it. Here's the thing. You need to look into this. But we had all heard rumors. But SLED didn't do diddly-do until, let's see, what, three years after the conviction and five years after the murders. Right, so SLED never investigated Alexander prior to the first trial? As far as anyone knows, that is correct. Never. Even after the end of the first trial, when they heard that Alexander was officially reported to SLED, they didn't investigate as far as we know. There's a report here that the filing also cites a low country official, quote unquote, who reported the allegations to SLED shortly after the trial. Murdoch's defense argues SLED sat on that information until this past August. The defense identified that official. on information and belief as former Varnville municipal judge Cheryl McKinney, who was also subpoenaed. The filing notes Murdoch previously represented McKinney as her attorney during a 2011 state Supreme Court disciplinary proceeding. Another weird thing about that is she is a clerk of court, and her sister was a clerk of court for that county and helped her steal the money from this, allegedly, from this account. Tied to Murdoch? Different clerk of court. Different clerk of court. Yeah. The one that is testifying, allegedly testifying that Murdoch, Alec Murdoch's weapons were hidden by Greg Alexander. Alec was her attorney and the clerk of court was stealing money for her. Another clerk of court thing, which is weird. Another clerk of court thing, another stealing of money and Murdoch as the attorney. Okay. Murdoch as the attorney. Oh my gosh. Um, Do you get the sense that, like, the whole system down there is corrupt? Do you get that vibe? Yeah, you do get that vibe. I mean, this Gregory Alexander, just another layer of this. I mean, people called him the fixer for Murdoch back then. But, you know, the Stephen Smith case, the young man that was killed and either hit and run or murdered or whatever, that guy that was tied to... the Murdoch's in some way, his twin sister had a baby and the dad is Gregory Alexander. Oh my gosh. Oh my gosh. Small town politics, man. Attorneys for Alec Murdoch also seeking deep digital data from From approximately half a dozen cell phones allegedly associated with the 2021 killings of Paul and Maggie Murdoch, the attorneys are asking State Judge Deborah McCaslin to compel production of the deep data. So what is this stuff about? That is... So they had... kind of a cursory check the first time around of just, like, who called when or whatever. But they didn't dive into everything. They didn't give them everything, the real raw, raw data, which can help them in some ways find some of these calls, where exactly they came from, which they couldn't really tell unless they dived deep. And they want to go back months and months. And also the GM data. data from alex car uh... that didn't come in until the trial so they want more on that uh... to see where that went they also want more on the uh... d and a date they say defense is saying They found DNA on Maggie's phone, which I don't believe we've heard yet. No, I don't remember that. DNA on Maggie's phone, and they found some more under another fingernail. They want to check that, too. So they're asking for all this stuff. And so October 16th, it'll be fireworks for sure. Do we have any idea who's paying for all of this? Because didn't Murdoch basically, like, run out of money? Well, yes, you would think that is the case. The defense hasn't commented on it. They have said that, you know, he's our— we' ve known him for a long time. We're going to continue to defend him, but they haven't said where that money might be coming from. Yeah, I mean, they may be giving him a discount because of all the publicity, you know, the free media. But he doesn't have any money. Yeah, but he— right. Like, I don't know, like, because— He has a. Family, and they might be like, you know, might be like, hey, I've got enough money. I'm 70-something. I'm going to take this until the end. But he has to pay those other workers, I would assume. Yeah. Other people are going through everything. But maybe there's, you know, maybe Murloc family members are paying, or maybe they took enough out of his funds the first time that there's leftovers for this. Yeah. Interesting. It's crazy. All right. Anything else? Well, they proved that the missing gun thing is going to be huge. How that's going to play out is going to make a big difference in everything. Right. So about two weeks from now, next hearing. Anything else here? Any other developments that are important or interesting that you think people should know? I think you nailed it. The DNA, the phone records, and most importantly, Gregory Alexander's being pulled in front of court. That's the good stuff, the grand jury. All right. Thanks, Matt. We appreciate the update. Safe travels to you, sir. Nice to talk to you as always. All right, buddy. Appreciate it. And you can catch him tonight on Court TV, 9 o'clock. That's Matt Harris. You can catch his podcast. They've been following this from even before the trial started. They've been on this case, the Murdoch trial. It's called Impact of Influence. The holidays will be here before you know it, and so now is the time to create precious and priceless family heirlooms that will last for generations. Take your old photos, slides, films, and tapes to create a video in Mint Hill. There, they'll turn those memories into the story of your lives, memories from past family events captured forever to pass down to future generations. Create-A-Video's skilled team will professionally transfer your family's stories onto easy-to-use USB drives or DVDs, that won't deteriorate over time like the old photos and tapes are doing right now. They