Thread by @AveryGWilks

🚨🚨🚨Alex Murdaugh Double Murder Trial Day 21 (Feb. 21) Megathread begins now 🚨🚨🚨

The defense will begin presenting its case in earnest this morning, starting with Alex Murdaugh’s son, Buster.

#AlexMurdaugh #AlexMurdaughTrial #MurdaughTrial #Murdaugh

Expect to hear from Murdaugh’s relatives, expert witnesses and possibly Alex Murdaugh himself in the coming days.

Think the defense could spend all week, and potentially into next week, calling witnesses.

Catch up with the most recent Megathread, from Friday

https://twitter.com/averygwilks/status/1626568585932947456

Our story from Friday, as prosecutors finally pulled together their scattered case into a compelling timeline postandcourier.com/murdaugh-updat…

Our most recent Understand Murdaugh podcast episode open.spotify.com/episode/4ytwb6…

Our Sunday front page story on this case and the challenge Murdaugh faces now that the state has rested its case

https://twitter.com/AveryGWilks/status/1627672532634550273

A big line of folks trying to squeeze into the courtroom as we begin the fifth week of Alex Murdaugh’s trial

A reminder that you can peruse the SLED 43-page timeline of 6/7/21 that was presented Friday here

bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/postandcourier…

Daily Scoop pic. She had a great time roaming in the backyard this weekend

***GRAPHIC WARNING***

1. Photos/exhibits the jury saw Friday: Alex Murdaugh's wound and the aftermath of the September 2021 roadside shooting, via @GraceBeahm

We are back in session. Let's ride.

Judge Newman announces that a juror is not feeling well and is at the doctor. Newman says he plans to replace that juror.

This juror was previously an alternate who replaced another juror.

If she is replaced, we'll be down to just two alternates.

Defense attorney Jim Griffin: We think the defense can rest our case by Friday.

We are now replacing that juror with an alternate. Down to two alternates.

Judge Newman is now chastising Griffin for tweeting a Washington Post story that described the SLED investigation of the Murdaugh murders as "sloppy."

This is the tweet in question.

Newman: “It appeared on my Twitter feed this morning. ...Mr. Griffin, is this part of your defense strategy?”

Griffin: “Your honor, all I did was retweet an article that was published by the Washington Post.”

https://twitter.com/lawyergriffin/status/1626938908289253376

Newman: "It doesn't pass the feel test" to have an attorney tweeting or commenting publicly about the case or witness testimony in it.

Griffin: "I will not retweet anything or tweet anything until the trial is over."

Newman seemed to decide that Griffin's actions violated the spirit of judicial ethical rules, but perhaps not the letter of them. He suggested the rules could be updated/modernized/modified to specifically outlaw this kind of thing.

We move on.

Of note: Judge Clifton Newman has a Twitter account. I did not see that coming.

The defense calls its third witness, Buster Murdaugh - Alex's son.

Griffin will question him.

Buster helps Griffin try to humanize AM. Says his father “coached every little league team I played on.” It was “a rarity” for AM or Maggie to miss a game.

Buster on Moselle: 1,700 acres - much of it swampland that isn't accessible.

It is broken up into several different parcels that border each other.

20-something deer stands, duck ponds, dove fields.

They hunted deer, duck, quail, dove, hogs there.

Our live feed as Buster Murdaugh testifies postandcourier.com/murdaugh-updat…

Buster testifies guns would be left all over the Moselle property, including in golf carts and trucks. Paul was “not good” about securing the guns, he testifies.

“Sometimes he would use my gun, and he would leave it, and then I would have to track it down.”

Buster said he never saw Paul’s replacement .300 Blackout rifle - which didn’t have a thermal scope. Paul rarely used it, if ever.

Testimony/experts/prosecutors have indicated that replacement was the weapon used to kill Maggie Murdaugh.

Buster testifies he never alternated buckshot and birdshot rounds in a shotgun. He doesn’t know why someone would do that. Doesn’t know anyone who did. Never seen a gun loaded in that fashion at Moselle.

Of note: A gun loaded in that fashion was used to kill Paul.

Also of note: SLED lead investigator David Owen admitted he lied to AM in their 8/11/21 interview about finding shotguns loaded in that fashion at Moselle.

Owen also told the same thing to the grand jury that indicted Murdaugh on murder charges. Even though it wasn’t true.

