Murdaugh trial update: venue change and impeaching investigators | 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 thepetcleanershow dot com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button. Get every episode for free, write to your smartphone or tablet, and again, thank you so much for your support. Like to welcome to the program. Oh, Matt Harris, Hello, Hello, Matt Harris. Matt is the co host, along with Seaton Tucker, of the podcast named Impact of Influence. You can find it on YouTube and Facebook and podcasting platforms. And they've been covering the Alec Murdoch well the original trial and the related trials, the sub trials, if you will. And there was a hearing, a pre trial conference, I guess was scheduled today down in Lexington, South Carolina. And there were a bunch of differ diferent motions on the agenda. So all right, let's run through what they were. What was the headline on this was right? The change of venue issue. Yes, What she ruled was yes, change the venue, but she didn't say where it would be. Oh, the defense stick our plutely in the gang. Really we're pushing for Charleston. It was one ridiculous moment. It he brings up one of the co counsel, Phil Barber, and has him sworn, and he sits there and he talks about how expensive is Charleston is parking expensive? And it went on for like, well, we know what Charleston is people. So they went through that and only one in seven available jurors last time the trial went through in Colleton County at Hampton were eligible. So they need a bigger pool, there's no question about that. Ah, they need a bigger jury pool because so many people already knew about the case. Yes, and everybody knows that they're going to know about the case. Of course, right, Well that's your fault, Matt, I know. So she's like she said, the judge McCaslin said, yeah, we're gonna move it. I just don't know where yet. And well Charleston isn't Charleston the same media market. Well, Charleston, it's only well that's one of the arguments for it is that the folks from Hampton County and College and County and all those places didn't do an easy drive over there in like an hour or whatever it is. So it's convenient because you have to consider that and when you're doing this for. The lawyers and the police and the investigations all the right, So all of the people that you're you're dragging into court to testify or to participate in the trial, they're all out of Hampton. But if you're pulling from a jury pool in Charleston, you're good. You're probably good. I mean, even if it is a larger jury pool, I mean, chances are you're still going to end up with the same sort of proportional portion of people that know about the case. Well, but the fourteenth Circuit, which is Allendale and Ruford and Hampton and whatever the Charleston, that population is more than double those five counties. Okay, it's huge. It's just volume. You're gonna have a even if you have a one out of seven proportion, that's the same, right, if you get one out of seven there, you're going to have a bigger jury pools. They were talking about how like you know, and Becky Hill has soiled that county, so they don't want to go there. They did want something interesting. I didn't realize and think about Collinton County is on the hook for paying for this new trial. So the judge says, I'm going to have to consider that when choosing the new venue, how much it will cost the taxpayers of Colleton County. So that's going to be considered. I never, yeah, never crossed my mind. So that is, you know, one of the things that she says she's considering, plus logistics and how big the courtroom is, whether it can handle security, whether the town can handle the media and all that. The state they suggested York County, and oh gosh, and yes, yes. I was like, okay, well i'd be easy for you. Yeah, I'd save you a whole bunch of gas. Yeah, they did that one. And then they also just a Florence as one of the ones they picked. But she just said she's not going to roll on that now except for definitely she doesn't believe he can get a fair trial, and that's fourteenth surgeon. Yeah, so that's that, all right, So what else we've got? The state was asking Murdoch's sworn testimony from the first trial to be used in the retrial. That was a big one. You're right, the prior testimony. The big decision that they had to pitch was is this a new case or is it continuation of another case. That's how the case law decides whether they can use it or not. The judge sided with yes, they can use it for purposes of impeachment. And also they would have to because this time around, the financial crimes crimes are going to be much more limited, right, so they have to run but the state will have to run by her. Can I use this question? He said. She could be like, no, you would not have gotten to that. You know, they wouldn't allowed that last time. So it's very limited on his answers in financial to financial crimes questions during his testimony. But she said he can use it. The state can use it for proving some impeachment purposes. Yeah, so I could see. Yeah, that cuts both ways because the Supreme Court of South Carolina, if I recall, they had basically said, you guys spent