will create a keepsake video that you can share and copy and keep forever. I can see it now. You're gathered around the holiday table with your loved ones watching all these memories and people of your lives. You're sharing laughs, maybe some tears, telling stories that make your family uniquely yours. Beat the holiday rush and get your memories in now. Go to createavideo.com or visit them in Mint Hill just off I-485. Your photos and videos are your life told through the eyes of everyone around you and all who came before you. And they will tell others to come who you are. Visit createavideo.com. All right. There was another development today. Let me bring this up. Yes. The.... Charlotte Mecklenburg schools now being investigated by yet another government entity. Okay. So CMS being investigated by the state Bureau of investigations at the request of the Mecklenburg County district attorney over the, uh, the corruption contracts, um, that were alleged by the superintendent who got fired after making the allegations. Um, You also have the North Carolina State Auditor looking into the financial misdealings. And now a joint statement from the State Board of Education Chairman Eric Davis. Eric Davis, by the way, for folks who may not recall, he used to be the chairman of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Board. A joint statement from the board chair, Eric Davis, and North Carolina superintendent of public instruction, Mo Green. In case you don't remember, Mo Green used to be the lawyer for CMS. Okay? So both of these guys, I believe they actually served at the same time, if memory serves. Mo then went up to Greensboro, where he became the superintendent up in the Greensboro district, I believe. and then ran for superintendent of public instruction, and he beat Michelle Morrow. Michelle Morrow had beaten Catherine Truitt in the Republican primary. So here's the statement. The allegations that have been raised regarding alleged financial irregularities within transactions involving CMS are serious and warrant careful review. State Board of Ed has both a constitutional responsibility and a statutory obligation to to ensure that public education funds are managed lawfully and responsibly. We expect full cooperation from local officials as this review proceeds. If the facts establish violations of state fiscal requirements, the state board will take whatever actions are authorized and necessary to protect public funds and uphold public confidence in North Carolina's public schools. Um, The DPI and the state board will coordinate and cooperate with authorized state and local agencies conducting reviews or investigations. We also recognize recent changes in CMS leadership may create challenges for the district and its school communities. While appropriate accountability and oversight remain essential, our foremost concern is ensuring continuity of educational services for students. It's for the children. DPI and the state board stand ready to provide technical assistance, guidance, and support, blah, blah, blah. They'll engage with CMS leadership to discuss and determine appropriate next steps. Our shared goal is to ensure that any concerns are addressed thoroughly and transparently, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, for the children. All right. So there you go. Now we've got three state agencies looking into the financial irregularities in CMS. And I welcome them. I welcome all of it. So part of the concern is that if you only have a single agency, like let's say it just went to the SBI, the State Bureau of Investigation, and they do their probe, whatever they find, whether they find one thing, ten things, no things, whatever, I believe then they kick it back down to the Mecklenburg County DA and he could very well just not pursue charges. However, now that you also have the auditor looking into it, the auditor may have a different incentive, right? May find different things. The auditor can also make criminal referrals. Don't know where that would go if it goes to the attorney general's office or if it goes to the Mecklenburg DA as well. But the fact that you've got two different agencies and now a third, right? They may all find like the same stuff. They may find different things. Maybe they find nothing. I don't think that's going to happen, but maybe they find nothing. But it's going to keep them all honest, right? Because you don't want to be the agency that doesn't find the thing that another agency finds. Right. You don't want that on you. You don't want to come forward and be like, well, I think there is no proof of any wrongdoing. Clear them all. And then along comes another agency and they're like, actually, we found, you know, a million violations. Right. Because then that makes it look like you are trying to cover things up. So I welcome more of these agencies investigations. All right. Real quick. Every government number gets revised. Right. Every projection gets walked back. Gold does not file corrections like GovCo. Revelation Gold Group helps families hold physical gold and silver, including in a tax-advantaged gold IRA. It's real, it's in your name, and 10 minutes tells you if your retirement account qualifies. If you want to learn more, go to calendarmetals.com. That's calendarmetals.com. There is a link in the podcast description. Or if you want to talk to somebody, you can call 888-465-3049. All right, a couple of other developments. This from Capitol Hill. Is this Politico? No, that's CBS. Here's the Politico story. All right. Two different bills went down in defeat in the U.S. Senate at the hands of the Democrats. Both of these bills had cleared the House in bipartisan fashion, right? So you have bipartisan bills coming out of the House