Thread by @AveryGWilks

🚨🚨🚨Alex Murdaugh Double Murder Trial Day 26 (Feb. 28) Megathread begins now 🚨🚨🚨

Prosecutors expect to call 4-5 witnesses in their reply case today and tomorrow, trying to rebut points raised by the defense.

#AlexMurdaugh #AlexMurdaughTrial #MurdaughTrial #Murdaugh

Yesterday’s Megathread

https://twitter.com/averygwilks/status/1630179691213758464

It’s not even 7 am and spectators have been outside the courtroom for hours. I spoke with a couple of ladies who got here at 4 am. They were probably 10th in line. Lot of lawn chairs.

I’m joining @NewsNation in just a few minutes to discuss the case.

Our full story on John Marvin Murdaugh’s emotional testimony yesterday

https://twitter.com/averygwilks/status/1630359908477464578

And our daily Understand Murdaugh podcast episode on what we learned yesterday open.spotify.com/episode/5GGL5P…

One of South Carolina’s favorite sons, @craigmelvin, is reporting from Walterboro today

TikTok recorded. Computer awakening ever so slowly. Prepare for a Megathread vibe cleanse featuring various wildlife I’ve encountered recently

Drama King the Eastern Kingsnake, sometimes hunger striker, full-time unsuccessful escape artist. Lampropeltis getula. Seems to like me a lot.

Albert the alligator. Fan of lampbathing. Not a fan of me, which hurts my feelings. Extremely cute for a reptile twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Scoop, the ferocious mailman antagonist, on the prowl. A unique recipe of 20 breeds. Enjoys short walks (no endurance), nose boops and back scritches. Communicates affection by leaning her full weight against you. True newshound, one ear always on alert

OK, back to the bad stuff.

Trial resumes at 9:30 a.m.

The state will begin presenting its reply case. Lead prosecutor Creighton Waters has said they will call 4-5 witnesses to rebut the defense's points.

Then the jury will take a field trip to Moselle. Then closing arguments.

Our daily TikTok recapping yesterday and previewing today tiktok.com/@postandcourie…

We are back in session.

Defense attorney Dick Harpootlian rises. He says he has been informed this morning the state has 7 reply witnesses. That number has inflated from 1-2 last week and the 4-5 projection we got late last afternoon.

Harpootlian is complaining. So am I.

Harpootlian says the state is essentially retrying its case by calling witnesses we've already heard from.

The state's reply case is supposed to directly rebut points introduced by the defense.

Dr. Ellen Riemer, the state's pathologist, is expected to testify today, Harpootlian said.

Harpootlian says if the state does this, the defense will want to rebut with its own witnesses.

"This is a process that's got to stop at some point. We're going to be here next week."

Lead prosecutor Creighton Waters: “There are actually a number of issues in which their pathologist challenged the findings of Dr. Riemer.” She is here to explain why she is right and the defense’s expert is wrong.

“It’s not just mere repetition of testimony that has already been received,” Waters said.

Harpootlian stresses that the state is dragging this out.

"This is a three-week trial. We're now in week 6. ... It seems the state's position is, 'Let no dead horse go unbeaten.'"

Newman: Certainly, the state cannot retry the entire case. But the state can reply to contradict certain issues presented by the defense, including issues of credibility.

Judge Clifton Newman continued: “It has to be finely tailored such that we don’t create a situation where the court will be compelled to allow sur-rebuttal, which is almost unheard of.”

Newman: “There has to be a limit to the back and forth.”

Newman says he is surprised at the number of reply witnesses the state wants to offer. But this is a complex case, and he can’t say now whether all of the witnesses’ testimony are appropriate.

So we are going to evaluate the witness testimony on a case-by-case basis. The jury is coming back in.

As a programming note, if a witness is returning to the stand and repeating things we already know, I'm not going to post updates on every little thing.

Parker Law Group attorney Ronnie Crosby, one of AM's former law partners, is the state's first reply witness.

We have heard his testimony twice already, once with the jury excused and once with jurors present.

Waters asks Crosby about what he would take with him when he rode around the Moselle property with Paul Murdaugh. Harpootlian objects, says this isn’t appropriate for a reply case.

Waters rephrases. Harpootlian objects again.

Crosby testifies typically, you’d take a rifle with you as you rode around looking for hogs, so you could shoot them.

Harpootlian objects: Crosby is giving an opinion. He is not a qualified expert.

Judge Newman: Overruled.

Crosby: I would actually disagree with Mr. Harpootlian. I am an expert in killing hogs. Have killed hundreds of them.