you went way too deep on the financial crimes component in the original trial. So and now that he's already been I think he pleaded guilty to the financial crimes and he's in prison for that. So they can use that and say, you know, okay, yeah, but he pleaded guilty to all of these financial crimes, so you don't have to go in depth on all of that stuff. But the real meat of it from this original testimony where it shocked everybody that he took the stand because he had to, basically because they got that video where he said he wasn't at the property and then right and then you got the video from the kennels showing he was at the property shortly before the murders, and so he had to take the stand to explain this. And I suspect that stuff will still be able to come in. It seems like it's being treated almost like a deposition. Yes, I see the state trade waters came up, but that's one of the first things he said is hey, listen, that's first two minutes of this testimony. We're all about him being at the kennels. It wasn't about the financial stuff. So we should be able to use that because he said he's going to testify, and he wants to testify. And the case fall is about people who are forced to testify, they couldn't use it in future cases. So they're saying Okay, maybe we won't use some of the things you said about the financial but that part about why he lied about being at the kennels that should be in She tends to agree with him, of course. He one of the reasons he said he lied was whiuld flash back is because he didn't trust Fled, right and so, and that was that was a real theme throughout today's hearing or conference, was that this trust of sled. In fact, Dick Carpoolian at one point says Judge Whire this case, I believed and sled. Now after this case, I don't believe in them. At all, right, And that's pretty standard for defense attorneys to smear the law enforcement, the labs, the you know, all the people involved in the investigation, because if you can, if you can dirty them up, then you can create doubt in the minds. Of a journy. And it's going to be pretty with David Owen, who was the lead investigator, because he messed up in this Kluchi trial that was in Summerville. He gave bad evidence, the DNA evidence. He used a T shirt for the grand jury. You remember the first time for Murdoch saying it was a human DNA blood spatter or something. Turned out it wasn't and he knew that and said it anyway, So he's got some problems. Yeah, that was one of the things. The other big thing, I guess the third big thing would be the DNA that they want to send to the other a lab oatrum or authoram I'm sorry to be tested as opposed to SLED testing it. Sled's already tested it once, but they can't do the kind of testing that Athroam does. Right, So this is DNA evidence that was found beneath Maggie Murdoch's fingernails, correct, And the defense is arguing that it only showed the DNA was from an unknown male and so they say new testing could be more conclusive. Right, because SLED only runs it through a database of people who have been arrested or somehow tied in the law enforcement. For Authroam they use the kind of testing which is genetic based, and if you say, look took twenty three and meteris or something like that, all those people it'll be run against. So you might not find the person, but you can find a family tree of sorts to hunt the person down. They use it in the Idaho murders. So there was a big agreement, and the defense or the state is saying, we want to test it first and then give it to you. And the defense say, man, you had five years to test the stuff again because you already tested it, and we're not going to trust you that you're not going to destroy it like you did the T shirt and we won't have anything to test. And the judge said, I agree. The defense can run it through AUTHROM and they do a first tape. They do a quantitative test first, then they decide whether to continue with the other testing. He said, yes, Uh, you get that one murderer team send it to m So. Why not just like split it up and send it give both of them a sample and not enough? Oh, it's it's it's Uh, they're not sure if there's enough. Put it that way, because they could they may test it and find out there's not enough to even do the next stage of testing. Uh, this is left over from the other tests. And then there's another sample they found too. Uh, but there's a problem with that. So yes, they think there's probably not enough to not have it deteriorate. It sled did it first, and so it defends like man, do you all suddenly you want to test again? You've had five years a test again? What are you not sure of your other results? So, yeah, that's fair. They ruled which way that they can't. It's going to offer them. LED's got to give it a hand. It over, Okay. The what Fox News was reporting also that the defense is trying to toss out the murder. Case and narrow what what's that? Yes, that's right. Okay. So they had a motion to dismiss, a request to dismiss the case. So did they did the judge make a decision on that? I guess nope? She said very She's like, she said, I having to table that because apparently the defense did not. There's some sort of appendix or something