that then get killed in the Senate by the Democrats. One bill was on energy pricing related to data centers, and the other bill would ban Congress from insider trading, stock trading. Okay? So let's start with that one. This bill came out of the House, and I believe this one was, I want to say this was, I'm trying to find the vote total out of the House, but the Politico article doesn't say. One of them was overwhelming. I think it was the data center bill that was overwhelming. Yeah, that one was 417 to 3. All right, so this from Politico. A House passed bill to restrict members of Congress from buying and selling stocks failed on the Senate floor yesterday in a party line vote with Democrats insisting it would not do enough to curb lawmakers trading. So the Democrats oppose this because it wouldn't drop the hammer on themselves hard enough. That's what they want us to believe. Okay. Like, we want to ban this, but we can't ban it with this bill because that bill doesn't ban us hard enough. It was a 53 to 47 vote. It was called the Stop Insider Trading Act, or the SITA, or as I call it, the CITA. That is not obviously, I mean, it is a majority, but it did not clear the 60 vote threshold to avoid a filibuster, right? Every Democrat and independent senator, so Bernie Sanders, voted to reject the measure, which would prohibit members and their spouses from purchasing individual stocks, and it would institute new reporting requirements. Okay, so what was the cover story for Democrats here? And that's what this is, okay? And by the way, I'm under no illusion that every Republican wanted to see this thing pass either. So the Democrats are going to vote no. They're not going to clear the 60-vote threshold, and so it's not going to pass. And I'm sure there are some Republicans who are happy that it's not passing. But they get to argue that it should have passed, and they get to vote for its passage, assured that it will not pass because the Democrats are going to argue against it. So what were the arguments against it? Now tell me if you think these are good-faith arguments. Okay. Democrats argued that they voted against this bill because it would not require them to sell stocks they already own. So we just can't possibly restrict ourselves from more insider trading unless you're going to, or we're going to make ourselves sell off all our stocks. Guys, like, you could do that on your own. You don't need a law to force you to sell your stocks. And by the way, what do you think happens to the value of the companies via the stocks that you purchased if all 535 members of Congress start dumping their stocks? Do you think that might have an impact? Probably. Right? Probably. But no, no, no, we cannot pass any kind of restriction on future purchases of stocks because this legislation doesn't require us to sell our current insider trading purchases. Okay, this is not a believable argument. Do you think we're stupid or are you stupid? Because this is stupid. This is a stupid argument to make. Senate majority leader, Chuck, you Schumer said, quote, the Republican toothless stock trading bill is as ineffective as a screen door on a submarine. Boom, roasted. He said the bill has no reform, no accountability, no substance. And so we can't possibly support it. Oh, and also, um, the Republicans had put into the bill a voter ID requirement that came from the Save America Act. They put the voter ID portion into this bill too. And so Senator Alex Padilla called this a poison pill. That's the reason I'm voting again. I'm totally going to ban the insider trading. I'm on board with that toothless, non-reform, non-accountability, non-substantive measure. That doesn't force us to sell our stocks. I would totally vote for all of that, but for the voter ID, like guys, I'm not sure that's better. You realize also both of these things are very popular among the American public. The American public wants voter ID. Majorities of like every demographic, racial, gender, uh, political affiliation. Everybody wants voter ID. It's a popular position. Um, Also, probably even more popular, they would like for you to stop engaging in insider trading. That would be awesome. So no to both of those from Democrats. That's a no for me, dog. No. Other Democrats wanted to see the bill's trading restrictions extended to the White House personnel, including the president. Okay, we'll run that bill. See, this idea that, like, we have to have the perfect bill To restrain ourselves. We just can't help ourselves. So we have to pass a law to restrict ourselves. Which is kind of like, well, everybody else is doing it. I mean, I'm not doing it. I'm not engaging in this thing. I mean, yes, I'm beating the market in all of my trades. I'm just a really good trader. That's just me. But I'm not going to unilaterally disarm unless all my colleagues do this too. It's like, guys, it's not a contest to see who can inside trade the most. Right. You shouldn't do it. Even if there's no prohibition on you doing it, you shouldn't do it. It undermines confidence and trust in the institution, but they don't care. So they're like, all right, let's pass this bill to force us to not do this thing that undermines public confidence. Oh, no, we can't possibly do that because it doesn't go far enough. We want more people. Well, run another bill then and then campaign on that to say you did it for yourselves and now you should do it for everybody. Fine. I'm sure people would be on board with that, too. The American public would like that, too. Thirteen House Democrats joined Republicans to pass this legislation back in July, and the White House issued a statement of support for it at the time. So this was a bipartisan bill in the House as well. Democrats killed it