Murdaugh judge is NOT happy with the lawyers | Hour 3

What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to three on WBT radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron, go to the Pete calendar show.com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button, get every episode for free, right to your smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for your support. Want to welcome back to the program, Matt Harris. He is the host of Impact of Influence. It's a podcast that you can get. It's also on the YouTube. We got the link in the description of the podcast, so you can hear it there, link to it there. And Matt has been traversing the Carolinas, covering the Alec Murdoch trial, the retrial. And he was down there this morning for another round of preliminary hearing. And Matt, welcome back to the program. Hello, Matt. Hello, Mr. Pete. So as I understand it, they were going to be looking at the kind of evidence that Alec Murdoch would face or could face at his second murder trial, that that could be decided today by this hearing by the judge, Deborah McCaslin. So as I understand it, there were a couple of different issues, ones about DNA evidence from underneath one of the victim's fingernails, Maggie Murdoch, Alec's wife. Also, DNA on a cell phone. Also, there was questions about the 300 blackout rifle that was allegedly used in the murder. And then there was this other part about the local police chief. So let's kind of go through them. Well, first off, did they go through all four of those items today? And were there any others? They did the DNA. They did the ballistics. They did this. It's called Sparrow or Farrow. It's an acronym for something which is a 3D crime scene model. They did that because there was a massive flurry of motions last week, gazillion pages of stuff, slight exaggeration. the attorneys and people in the know that I talked to were like, this is going to be fireworks. It's becoming very adversarial between Creighton Waters and Dick Harpootlian. But, and I can get to some of that. But yeah, so just for clarity, Creighton Waters is the state attorney and the, and Dick Harpootlian is the defense attorney and also a longtime Democrat state lawmaker. Yes. Yes. Yeah. I will think of the DNA was a victory for the defense. They are going to, The state is going to turn it over. The judge was like, you guys had five years, basically, to do anything, five and a half almost, to do something with this. Why should we just lay it in the sled locker somewhere, give it over to the defense, and the defense said we need it because maybe we can exclude some people, but maybe we can match the three untested samples. There's two samples from different fingernails of Maggie and then on the cell phone. and he's like, well, if they match as the same person, especially the phone being thrown out the window, then we can at least, that could be good for us. And so she did roll in their favor on that. Right. Now, the state did not object to the DNA off of the phone, if these earlier reports were correct, that they didn't really have a problem with the phone DNA, but it was the fingernail DNA because they were, at least they said that if you If you do the testing on the fingernail DNA samples, there's a likelihood that it'll destroy the samples and you won't be able to use them if you ever need to for future trials. And they've already run their test. Right. This is a different kind of test from Othram Labs. It connects it to, like, 23andMe and Ancestry and all that stuff. And the judge was like, hey, you've had your time. Even if it gets destroyed, the way it's supposed to happen is, you know, Defense can test everything that you have, but if we're going to run out of it, at this point, you've had your time, basically. And they'll be able to run the DNA through databases of convicted criminals and such who have that DNA taken from them when they go to prison. It's just different than this Ostrom lab thing. And SLEDs didn't even have the ability to really test the sample because there were such a small amount. So the judge is like, well, then what are you doing? Just give it over to them. And so they got it. It might not mean anything, but it's fair, I think, that they should get the test, even if it does destroy it. Yeah, seems like it, if they've already run their test, yeah. And she did at one point during the DNA thing. She's like, I want you all to know right now, this is happening on April 6th or whatever it is. There will be no continuation, whether you like it or not. So you've got to work this stuff out. Before the trial starts in April. Yep, yep, yep. The ballistics, she ruled against the defense on that one. It's kind of ridiculous when you think about it. They wanted every blackout round, the ammunition, that has happened since January of 2021 until now in like a seven-county region. We want a list. We don't have a list. And the judge is like, that's too much of a burden on the state to give you all these blackout rounds. and have you test them under a microscope. They want to test them under a microscope as opposed to the system that they ran it through. But she did allow them to have the ballistics, the ammo from around the house and around Maggie's body to compare that. So they can get to look at that, but they don't get this list of every single murder, every single crime that was committed where a blackout round was used. Right, because the defense's theory that they kind of hinted at during the original trial was that there had to have been multiple shooters because there were two different types of guns, right, used in the murders. Yes, yes, yes. Right, so the blackout rifle. Was used on Maggie, and there was, was it, I guess, if I remember correctly, a shotgun, right, on Paul. And so, like, their argument was if this was a single shooter, Alec, that doesn't make any