else they needed to add to that to make it officials. But come on, man, she's not gonna put us all through this and then be yeah next you know, in November we're back on when. We back yeah, and then thirteenth. According to Fox, the emotion to dismiss, or their effort to dismiss it is using the SLED problems with David Owen to raise questions about the evidence. And so if all, if you can get all of the evidence that he was, you know, involved with collecting or processing or whatever. If you can toss all of that, then then you can move for the whole trial to be or the whole all of the charges to be tossed. But yeah, they want to toss the T shirt thing, mainly, which he testified in the grand jury and for the grand jury. But this T shirt had human DNA on it, and then in the trial they changed it to that he changed shirts that wasn't the right shirt because it wasn't then he destroyed it when they tested it, so they it turned out it wasn't even human DNA. So but the argument I've heard from other lawyers about this is that in the grand jury, you're presenting a ton of stuff, right, and you know, get indicted Pam Sandwich or whatever. So even if that T shirt was wrong or he lied about it or whatever it was, there was probably enough taste to take it to. Trial, right a grand jury. Absent the T shirt, a grand jury probably still would have issued an indictment. That's that's the argument. That's the state's argument, Okay, And so she didn't rule on that one. Do you are you up to date on the buster Murdoch defamation lawsuit. All right, I attended that hearing. All right, so right, let me can I put you on hold? You have another can you do another segment? Okay, yeah, absolutely, all right, let me put let me put you on hold. This is Matt Harris. He's the co host of podcast called Impact of Influence. He's been covering this from the very beginning along with his co host Seaton Tucker. You can find that podcast on YouTube and Facebook and podcasting platforms. Will have more with Matt in a moment. All right. For over a year now, you've heard me talking about Create a Video. Great local company in Minhill that has helped more than two million families preserve their memories by turning old photos, VHS tapes, film reels and slides into lasting keepsakes. Now creative videos helping families and groups create brand new memories while they're traveling. Introducing group travel videos perfect for family reunions, church mission trips, group vacations, destination weddings, student trips, senior adult groups, sports teams. I mean, really, any gathering of people that you care about that's traveling together. Group travel videos gives your traveling pack a private app where everyone can share photos during the trip, send messages, share schedules and important documents. Even a traveler safety locator feature that works only during the trip, and family members and friends back home can follow along and enjoy the experience in real time. No social media, no ads, It's totally private. No emails, phone numbers, account setups or hassles. With group travel videos, you'll capture today's moments on your special trip while they're happening. Then after the trip we're gathering, they'll professionally turn your shared moments into a beautiful storytelling video that your whole group can stream and download and treasure for years. Check out Group Travel Videos dot com. That's Group travel Videos dot com. Or call seven oh four eight four six seventy eight seventy extension two o six. And when you do that, ask for Katie. But Pete can I just email? Well, yes you can. You can email Katie Katie at group travel videos dot com. Group travel videos from old memories to new adventures, preserving life's moments for a lifetime. All right, We're continuing our chat with Matt Harris, the co host of Impact of Influence along with Seaton Tucker. It's a podcast you can catch on YouTube and Facebook and all the podcasting platform and and a substitute host right here on WBT is correct. Yeah, So all right, we have the related case. This is Buster Murdoch, the the other son that Alec Murdoch did not kill I'm sorry, well allegedly kill. Right. So Buster is the oldest son and he is suing Netflix over it's what it's documentary that it did on the Murdoch murders called a Southern scandal. All right, so what is this case about? Okay? So he is also settled with two other companies, Discovery and maybe HBO was somebody like that. So he settled with them because they were in the federal court. This one's in soth on a state court because they attached Michael de Witt, who writes for Gannett newspapers, and it was a we all know why it was just get it in the South Carolina court instead of the feds. And so the case was interesting. First of all, no one was there. It was just me and seen like I because they didn't really advertise it very much, but somebody told us anyway. So the no, you're Matt, you're supposed to say, I have inside sources that alerted me you. Got to make it sound bigger. Yeah, yeah, yes, I had an insight. Somebody handed me a little card in a parking garage somewhere. U I uh So that the argument from the the the Buster side is there's something called defamation by innuendo or