Harpootlian: Objection, your honor. I apologize to the witness.

Waters: What did AM tell you about whether he checked Paul and Maggie’s bodies before calling 911?

Crosby: My understanding was that he said he checked Paul and Maggie before calling 911. “That was clear to me.”

Harpootlian has objected five times so far in Ronnie Crosby's testimony, which began 7 minutes ago. All overruled.

Waters asks Crosby about Alex Murdaugh’s courtroom prowess, trying to remind the jury not to believe what they heard from AM last week.

Crosby: “He was a theatrical type presence in the courtroom, and he could get very emotional doing closing arguments in front of a jury.”

By my count, Harpootlian objected nine times during Crosby's 15-minute direct examination. Judge Newman overruled all the objections.

On cross-examination, Harpootlian notes that Crosby represents personal injury clients who have gone through traumatic experiences. Isn’t it normal, he says, for trauma victims do misremember details or get times wrong when describing one of the worst events of their lives?

Crosby: “They can. But I also find that people who have been involved in traumatic experiences try to be very accurate with details because they know it’s important to who is representing them.”

Crosby says it helps to have video or documents to help them remember.

Harpootlian: That would not be unusual in your business for someone in AM’s position to not get things right?
Crosby: “You’re trying to take me somewhere you probably don’t want to.”

This starts a VERY testy exchange. Updates coming.

Harpootlian: Have much have you had to pay to AM’s victims?

Crosby: We have had to borrow millions to pay back victims. Can’t say how much. If you’re implying that I could come in here and somehow shade the truth in some way because of that, I take high offense to that.

Harpootlian and Crosby start to raise their voices.

H: “You’re angry at him for stealing your money.”
C: “I have no feeling one way or another.”
H: “You don’t have any feeling about Alex Murdaugh stealing your money?!”

Harpootlian pushing Crosby's buttons: “You are not angry at Alex Murdaugh?”
C: “I have had anger, extreme anger, at him, Mr. Harpootlian because of what he did …” to our clients, our law firm. “Yes, I have experienced a lot of anger.”

Crosby says he has let that go.

Harpootlian, now that he has Crosby riled up.

“Do you think he did it?”

Crosby: “I don’t have an opinion. I don’t have the benefit of the materials you have.”

Harpootlian: “Even though it has cost your firm, and it’s cost millions of dollars to you, you’ve forgiven him (AM)?

Crosby: “I didn’t say I forgave him. I said I had no feelings. I’ve had to work on that.”

Crosby: “There’s a lot of emotion there. … I have found a way to have no feelings. It’s not forgiveness.”

Harpootlian: “You’re not angry here today? You’re not angry here at all?”

Crosby: “I’m not angry.”

Crosby: I take issue with you trying to imply that I’m lying here today because I’m angry at AM.

Harpootlian, looking at the jury now: “The implication that you might not want to help him with the jury here today” because he stole from you and deceived you.

Harpootlian got under Crosby's skin there for sure.

Harpootlian says it’ll be up to the jury to decide why Crosby is testifying against AM.

Crosby is done.

The state calls its second reply witness, MUSC forensic pathologist Dr. Ellen Riemer.

Riemer reminds the jury she has performed about 5,500 autopsies, including a few since she was last here to testify in this case.

That cross-examination of Crosby was probably Harpootlian's most effective work since the trial began.

Riemer testifies that the defense’s experts used skin tags to judge the direction of the shotgun blast that killed Paul. She says skin tags are not reliable, especially when on soft tissue.

If the fatal shotgun blast had been a contact wound to the back of Paul’s head, Riemer testifies, the damage to Paul’s skull would have been much worse. His face would not have been left intact as it was, she testifies.

“There is no way that these features are consistent with a contact shotgun wound to the head,” Riemer says.

Also, she says, the wounds on Paul’s shoulder and neck are consistent with entry wounds.

Riemer repeatedly and forcefully disagrees with the defense expert witness we heard from yesterday.

Waters is done questioning her.

Harpootlian is back up for cross-examination.

The @postandcourier and I believe some other outlets wrote to Judge Newman asking him to reconsider his decision to allow no media access to the jury’s visit to Moselle. We are happy to report he has reversed that decision.

@postandcourier We are on a short break. Harpootlian has become combative with Dr. Riemer, and she is giving it right back. I think this might be a trend today.

On second read of that reversal by the judge, it appears the media pool is only visiting Moselle *after* the jury visit. So we won’t be there to see the jury take it in. I don’t really see the point.

Harpootlian establishes that Dr. Riemer didn’t take X-rays of Paul's brain, which could feasibly still have pellets in it.