sense why he would use two different weapons. And the state said, well, this guy's a longtime prosecutor, he would know that if you use two different weapons, it then raises that potential reasonable doubt. And they never found the weapons. Right. They never found the weapons. The state said that they took them to Alameda, where his mom lived, in a park or something. But they never found the weapons. And that is a big thing, is the defense trying to say, well, let me see all these rounds. Maybe it ties in with us. And she said that this is a fishing expedition. Right. So the idea there is that if there are any other crimes that have been committed and the state has any rounds that came from this 300 blackout rifle platform, that then they, if you have all these rounds, then turn them all over to the defense and then they can do like a comparison to try to figure out, like, oh, this round looks like this other round. If you were to do that, of course the defense is going to miraculously find several different rounds that kind of look the same. And that's the thing. People think that this kind of science is like 100%, like, oh, these rounds will exactly match and stuff, and that's really not the case. Yes, there are certain things that you could say it's reasonable to assumed that these came from the same weapon or something, but when you're dealing with hundreds of rounds, that's going to be ridiculous. They don't even necessarily come from the same... weapon, we don't know that, but the blackout rounds, the defense said in the early, in the last trial, they were saying that these are rare. There's not that many of them. So they're like, well, look, there's hundreds of blackout rounds out there. But she wasn't having it. She said, fishing expedition, it's too much of a burden. Get out of here with that. All right. And then did they talk at all then about the local police chief that is alleged to have been the first on the scene, and the rumors or the speculation or statements or something that investigators received that this local police chief allegedly provided Murdoch with a change of clothes and maybe took the murder weapons and brought them back to the police department and stashed them in the evidence locker. Yeah, the Yemesee police chief, Gregory Alexander. They. They didn't get to that, which we were all surprised about. She said she's doing, that's one of the things, November 13th is the next one. That's not time sensitive, basically. So she will deal with that next time. But it's still up in the air whether or not they can use what happened in the grand jury room. And it was suggested to me by some attorneys that they should not ask for the grand jury test, but just ask for the investigation leading up to that, and they might have a chance with it. So, yeah, they did not get to one of the things, which was, like, the major thing we were all thinking would be taken care of. They didn't get to that. He did mention Dick Harpooling during the Faro Faro 3-D crime scene thing. It got really contentious. Dick Harpooling's talking. He says, I'm not going to continue if Creighton's going to stand. And he's so crazy, sits down. And then the judge yells at him and says, court is not a soundbite. You guys are the theatrics. This is insane. But then Dick mentions this informant that is in prison somewhere that gave SLED investigators this idea that it was a drug deal gone bad, that this guy was making $ 50, 000 to $ 20, 000 a month. selling drugs to the law firm. And he said, and Eddie Smith owed Alec Murdoch, Eddie Smith's cousin, Eddie, they call him, who did the assisted suicide botched thing on Labor Day, a good friend of the family. He owed Murdoch $ 160, 000. I think that one was all for Potential jury pull, because he's like, I don't know, just turn over the investigation. Right, because this was also one of the theories that was floating around that, you know, the amount of drugs that supposedly Alec Murdoch was on, that he was spending, like, I forget the number, it was like 50 grand a month or something like that. It was just an outrageous amount. Of money, like you would be dead if you were doing that much drugs in a month, unless you had like a whole backup band, you know, filled with drug-addled bandmates. And so, like, how is he alive? And so, is he part of some larger drug-running operation? Is there a connection to law enforcement and lawyers and, like, all this other stuff? Oh, the money, the Walter Burrow Cowboys, the gang name that always comes up. But then she yelled at him because he was saying that at the first trial, the state dumped all this stuff on him, like, however many terabytes of information, two days before the jury selection. And I didn't have time to go through it, blah, blah, blah. We just found this thing recently. And she says, I don't care what happened in the first trial, both of you. If you mention again the first trial, I'm going to lose my mind. It has nothing to do with what's happening now. I run a tight ship. And she got mad at them for all the motions to compel that they were filing last week. She said, I've been a defense attorney 30 or 40 years. I never filed one. And you guys gave me a ton last week. You guys got to knock it off. I'm not even going to look at them anymore. You guys got to talk to each other. But I know for a fact Creighton Waters lost his mind over these motions. Some sources told me that he was super angry. And I know for a fact that the defense knew about this story about him being super angry. And I really think Dick Carpulli was trying to push him over the edge. Like, sit down. Get out of here. You can't stand up when I'm talking. But she didn't have it. So those are the big things, except for the end when she went off on both of them, but mainly Dick Carpulli. Because he mentioned in the last hearing that that Alec Murdoch passed a lie