implication, and it's in most states. It was a little bit differently written and spending on the state, but that is when you use things like a juxtaposition, you say, I wonder if he did it, and then you show in this case, the video of actors with hair beating a guy with a baseball bat, then yeah, that could lead. One to conclude that you think he did it right. And so that is what Busters people are saying, and the Netflix people are saying, Hey, we just we just said rumors. These are real rumors. We didn't make these rumors up. They've been reported on, they've been uh you know, the law course was looking at him, and I've been podcasting. We didn't We're just telling the rumors. And then the Buster size is also saying, but it didn't present anything else. The case flall, there was a case of you know, a book wrote about this guy and said he lit his house on fire and killed his family or something. But in the book they gave five different possibilities. In this Netflix stock, it's all about Busters. There's no other things on there. I saw it, I remember it. Yeah, yeah, And. The judgments was definitely kept commenting on multiple times. So why did you use the video of a guy with red hair beating a guy in a baseball bat? It's pretty obviously what you meant there. You're like, no, no, it could have been anybody, he said, why didn't you use somebody with blonde hair? No, particularly when you're narrating it that like, the rumor was that they had killed this other kid, like a couple of years ago. Yea, and they killed him in the middle of the road. But then it was reported as he had been hit by a car. But the rumor was that Buster and his pals like murdered him in the street, right, And so you tell. It's not true now, but yes, there was a rumor. Of that, right. So but you tell that, you tell that rumor and then you run a video depicting a recreation of the act that you are describing, and it seems pretty clear what it is that you're trying to convey. So all right, so he's suing for defamation and so it's not really related to the the Murdoch trial. This was just something that came about because of the Murdoch trial and the telling of the story, which really like, why even. My experience would you hear it's either a really good room or it's true. Right, And then they put the music and the video of the actors acting get out. Yeah, Well there's an old rule in journalism. Nothing kills a great story like the other side of that. Yeah, but they they thought they were, We're going to rule on it. No, we lost him, all right. I hope he's okay. Uh, phone dropped out and uh all right. Matt harrisy is the co host of Impact of Influence Again. You can catch it on YouTube, Facebook and all the podcasting platforms. Thank you, Matt for your time. We have some other legal developments. Authorities in California have arrested Heidi by Rich, a former chief financial officer. Wait a cheat, really a CFO with the name by Rich and by Rich I mean fraud. They arrested her. They arrested her on fraud charges. Well, who is she? The former CFO at the Southern Poverty Law Center. The indictment alleges that by Rich helped funnel money to white supremacist groups through quote unquote informants. She also supposedly allegedly had a romantic relationship with one of the Neo Nazis, Heidi by Rich. She previously ran the Southern Poverty Law Center's project that tracked hate groups in the US, and this is, according to CNN, allegedly oversaw payments of donor money to people inside of the hate groups. According to the indictment, prosecutors say she also shared a bank account with one of those sources, which included funds from the SPLC payments. Okay, so the indictment here is laying out the conspiracy that she's working at SPLC, she's in charge of doling out the money to the Neo Nazis to act as informants, and then she beds one of the informants and apparently moves in with him and sets up two bank accounts joint accounts with him, and the money that she pays him ends up in those bank accounts, and then they use that money from the bank accounts to pay for household expenses and also some neo Nazi recruitment stuff. The grand jury indictment against the SPLC, you'll recall, came down back in April. It included eleven counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. According to the DOJ press release, in order to covertly pay the individuals, the SPLC opened bank accounts connected to a series of fake entities they made up, fake companies never existed. The covert nature of the accounts allowed the SPLC to disguise the true nature, the source, the ownership, and the control of the fraudulently obtained donated money that the SPLC paid to the individuals. In order to keep the scheme going, the SPLC made a series of false statements related to the operation of the accounts. Right, they lied to the banks what these businesses, these fake businesses or entities were doing. Right, they never told donors that they were paying these neo Nazis and such. And in Byrich's case, she made money, she kept some of the money. She used some of that money that was supposed to go for the neo Nazi sources, she used it for her own personal benefit. She is employee number two in the indictment, and