Riemer: “I determined that wasn’t necessary.”

H: “To support your conclusion.”

R: “I guess hindsight is 20/20.”

She says she wishes she had.

The live updates have slowed to a trickle because Harpootlian and Riemer have spent the past 15 minutes going in circles. We are in an "agree to disagree" loop whether both sides are still trying to win.

I'm getting a lot of work done, though

Our live updates feed and live stream from today postandcourier.com/murdaugh-updat…

Harpootlian ends his cross. Waters rises.

He says he has just two questions. He asks them, establishing that Riemer has performed some 5,500 autopsies and has a lot of experience. Waters begins to ask a third question and Harpootlian jokingly objects. Even Waters laughs.

Riemer is done on the stand.

The state's third reply witness is former Hampton County Sheriff T.C. Smalls. We haven't heard from him before.

Small retired in December after 39 years in law enforcement.

Waters: Did you ever speak with Alex Murdaugh about him installing blue lights on his private vehicle?
Smalls: “No, sir.”

So now Waters has elicited testimony that Alex Murdaugh lied to the jury last week. Woof.

Waters: Did he ever approach you about threats made in connection with the boat case?

Smalls: “No, he never has.”

Waters: Nothing further.

Griffin on cross: You were questioned about whether you gave him permission and said you did not.

Smalls: Right.

G: Do you know whether Anthony Russell gave him permission?

S: “I can’t answer that.”

Anthony Russell was a captain under Smalls who was elected Hampton County sheriff after Smalls.

Smalls on AM: “I never had any knowledge that he had blue lights in the vehicle.”

Smalls steps down.

The state calls its fourth reply witness, Paul McManigal, Charleston County digital forensics examiner. He testified Jan. 31 about trying - and failing - to break into Paul's phone.

Ultimately, a Secret Service agent accomplished that in March 2022, revealing the kennel video.

McManigal testifies he ran an iPhone of the same make and model as Maggie’s through a battery of tests to see when its screen would turn on.

(Trying to establish when Maggie’s phone was chucked onto the side of the road).

McManigal testifies he tossed the phone like a frisbee, tossed it end over end, etc. Did each movement 20 times or so.

Could an iPhone be thrown and the screen not turn on? “If the phone is thrown, the screen will not always turn on.”

“Nine out of 10 times, the screen doesn’t turn on when you throw it like a frisbee,” McManigal says.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Phillip Barber establishes that McManigal did these experiments this past weekend and didn't record any of his results or generate a report

“You just played with the phone, and you’re coming here to express your observations?” Barber asked.

“Correct,” McManigal said.

Barber: "Do you never do experiments where you don't record data or record anything?"

McManigal: "It never crossed my mind."

Barber establishes that McManigal didn't bring the phone with him today.

Barber: “So you were alone in your office, recording no measurements, throwing your phone around, and now you’re coming in here and testifying as an expert?

McManigal: Correct.

B: Have you ever done any experiments like this before?

M: No.

Barber: “Your honor, based on the previous answer, I would move to strike the expert opinion. The witness just testified he has no expertise on this. … He has no more knowledge about this than anyone in the courtroom.”

Prosecutor John Conrad: This witness performed a series of tests.
Newman: We know that.
Conrad: He is expressing his opinion.
Barber: He was proffered as an expert for this testimony. He’s an expert in extracting data, not physics.

Newman sides with prosecutors.

How many people back home are throwing their iPhones right now to verify McManigal's results?

TIL: If you pick up your iPhone gently, the screen comes on.

If you pick it up aggressively and wave it around like one of those used car lot inflatable stick figure dudes, it does not turn on.

McManigal steps down from the stand.

The state's 5th reply witness is Parker Law Group attorney Mark Ball, one of AM's old friends and former law partners at PMPED.

Ball was a defense witness last week.

Waters: “How are you doing today?”
Ball: “I was doing better before I came here.”

Waters: Did you ever hear AM express distrust of SLED before 6/7/21?
Ball: “No, sir.”

Mark Ball testifies he shot five hogs around 4:30 p.m. two weeks ago. I

don’t know how there are any more hogs left in this area with all the lawyers here blasting them away.

Ball testifies again about inconsistencies in AM’s story about that evening. The first time AM recounted finding their bodies, he said he checked Maggie first, then Paul. The second time, it was Paul first and then Maggie, Ball testifies.

Waters: You’ve known the defendant for 34 years. Was he able to look at you in the eye and lie convincingly?

Ball: “I didn’t know the stealing. I didn’t know any of that.”