detector test with flying colors about the murders, and that's not true. Oh. Not true, yep. He'd never been polygraphed on the murders. And he said that in court? Yes, yes. And then he sent a letter of apology, said I misspoke or whatever, but she said, I don't care. This is a courtroom. I will not tolerate this. And she said that he was polygraphed on financial matters, but not on the murder, never on the murder. So she said, I'm not going to tolerate this stuff. This is not going to be tried in the court of public opinion or the media. I don't want any of this theatrics. I don't want you guys going after publicity. And the filed documents that were filed were very personal, like attacking Creighton and attacking Erpulian. She said, I'm not going to do it. These are very unprofessionally written. You guys got to work together. You are members of the bar. I know you both. I don't know why you're acting the way you are. That was kind of crazy. Did you get one of the assigned media seats? Yes, I did. Nice. Good for you. Yes, I did. Look at that. You've been recognized by your peers. That is right. I wore my badge with honor. That's right. And so November 13th, the next one. All right. Matt Harris, you can catch all of the updates on the Alec Murdoch trial. He goes in-depth on all of this stuff with guests and his co-host. It's called Impact of Influence. Matt, thanks so much, man. Have a great weekend. Thanks, man. Take care. 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. Hi, thanks again to Matt for joining me from Lexington, South Carolina, from the site of the Alec Murdoch trial. preliminary hearing today. We'll be giving you updates on that trial throughout the proceedings as Matt is down there covering it, so I don't have to. All right, so speaking of courts, did you happen to catch the endorsements that the Charlotte Observer Editorial Board is recommending for the North Carolina Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals judges. Yeah, kind of problematic, as you may discern as I go through this. So they start off their editorial, and this is the editorial board making its recommendation on who should be on the bench in North Carolina. They say, They start off by saying, we don't like that North Carolina's judicial races are partisan. They don't like this. And I will say they've been consistent on this. This has gone back and forth for years. Basically, Democrat judges don't fare as well as Republican judges when they have D's and R's next to their names. People will vote for Democrats in the political offices, but they, they tend to want Republicans on the bench. And so, uh, the party identification taken off of the ballots long time ago, it got put back on, uh, for most of the, uh, races. And then, um, and then they got, so. We are at a point now where all of the judicial races have the D's and the R's next to all of the candidates names. And Democrats don't like this. The Charlotte Observer, the McClatchy, because it's also the Raleigh News and Observer as well. The McClatchy board, they're not fans because they would like you not to know if someone is a D or an R. See, because this allows them to have more power in their endorsements and it allows Democrats to slide past voters who may not know who they're voting for and what their judicial philosophy might be. See, putting the D's and the R's on the ballot is is what we call a heuristic. It means basically it's a shorthand. It means I may not know anything about this judge. And let's be honest, most people do not do research on judges because what are you going to learn about them? How do you learn about them? Are you going to the courtroom to watch how they run their courtrooms? No. So you just have to then rely on their public statements. And When a lawyer runs for a judgeship, that lawyer has an incentive to not be completely forthcoming in their entire judicial philosophy because when you define, you divide. And so if you're a Republican, you say I'm a constitutional conservative and then everybody knows what that means, right? But if you just kind of you. Keep it nebulous, then people don't know what your judicial philosophy might be. And so that allows Democrats to sneak through. It allows PACs and these nonprofit groups set up by lawyers who donate to their preferred lawyer friends to run for these offices and stuff or these judgeships. It allows them to have more weight in their endorsements. And we saw this happen. I think it was the Fair Judges group that that made all of the news about 10 or 15 years ago when they claimed to be, you know, we're fair judges, we're endorsing fair judges, and they were all Democrats. And so they don't like the D and the R. They don't want you to know if somebody is going to be generally coming at their rulings from the left or from the right. They don't like that. They say, It. Leads to candidates being evaluated more on the D or R after their names than their experience or approach to cases. Once again, how would you know that? How would you even know what their approach to cases is? You don't. You don't know what their approach to cases is because unless they're involved in some high profile case and ruling that the media covers, you're not going to know that. Most of the rulings at the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court level, like most of these rulings that you've never heard of, you hear about the newsworthy ones, we cover them, but there are a lot of cases that come down that nobody ever covers. They're important to the parties involved, to be sure, but they don't get a lot of coverage. So how do you know, especially in like the court of appeals level or even lower courts like district and superior? It's difficult to know these things. So they say it also leads to cynicism. Voters believe that in some high profile cases, judges will rule with those in their party who then find legal reasons to justify that partisan behavior. Yeah, that's called activism, judicial activism. If the law says something, then the judges should rule what the law says. When you start making up excuses for what's not in the law to then justify something that lawyers or the legislators want to do, then that would be judicial activism, right? And that should be on you in the media to call out. But you guys don't really do that if the activism gets you what you want. So that's why we don't trust you to give us endorsement recommendations. Just as a heads up on that. But this isn't even the most egregious mistake they made. And it actually runs against this entire thing that I've already laid out that they started their piece with. It runs against this very point. 