she worked from twenty twelve through twenty nineteen as the SPLC's director of intelligence, Oh the other kind. Sorry sorry, I thought that was like an IQ thing. No, I mean so intel. In twenty fourteen, one of the informants, known as F nine, broke into the headquarters of an extremist organization and stole about twenty five boxes of documents. F nine then transported these documents across state lines from West Virginia to North Carolina. I don't know where. It does not say where. I don't know if this woman in DEF nine were living in North Carolina or what. But he swipes the boxes and then by Rich. Knows this and that the money from the SPLC was used to copy the stolen cial and then they F nine brings the material the boxes back to the neo Nazi headquarters. And then the SBLC uses the story based on the stolen documents to solicit more donations, and then by Rich paid about six thousand dollars in donations to F thirty nine, a different Neo Nazi informant, so that guy would take responsibility for the burglary. So she paid the other guy six grand to take the rap for the burglary that her boyfriend, her living boyfriend did yikes, yikes. F nine, her boyfriend pulled in over a million dollars over twenty years in donor money. That's the SBLC funding had while working to dismantle it. A little segment we like to call pregaming with Brett Winterble. Brett Winterble, how are you, sir? Oh, It's great to be with you, and I'm very excited to be spending time with you. I am as I am excited as well, he sounded. Yeah, So have you heard what happened up in Manhattan with the Luigi MENGIONI case you heard what happened there? Yep, So I saw a little bit of that, and yeah, he. Admitted that, Yeah, he did shoot the United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. So I'm not I'm not aware, maybe you are. Did this have the same level of dumb assory around it? Regarding like alternate theories and you know, like the like the Charlie Kirk murder has got going with Candy Krushian Owen's. And all of that. Yeah, there they they in the early days of him getting arraigned and going to court and all that kind of stuff. They had these people who were I'm not this guy's gods, I judge, I'm not making a joke about this. There there were people who were wearing the what what's the game the game that they play every. Super Mario Brothers. Yeah, I mean and they and they were acting like, you know, all that sort of stuff was was just fine. In fact, I think there was also like somebody who self immolated, uh in the court in the distance of the court because they you know, they're like, we need healthcare, we need all this kind of stuff dad, And you know, people get people get wound up. Right. So the crazy on the left, yeah, was he did it, but he was right in doing it. We love him for doing it, so we support him. We're totally fangirling on this on this hunk. The crazy on the right with the Kirk murder is, oh no, the guy who admitted it four or five times and we've got all the mountains of evidence that point to him that he didn't do it. It was Jews basically, So so it's just different strains of crazy. It's yeah, no, that's you did that perfectly, because that's exactly. What's going on. Look, I don't want to cast dispersions, but I will cast. Dispersions cast away, my friend. Look, can we just can we just agree that Utah's like a little different and these people get involved with all kinds of things, and these you've got deep relationships with folks, and I mean, I I trust what's coming out of the New York City system. I don't trust what's coming out with the Kirk and all that sort of stuff. Really, it's disgusting, you know, I don't I don't trust those that that guy that's running the court there, holy cass. The judge, the judge, what's wrong with the judge? Is he from Israel? No? Oh? Okay, no oh Egypt? Is he or France? Because I think they're all implicated. Some I saw what you just did, and I admire it, and at the same time I am shocked by it. Peter, is that your real name? Yes, Peter, it is actually Yes, that's good. I like it. H Yeah, yeah, so he I think, well, so he admitted in court. Yeah. He researched the event. I observed the annual conference of America's largest healthcare organization with the stated mission to make the healthcare system better for everyone. Yeah. Sure, he learned the exact location from Apparently he emailed the United Healthcare and was like, I got fifty million dollars, I want to invest in your company or whatever. So they told him where to go. He traveled there with the intent to kill Brian Thompson. I shot him in the back. I knew what I was doing was illegal. Like, how is this guy because he got he pleaded to stalking and killing, Like. Has that not a murder one? It should be? I mean total premeditation. Once upon a time that would have been that would have carried a death charge. Man, I mean, that's it. And unfortunately, this guy's going to get three hots and a cock for forever an ever. And he's gonna get all of the love letters from the not ball fangirls. Oh yo, 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 thepetecleanershow dot com. Again. Thank you, so much for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.