On cross, defense attorney Jim Griffin brings up Ball’s testimony that AM didn’t seem distrustful of SLED or law enforcement.

Griffin: “Let’s talk about that.” Didn’t Alex take the position that his son Paul was wrongfully charged in the boat crash case?

Ball agrees.

Griffin brings up that AM and the Murdaughs were under a SLED/state grand jury investigation in spring 2021 over possible obstruction of justice in the 2019 boat crash investigation.

Griffin also notes that AM and his father thought their friend, current Yemassee police chief Greg Alexander, was wrongfully charged with crimes years ago.

They appeared in court with Alexander to support him.

Ball says he has killed well over 1,000 hogs. They are an endless tide.

Griffin asks if Ball remembers the 6/8/21 statement from the Colleton County Sheriff’s Office and SLED that there was “no danger to the public.”

G: “Did that concern you?”
Ball: “Very much.”

Ball said he called Hampton County Sheriff TC Smalls about it. Smalls asked around, and they had no knowledge of other credible threats against anyone else.

“I guess I still had questions,” Ball said. He was worried somebody might try to shoot up PMPED.

That's all from Ball.

We are breaking for lunch until 2:15 p.m.

We will have one more state reply witness after lunch, prosecutor Waters says.

Judge Newman says the jury trip to Moselle will occur this afternoon after the state rests its reply case.

Barber raises again his objection to the phone toss expert testimony of McManigal. He points out there is no quality control of McManigal’s experiment, no academic studies attesting to his methods or findings, etc.

Judge Newman: “You agreed that he was an expert.” I gave you an opportunity to challenge that.

Barber: We had no notice he was going to testify about this experiment.

Newman again overrules the objection. He says the defense's objection has been preserved for the record.

Harpootlian asks again about sur-rebuttal to bring back the defense's experts to counter what the jury just heard from Dr. Riemer.

Newman: “I don’t anticipate allowing any sur-rebuttal based on what I’ve heard at this point.”

Now we actually break for lunch.

I’ve earned this

The prosecution had a guy huck a cell phone dozens of times around his office over the weekend with nobody else around, and not take notes or generate a report, and then come to court to testify as an expert about it at the very end of South Carolina’s trial of the century.

As I understand it, the state's foremost cellphone chucking expert, Mr. PeePaw Bubbers III, was unavailable to testify this week due to a scheduling conflict.

Right before lunch, Judge Newman called the lawyers on both sides to approach to discuss an email he had received. I have no further information about the email.

But I imagine we will hear about it on the other side of this lunch break around 2:15 p.m.

If you see me yeeting my iPhone XR across the media center lawn, just keep moving. It's for science

The media pool (selected from a random drawing) for the media trip to Moselle. (Jurors will not be present).

Print reporter: @vbauerlein
Print photographer: @WhitakerPhotos
Videographer: @CourtTV

Court is back in session.

The jury is coming back now. I guess we're not going to deal with the mystery email quite yet.

The state calls its 6th reply witness, Orangeburg County Sheriff's Deputy Kenneth Kinsey, a crime scene expert who testified Feb. 16.

He is being questioned by none other than S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson.

This is Wilson's first witness or speaking appearance of the trial.

Kinsey is apparently here to counter the testimony given by defense bullet trajectory analyst Mike Sutton. Last week, Sutton testified Maggie’s shooter was 5-foot-2 to 5-foot-4 feet tall, a foot shorter than Alex Murdaugh.

Kinsey on Sutton: “I think his intentions were well, but I think his methods were flawed.”

Kinsey thinks Sutton erred in extrapolating the bullet trajectories as far as he died and with such certainty.

He says that analysis assumes the bullet traveled perfectly straight, with no ricochets or wobbling.

Kinsey: The inside of a gun causes the bullet to spin as it leaves, keeping it straight. Like how a quarterback spins a football when they release it to keep it going straight in a spiral.

But not all guns put such perfect spin on their bullets, he says.

Kinsey: Sutton’s testimony assumes variables you can’t assume.

“You’d have to consider this to be a static crime scene. Very little movement.”

Kinsey: We can't test fire the .300 Blackout used to kill Maggie. So we don't know how it spits out shell casings. So we can't use shell casings to guess where the shooter was standing.

Kinsey testifies that a 6-foot-4 person could “absolutely” have shot Maggie at the angles Murdaugh’s defense team projected, either by dropping to one knee or by shooting from farther back.

Kinsey says even a 7-foot-4 shooter could have made that angle.

Wilson asks Kinsey what is wrong with the defense’s pellet trajectory analysis on the first shot at Paul in the feed room. The defense’s expert ran a line between a bullet hole in the window and a pellet found in a pine tree behind the feed room.