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. From the text line, this is from Gabby on the judges. You know, there's an R and there's a D on the ballots, and maybe there should be a letter U. Not for unaffiliated, though. Vote for Judge Hannah Dugan. I'll help usher out-the-backdoor illegal immigrants away from ICE agents. Yeah. Uh, yeah, there you go. That, that, that could be, although you could be mistaken for unaffiliated, um, nothing to stop these, these candidates from running as unaffiliated, you know? All right. So the, uh, the editorial board of the Charlotte Observer and the Raleigh News and Observer, the McClatchy crowd, um, they start off their endorsement editorial lamenting how voters know if a judge is a Democrat or Republican, that's so, so bad. Um, And they say, we hope voters consider other factors in judicial races, especially relevant experience. But you could smell a butt coming on that one, couldn't you? But we also believe any elected body should have a diversity and balance of thought. OK, so DNR doesn't give you any indication of what judges think. Being a Republican, being a Democrat, we are to discern nothing from this information. However, race and gender, good. So they want the voters to know that a person is a woman or a minority or maybe trans or LGBTQ plus 2IA, SNL, whatever. They want everybody to know that. That's important for diversity's sake too. but not DNR. You cannot have a party label on the ballot. So now they make their recommendations. There may be no judicial race in North Carolina ballots with as large a gap in experience than this one pitting Democrat incumbent Anita Earls against Republican Sarah Stevens. By the way, they do this all the time. They'll cite experience when the Democrat has a lot of it on the bench if they're an incumbent. They'll cite the experience. but they do, they don't, it does not go the other direction generally. So, uh, so Anita Earls has been on the bench, so she's got all the experience, so she should stay. Um, Republican Sarah Stevens, uh, she's been a member of the North Carolina house and they know nothing about law. They just write them, right? So they just write the laws that the courts then. Use. Uh, so she doesn't know anything. Um, But she has served as the president of the Surrey County Bar Association. Earls, they say, is an. Exceptionally thoughtful jurist whose decisions and approach are deeply ground in the Constitution. I believe you guys meant to say grounded. Not deeply ground in the Constitution. But also, conservatives scoff at that description of Anita Earls. I know you guys think that's the case, but that is not. how conservatives see it. So they, of course, endorse Anita Earls. Next up is the Court of Appeals. Voters face a difficult decision in this race between incumbent Democrat John Arrowood and Republican Administrative Law Judge Michael Byrne. They both have a lot of experience. They say there's no bad choice in this race. But we give Arrowood a slight nod. So the Democrat went in doubt when there's no bad choice. But if you have to choose, we recommend the Democrat. And then there's incumbent Democrat Toby Hampson facing Republican George Bell. And they endorsed the Democrat on that one. Surprise, surprise. And then there's Superior Court Judge Craig Collins, a Republican and District Court Judge Christine Wolszczak, a Democrat. They're voting. This is another court of appeals seat. So you have Craig Collins, Republican, Christine Walczak, a Democrat. And they point out here that there is a notable distinction that the winner will fill the seat being vacated by Democrat Allegra Collins. No relation, I believe, to Craig Collins, the Republican. So Allegra Collins is not, this was her seat. She's gone. So now you have this open seat, you have a dude and a chick running for the seat and you can see where this is going. And so the observer editor editors say this potentially leaves the court without a woman among its 15 justices. So you, you should not know D you should not know R, but you should know woman. if you know what a woman is, which Democrats don't seem to know what a woman is. So I'm not sure how you figure that one out, but this is a woman. And so woman for woman swap out. That's what we need to protect. They said, we think that's meaningful. And Walchick has been an active advocate for women in the judiciary and the legal community, which I'm sure if there was a guy who was an active advocate for more men being on the bench, I'm sure you would celebrate that too. Right? Okay, slight problem. There are women on the Court of Appeals. Yeah, they kind of bricked this one. They had to issue a correction after the four women on the court wrote an open letter to them saying, hey, we're women and we're on the court. Four Republicans actually serve on the North Carolina Court of Appeals. They issued a press release saying, that judges Donna Stroud, Valerie Zachary, April Wood, and Julie Flood. Together, they bring more than 60 years of judicial experience, which you care a lot about, to the people of North Carolina. The