Our story on that: postandcourier.com/murdaugh-updat…

Buster testifies his parents typically left Moselle out of the main gate, not the one by the dog kennels where Maggie and Paul were killed.

If you were going to Almeda, where Buster’s grandparents lived, you’d take a right out of the main gate, which was closest to Almeda.

Buster testifies that his father was close with Papa T, his grandfather and AM’s father-in-law. They played golf together, went on camping trips, attend Carolina sporting events together, etc.

Griffin continues to try to establish AM as a family man.

Buster: AM would frequently go to Almeda to check on his parents. The visits came at all hours. A lot at lunch, but also a lot in the evenings. Maggie went too, but not regularly.

Buster: If we were visiting Almeda in the afternoon, we’d park in the garage/carport. But if we went in the evenings, we would pull around the back and enter through the back door.

(That’s where AM parked on the night of the slayings.)

Prosecutors have theorized AM pulled around the back in order to stash weapons/evidence.

Griffin shows Buster the map of AM’s visit to Almeda, including GPS dots provided by General Motors from AM’s Suburban. Buster testifies AM parked where you would normally park if you were visiting Almeda at night.

Griffin diffusing some of the state’s theorizing late last week

Our Daily TikTok previewing the day/week tiktok.com/t/ZTRnNnhFu/

Griffin is now going through the SLED 6/7/21 timeline with Buster, which shows a flurry of calls between each of the family members and each other throughout the day. Buster says that was normal.

They all spoke on the phone with each other multiple times a day, he says.

Griffin reinforces the point:

G: “Anything unusual going on on the 7th for y’all to have all these communications?”
B: “No, sir.”

Buster on AM’s 9:10:47 p.m. call to him on 6/7/21: He was just letting me know he was going out to Almeda to check on Em, AM’s mother and Buster’s grandmother. That was a normal call. It was common for AM to call and check in when he was on the way.

Buster testifies it wasn’t unusual for his father, AM, to leave his phone at the Moselle house when he went riding around the property, given how bad the cell service out there.

Buster testifies both AM and Paul misplaced their phones a lot.

Buster on Bubba: He could be difficult at times. AM was the best at controlling him. They had a shock collar for him, and Bubba was well behaved when wearing the collar.

Buster: It was common for AM to shower a lot. He sweat a lot in the summertime. He was much bigger then. He was 6-foot-4, 250 pounds.

Buster: “I knew a little bit” about AM’s opioid addiction. Knew Paul and Maggie had found pills and confronted him about it.

After Christmas 2018, AM went to a detox facility. We thought that handled it. But there would be other times they found pills & confronted him.

Buster: When the family confronted AM, he would be apologetic. He says the conversations were civil.

Griffin: “Was there any violence in the family?”

Buster: “No, sir.”

Buster: Paul was bullied on social media and in person after the 2019 fatal boat crash. People would confront him in bars and yell it him from passing cars when they saw him on the sidewalk. People sent messages to him as well.

Buster: His mother Maggie didn’t like being in Hampton after the boat crash. She felt a stigma surrounding the family. People stared at her in public, in grocery stores.

Buster: Maggie was anxious about the civil lawsuit. Her biggest concern was reading articles after Mark Tinsley had made a statement about how much money he wanted to collect. It was something like $40 million. AM didn’t seem as concerned. He focused more on Paul’s criminal case.

Buster: None of us thought that Paul was driving the boat when it crashed. They planned on fighting the criminal charges.

111,000 people are watching the Law & Crime livestream of Buster’s testimony, just one of many livestreams of the trial.

Buster testifies about being in shock when his father called him to say Maggie and Paul had been shot. He and his girlfriend packed up immediately and drove to Moselle, arriving around 2 a.m.

He hugged his father. “He was destroyed. He was heartbroken.”

Buster testifies about helping his father pack a bag to go stay at Almeda that evening.

Buster says he didn’t get any sleep that night. They returned to Moselle the next morning.

"Nobody really slept."

Buster testifies they all showered at Moselle the next morning. AM showerered at Moselle.

Buster testifies that he was with his father every day after the shootings, keeping a close eye on him.

Griffin: “Do you ever remember your dad disappearing for periods of time?”
Buster: “No, sir.”

G: “Were you physically close to him most all the time?”
B: “Yes, sir.”

Griffin tries to poke holes in state's theory that AM disposed of evidence after the slayings.

Griffin seems to be targeting testimony from Murdaugh’s mother’s caregiver, Shelley Smith, that Murdaugh returned to Almeda a few days after his father’s death to stash something blue.