in the Senate. And then there is the other bill on making stuff cost less. You would think, I wonder what Roy Cooper, I wonder how he would have voted on these two measures. All right. So here is the other measure, other bill that the Senate Democrats blocked. Uh, we had the, the ban on insider trading for members of Congress. That was a bipartisan bill that came out of the house. Senate Democrats blocked that. And, um, Then we also have the, what's this one called here? The Ratepayer Protection Act. This came out of the House with a 417 to 3 vote. So pretty bipartisan, overwhelmingly bipartisan. Overwhelmingly bipartisan. This is from CBS News. Senate Democrats on Wednesday blocked a GOP led effort. to advance a bill aimed at shielding Americans from energy costs attributed to data centers, despite the bill securing widespread bipartisan support in the house earlier this month. Okay. So you get the idea here. It's like people complaining about the data centers, people worried that it's going to increase their energy bills, even though the data shows it, it, drives the cost down, but okay. So they're worried about the impact on energy rates. And so the house draws up a bill, the rate payer protection act to say no. And everybody gets on board. Everybody likes it in the house. It goes to the Senate dead 57 to 43. You had four Democrats that actually joined the Republicans to try to pass this. It was a 57 to 43 vote, but that's still shy of the 60 votes needed. So who were the four Democrats? Senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and John Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, both of Georgia. Okay, they all joined the Republicans. And what is the Democrat argument against this? their argument is that the bill would make the protections for Americans optional. So it's not mandatory. It's not required. It's an optional thing. Okay. Um, so then why did all of the Democrats in the house sign onto this? And by the way, like maybe you pass it as an optional option. and I'm just taking the Democrats' argument here at face value, which I know is always, it's always tenuous to do, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that their assessment of this is correct. Well, why not pass it anyway? If it's optional, then if you win control, you can come back and just make a change to make it mandatory, right? At least then you've got something on the books, right? This is the old, you know, political axiom of fighting for, you know, the whole loaf of bread and then, you know, taking what you can get, settle for the half loaf, and then come back and fight for the other half, right? This was also, remember, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, the lion, the liberal lion of the Senate. Remember, he said his biggest regret legislatively, legislatively, His biggest regret was that he did not take Richard Nixon's offer of expanding Medicare, making it applicable for younger people. I think Nixon offered to take it down to like an enrollment eligibility age of like 55 years old or something like that. And Ted Kennedy rejected that, wanting Medicare for all. And he says he regretted doing that because had he done that, then it would have been another step towards government run socialized medicine, which is what he wanted. And so he, he sacrificed, you know, the, the half loaf in pursuit of the full loaf. And then he was never able to achieve it. Although he did see Obamacare pass, which they all recognized at the time. And Kennedy said this, uh, was that this is, you know, the step towards, uh, towards government-run healthcare. So why would you not just take this deal? And then you can run on this platform and you can take it away from Republicans. You can say, I voted for the Ratepayer Protection Act. So, like, you could use that for your messaging if you're accusing Republicans of only using this as a messaging bill, which is what they accuse Republicans of doing. Well, then why not vote for it? What's the downside in voting for it? you too then would have the messaging. Once again, Senate Minority Leader Chuck U. Schumer, while Americans are demanding real guardrails on AI and data centers, Republicans are offering a toothless messaging bill. We need real action on data centers. And what do Republicans decide all of a sudden to push forward? A bill that is totally optional. The bill seeks to put the costs of new energy infrastructure used for data centers on companies rather than passing costs on to consumers. By the way, this is sort of along the same lines as the topic in our first two hours about the oil refineries in America. Same sort of deal here, which is that the left has opposed nuclear energy production, fossil fuel energy production as well. So the left constantly tries to block things that make America stronger and more self-sufficient. And so whatever energy crunch we may see from AI and the data centers, as I went over a couple weeks ago, is likely to occur like a decade down the road because we're not building more nuclear. Which I just saw a headline this morning saying, the Tennessee Valley Authority, they've just got permitted to build an SMR, small modular reactor. So yay, like that's the path forward, folks. That's the way that you keep your energy costs down is by creating more supply to meet the demand. And the best bang for the buck is nuclear. All right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could not do the show without your support. and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast. So if you'd like, please support them too and tell them you heard it here. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to ThePeteCalenderShow.com. Again, thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.