four Republican women serving alongside Judge Collins deserve to have their service and contributions accurately recognized. The newspapers are entitled to endorse the candidates of their choosing, of course. Their readers are entitled to an accurate account of the court's memberships. An endorsement should not erase the service of four women simply because they belong to a different political party, which we shouldn't even know about. We shouldn't even. Know that this is a Democrat or a Republican. Recognizing women's contributions to the judiciary requires recognizing Republican women, too. Their experience, leadership, and public service are no less meaningful because of their party affiliation. The Charlotte Observer and the Raleigh News and Observer should promptly correct the factual error and give that correction sufficient prominence to reach the readers who received the inaccurate information. Spoiler, they did not. Now, they did do a correction. They inserted the word Democrat in there. So now the sentence reads that it would leave the court without a woman Democrat, which again, you just spent three paragraphs. Saying, oh, this is terrible. We shouldn't be voting on people based on D's or R's. But now you highlight this To say, well, she's the only woman Democrat. Well, there are four other women. But you said we shouldn't be using the D and the R. But now you say I should? you guys guys and then they issued a little footnote at the bottom where they said um that she would not be the only woman on the court as the editorial board state i think that you meant you meant to say stated you guys should get some editors to review your editorials um As the editorial board state in her primary endorsement, she would be the only Democratic woman, which doesn't make it better for reasons I just outlined. You told us we shouldn't be using D's and R's to make our decisions. And then you literally say she would be the only D woman. I almost get the sense that they don't really care about the D's and the R's and they wouldn't care if the D's were more successful running for these courtships. It is time now for pre-gaming with Brett Winterbull. Brett Winterbull, how are you? I'm well. How are you? I am well as well. We are all well. That's awesome. Well, well, well. All right. So have you seen the flying car? Yes. Yes. I bought one. No. Yes, I had. No, I saw it. Yes. Yes. I mean, because, you know, you're drive time money, so maybe you did buy one of those. You can't buy them yet. They're still trying to get it. Are they pre-ordering? Are we pre-ordering these things? Yeah, but I don't know what the price point is. Well, if you have to ask. Then you can't afford it. Probably so. Yeah, so for people who are not aware, we now have a flying car. Although, to be completely factual, it's not really flying. It's simply. using thrusters in a manner to keep it off the ground. Yeah. So they did this big reveal at Tesla, and they built like a two-lane road or a one-lane road, except the road, it's like a curve, and it goes straight up and then upside down. It's like a half pipe, right? Right. And the car drives up this thing, so it's all the way up top, and it's upside down. And then it backs down, and then it drives back up, and it takes off and flips in midair. The thrusters go off, and it tumbles over, and then it lands perfectly on the ground, which is pretty amazing. Yeah, it's amazing. It's wonderful. I'm excited about this. Well, I regret to inform you that this is bad. Why? Because Elon Musk. Wait, wait, wait. He invented the whole thing. What did he do? What happened? Well, he didn't do anything except lead the company that built this thing. But apparently, they posted up onto the Reddit website. Oh, boy. Tesla's new car. And it showed the video. And the Reddit moderators removed the post. Of course they would. Do you know what the reason was? Because they're stupid. Well, yes. Now, but for the record, what would they say was the reason they removed it? That they don't think it's real. Is that what it is? No. No, that's actually a good guess, though. But no, nothing so logical as that. Oh. No, they said. Because he's a Nazi or something? Oh, you're getting warmer. Oh, no. You're getting warmer. Oh, gosh. Okay. I surrender. Yeah, yeah. It says that it was due to political content. I love it. It violates our injunction against any political content. So what was the content? It was just that it was Tesla. Yeah. So Tesla is now political, according to the Reddit moderator. And the moderator is an AI. It's an auto-moderator. That is so great. That's wonderful. And they shouldn't have to swim in that feral stuff there. What it means then also is if that's the track that the left wants to run down, that's fine. That means it will only be the right that has the flying cars. That's so good. That's right. Like all of your street takeovers, they're irrelevant. Right? All of your, you're going to stand in the middle of the road and block ice from doing stuff. Doesn't matter anymore. That's a good point. Yeah, that's true. I'm just going to leapfrog right over you. That's money. I like it. I like it. And did you see how fast this thing goes? I didn't clock it, but I'm hoping to see it at some point. Zero to 60. See, look at this. In one second. Fantastic. That's fantastic. It's amazing. Me starting off the line at a green light, if I have one of these things, is. A whole new world. Your nose is going to be in the back of your head. I would point out quickly that Jim Strabo on Twitter says, Elon Musk flips a vehicle upside down, everybody claps and cheers, but when I do it, suddenly I'm recklessly endangering children and I'm unfit to be a school bus driver. 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 the Pete Kaliner show dot com. Again, thank you so much for listening and don't break anything while I'm gone.