Randolph Murdaugh III died June 10.

Buster testifies he was with AM the entire time, and his father didn’t disappear at any point.

Griffin: “You’re with your dad from the night of June 7th through the Keowee trip (on 6/17/21), is that correct?”

Buster: “Yes, sir.”

Griffin notes there have been questions in this case about AM’s missing clothes. Where were AM’s clothes before he went off to detox in Sept. 2021?

Buster says AM was staying everywhere. At Moselle, Greenfield, Almeda, Edisto, his car, relatives’ homes.

“He had clothes a lot of places," Buster testifies.

Griffin asks Buster about the 6/10/21 SLED “(I/They) did him so bad.” video. Griffin plays the video again in court.

G: “What does your dad say?”
B: “They did him so bad.”

Buster testifies AM said “they did him so bad” repeatedly on the night of 6/7/21.

Buster testifies it typically took about 10 minutes to hose down the dog kennels, start to finish.

Griffin ends his questioning.

Buster seems firmly on his father's side here, offering a lot of testimony that helps diffuse or contextualize some of the state's theories.

State prosecutor John Meadors will cross-examine Buster Murdaugh.

Meadors begins his cross-examination: “I’m sorry about your mother. And I’m sorry about your brother. And I’m sorry about your grandfather.”

Meadors: “You had no knowledge of your dad’s financial troubles at all, did you?”

Buster: “No, sir.”

Meadors: “You went to Wofford?”
Buster: “Yes, I did.”
Meadors: “Go Terriers, for the record.”

That's all for Buster.

Interesting that the state didn't ask Buster to identify the voices on the kennel video. Perhaps they viewed that as an unnecessary risk. It is pretty well established that's AM's voice.

The defense's fourth witness is Mike Sutton, a North Carolina engineer who creates crime scene exhibits and animations

Sutton, a mechanical engineer, says he deals with external ballistics, tracking the flight of a bullet after it leaves the gun.

He does not deal with internal ballistics, which is what happens after the bullet hits its target.

Sutton testifies he is also an acoustics expert. Says acoustics engineering is a subset of mechanical engineering. He has testified about whether things can be heard at specific times by specific people, based on the scene.

Sutton and Harpootlian are now walking through the bullet trajectories Sutton gleaned from looking at bulletholes in crime scene photos.

This trial is giving new life to protractors, which I have forgotten about for the past 15 years.

Harpootlian says the jury will soon see a 3-D model of what he and Sutton are discussing.

Sutton testifies the angle of the bullet’s trajectory helps determine where the shooter could have been. If the bullet is at an upward angle, for example, you can track it back all the way into the ground. That gives you a range of places the shooter could have fired it from.

We are now watching a 3-D reconstruction of the crime scene.

Here’s generally what the jury is seeing

Overheard shot of the crime scene. The yellow circles are where .300 Blackout cartridges were found. Maggie’s body is depicted by that grey sheet

These green lines are Sutton’s projection of the flight path of one of the .300 Blackout bullets that hit Maggie. The two lines depict a range of angles, working backward from the bullet hole in the quail pen.

Sutton created a person holding a .300 Blackout

Sutton: “It would be hard for anybody” to be shooting that .300 Blackout from the shoulder because the bullethole in the quail pen is just over 4 feet off the ground, and going at an upward trajectory. So the barrel that fired the bullet had to be less than 4 feet off the ground.

Sutton: The person likely would have fired from the hip to create this trajectory. Even a short person couldn't have fired from the shoulder at this trajectory.

Of note: Buster just testified his father is 6-foot-4

Sutton testifies that based on his model, the 14-degree downward shot into the doghouse and the 1.5-degree upward shot into the quail pen were shot from the same person, at the same place - right by Maggie’s body.

Like this

Placement of the shell casings supports this, Sutton says

Sutton says the little grey guy in his model is 5-foot-2.

If you make him taller, the angle stops working, he says.

It puts the person closer to the quail pen, away from Maggie's body, and nowhere near the shell casings. It doesn't make sense, he says.

Soooooo either the shooter was 5-foot-2 or there is a confounding variable here (like a person crouching or kneeling).

Sutton testifies he measured AM this morning. His kneecap is 25 inches off the ground.

If AM was the shooter, his shooting hand would have had to be below his kneecap, Sutton testifies.

Sutton: “It puts them in an unrealistic shooting position. It’s not an aiming position. It’s not a shooting position. It would be something other than a shooting position where you were on your feet.”

Sutton: “You would have to be bending over and have your shooting hand down at or below your kneecap. It just makes it very unlikely that a tall person made that shot.”

Paul was also shot at a dramatic upward angle, according to the state's experts.

Harpootlian: In your engineering opinion, is it most likely that the shooter of Maggie was 5-foot-2 to 5-foot- 4?
Sutton: “That is the most likely explanation, yes.”

Harpootlian: Alex Murdaugh is 6-foot-4. In your opinion, did Alex Murdaugh fire this shot?

Sutton: “In my opinion, it’s very unlikely that he fired that shot.”

Harpootlian: In going through the case file, did you see any evidence that state investigators did a bullet trajectory analysis like yours?

Sutton: No.

We break for lunch until 2:15 p.m.

Photos from the first half of today via @GraceBeahm and Jeff Blake:

1. Buster takes the stand

2. Harpootlian and Sutton discuss bullet trajectories

We are back after lunch.

Harpootlian is wielding Buster's .300 Blackout semiautomatic rifle.

“I don’t know how I can do this so I’m not pointing at somebody.”

Just watched it back. Harpootlian briefly seems to point the rifle toward the prosecution table.

“Tempting,” he says.

Laughter in the courtroom.

Sutton found a damaged tree that was hit by shotgun pellets and ran a string from that point through a hole in the feed room window and to the door in order to plot the upward trajectory of the first shotgun blast that hit Paul

Sutton says he is 5-foot-10, by the way.

If he were to shoot from the shoulder, it would have been a downward trajectory in order to hit the window at that spot.

So, another shot seemingly fired from the hip.

Sutton is now explaining the auditory tests he ran at Moselle on 1/5/23. Sounds like he is about to explain whether you could hear shotgun and rifle blasts at the kennels from inside the Moselle main house, 1,100 feet away.

Sutton testifies he shot into the feed room, just as the 6/7/21 shooter did, which muffled the sound of the shotgun.

Sutton testifies the .300 Blackout rifle that killed Maggie was much louder than the shotgun that killed Paul.

Sutton plays an audio recording of what it sounded like in the Moselle home when the loudest shots were fired (from the .300 Blackout). “You could barely hear it, and we were all listening for it," he says.

If you had the TV, “there’s no way you could hear that shot.”

Sutton testifies that based on data from General Motors, AM was gradually speeding up - around 42-45 mph - at the spot on Moselle Road at which Maggie’s phone was found the next day. The point Harpootlian is making is that AM didn’t slow down to throw it.

Nor did AM punch the gas immediately after passing that spot, data show.

Harpootlian: Would AM have been able to see Paul and Maggie’s bodies in the Suburban headlights as he pulled up to the scene?

Prosecutor objects to the question on several grounds. Newman sustains the objection.

Harpootlian rephrases the question more artfully to get around the objection.

Sutton agrees that someone driving the Suburban with the headlights on at night would have been able to see their bodies before pulling up and parking.

Sutton: A phone that is tossed out of a car going 45 mph would tumble.

I believe this is a point Harpootlian is trying to get in for the dispute over when Maggie’s phone was ditched, and how closely that lines up to when AM was driving by the point where the phone was found.

Sutton: Data show AM was only at 80 mph for a few seconds on the return trip home from Almeda, not the entire trip. “He does reach high speeds on the return trip, but it’s not for a long period of time.”

Harpootlian asks if that brief burst of speed is consistent with passing someone on a two-lane road.

Sutton says it could be.

Prosecutor David Fernandez starts his cross-examination by noting that Sutton is being paid by the defense to testify.

Fernandez establishes Sutton's company is paid $350 an hour, and he has worked 40-50 hours on this case.

So that's at least $14,000.

Sutton testifies he primarily does accident reconstruction.

He was previously retained in the 2019 boat crash case.

He testifies he has never consulted for PMPED. But he was deposed in a lawsuit by them. He was working for the other side in that case, a railroad.

Fernandez asks a series of questions heavily implying that Sutton is trafficking in guesswork and speculation, not science, in offering this expert testimony.

Fernandez establishes Sutton has no certification in shooting incident reconstruction and has no training in that field. He's not a firearms expert. Sutton has, however, performed studies and tests on bullet trajectories.

Fernandez and Sutton agree none of those studies have ever been published.

Sutton reiterates he is not a pathologist, nor is he a firearms expert.

Fernandez: So that means we can't rely on any opinion you render about firearms.

Sutton: That's not what I said. I can testify about bullet trajectories.

Fernandez and Sutton are going back and forth about the fact that a chart of AM’s driving speed on 6/7/21 isn’t labeled with timestamps, so Sutton can’t actually identify where on that chart AM passed the point where Maggie’s phone was found.

This sparked a strange exchange in which Sutton tried to retrieve his laptop to pull up the timestamped version of the graph, and Fernandez insisted on asking questions on the non-timestamped version, obviously to show that Sutton's earlier testimony was based on the bad version.

So, after stressing the importance of not relying on guesswork in rendering an opinion, Fernandez then just showed an example of Sutton rendering an opinion from the witness stand in which he couldn't see one of the two key variables.

Fernandez establishes that Sutton didn’t use the exact same guns and ammunition in his sound tests as the guns/ammo used in the killings.

Fernandez establishes that Sutton conducted his sound test in January 2023. The pine trees between the Moselle main house and kennels had grown since the June 2021 slayings.

Fernandez: “Are you aware that trees generally grow?”
Sutton: “Yes.”

Sutton concedes the greater tree height would have affected the sound. But not a big one. He said he corrected for that in his calculations.

Fernandez: Do you have any formal training, expertise and certifications in shotguns?

Sutton: I’ve done a lot of study. I understand what happens with the pellets.

Fernandez establishes with Sutton that Sutton doesn't know off the top of his head how wide shotgun pellets spread every yard.

"You don't even know the cone and the rate of expansion from a shotgun. How can you give that opinion?" he asks.

Fernandez is trying to discredit Sutton here, but also trying to discredit Sutton's bullet trajectory analysis from the first shotgun blast at Paul.

This exchange is scoring pretty high on the Jim Griffin-David Owen Brutal Cross-Examination Index.

Fernandez: Have you done any testing as to what happens to a shotgun pellet after it goes through a body or window?

Sutton: I don’t need to. There was a missing pellet, and I recovered it by the tree near the feed room window.

Fernandez is now taking aim at Sutton’s .300 Blackout bullet trajectory analysis. He says the angles might not be exact because we’re extrapolating from a bullet hole made in a flimsy paper product. Sutton testifies he used the angle provided by SLED’s crime scene agent, Worley.

Fernandez on Sutton’s bullet trajectory analysis: Bullets can ricochet if they hit something, right?
Sutton: Yes.
Fernandez: It’s possible?
Sutton: I think it’s very unlikely in this case, based on evidence recovered from the crime scene.

We are going subatomic into the weeds

the sound of a tape measure rattling into the Court TV mics

Fernandez notes Sutton used the shell casing locations in his bullet trajectory reconstruction.

Fernandez“Is it possible cartridge casings were moved?” That they were ejected in an unorthodox manner? That they hit something and ricocheted?

Sutton: Yes.

A friendly reminder for y'all to please untag me if you're gonna have a brawl with each other in my comments

Fernandez keeps joking that the 5-foot-2 figures in Sutton's shooting rendering are children.

Harpootlian objects: "There is no testimony that two 12-year-olds were involved in this in any way."

Fernandez, basically: We can all see that these grey dudes are 12-year-olds.

Fernandez is now going one by one through all the variables that Sutton did not consider in his analysis, including whether the shooter was moving or whether the victim was moving.

F: "Would you agree, though, that people do move?"

S: "In my experience, yes, people move."

Fernandez is done questioning Sutton.

Harpootlian rises to redirect. He establishes that the data Sutton used came from SLED. It includes no evidence of ricochets.

On redirect, Sutton testifies it doesn't matter what kind of ammo you load into a shotgun/.300 Blackout rifle. It wouldn't have affected his sound analysis.

Harpootlian: Was there anything to prevent SLED, FBI, or anybody from doing the same analysis you did? What obstacles existed?

Sutton: None.

Harpootlian then has a 5-foot-3 clerk in his office stand up. “She’s not a child,” he says.

Sutton is done for the day. I'm not sure what we accomplished there. The state did a good job of diffusing Sutton's testimony.

We will be back at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

Our story on today's proceedings:

https://twitter.com/AveryGWilks/status/1628189943251050496

That does it for the Alex Murdaugh Double Murder Trial Day 21 Megathread.

We will be back with more Megathread in the morning.