Kinsey kind of laughs as he composes himself. He says shotgun pellets expand and spray outward, so you can’t draw a line like that backward to determine exactly where the gun was held.

Wilson and Kinsey agree that the defense’s witness was far too sure of his conclusions that AM couldn’t have been the shooter when we don’t know a lot of the variables at the crime scene, such as whether/how the shooter/victims were moving.

Wilson: “Could the shooter have been on their knees?”
“Could have been.”

Wilson: “But there’s no way to know for sure, is that correct?”

Kinsey: That’s correct.

Kinsey testifies he has seen the aftermath of about three dozen contact shotgun wounds to the head, including about 24 suicides and a dozen execution-style killings.

He also watched a man kill himself with a shotgun. These shots blow off the victims' heads and shred their faces.

He says Paul’s head is not consistent with a contact wound to the head because his face was left intact.

Wilson is now aiming a shotgun as he and Kinsey re-enact Paul’s shooting.

The first photo is the first shot.

The second photo is them re-enacting what Kinsey describes as the defense’s “preposterous” theory of Paul being shot execution-style as he stumbled forward

That was a pretty effective presentation, I must say. The feed room doorframe in particular would have had to be very crowded.

Kinsey testifies there is no way blood, brains and shotgun pellets could have blown back 180 degrees and hit the top of the feed room walls/ceiling.

While we're watching Wilson question Kinsey, here's my profile of the state attorney general from last summer.
postandcourier.com/politics/unbea…

Wilson: John Marvin Murdaugh testified yesterday. He said he came upon the crime scene after it had been processed, and there was blood and gore still everywhere.

Kinsey testifies that it’s not law enforcement’s responsibility to clean up crime scenes.

Kinsey: Typically, outside companies hired by victims' advocate organizations handle that clean-up. It's not a screwup by law enforcement.

Kinsey: “I see nothing that could exclude a 6-foot-4 shooter.”

Wilson: In your expert opinion, can you exclude two shooters?
Kinsey: “I cannot include or exclude two shooters.”

Wilson: Can the defense say there were two shooters definitely?

Kinsey: “Absolutely not.”

Wilson concludes his questioning of Kinsey.

Defense attorney Jim Griffin is up for cross-examination.

When you're about to drop the coldest cellphone hucking analysis of the year

📸: @WhitakerPhotos

@WhitakerPhotos Kinsey, under questioning from Griffin, says he doesn’t disagree with what Sutton - the defense expert - tried to do, just with the degree of certainty at which Sutton claimed the shooter couldn’t have been 6-foot-4.

Griffin establishes that Kinsey is being paid somewhere in the realm of $7,500-$10,000 for his consulting and testimony on this case.

Kinsey: “I’m a Baptist, so if I didn’t charge something, my friends and family would talk bad about me.”

Laughter in the courtroom.

Kinsey and Griffin are going back and forth about the trajectory of the shotgun blast that killed Paul. I'm getting a head start on my story for the day.

Griffin questions how a pellet could have gone upward through Paul's shoulder, neck and head before lodging itself high up in the feed room.

Kinsey doesn't seem to understand the question. To him, it's obvious that the upward trajectory of the shot took the pellet there.

The defense is suggesting Paul was shot downward, exploding his skull and sending pellets, blood, brain matter and bits of skull back toward the shooter and up high on the feed room door/walls.

Kinsey doesn't buy it.

On the shotgun pellet up high: "It didn't turn around and come back out of the top of his head, I can tell you that."

Griffin: There was no effort by investigators to find and identify the shooter’s footprints. “There’s a shooter somewhere.”

Kinsey: “I agree with that.”

If you're looking for a witness to carry you through a criminal trial in Walterboro, you could do worse than finding an extremely smart, well-trained expert with a heavy southern accent and good manners.

Griffin: Our expert witness, Tim Palmbach, didn’t put the shooter inside the feed room the way y’all demonstrated, did he?
Kinsey: I thought he did.

We’re going to demonstrate it again. This time, Harpootlian is the victim.

Griffin and Harpootlian just demonstrated a version of the shooting in which the shooter didn't have to be inside the feed room.

Wilson: You spoke with Riemer, who did Maggie and Paul’s autopsies. And you also heard testimony from the defense’s expert, who did not.

Which opinion do you like better?

Kinsey: “Well, I’ll start by saying I don’t know either one of them from a can of paint.”

Kinsey testifies he doesn't want to argue with a pathologist. That's not his field of expertise.

Another good quality in an expert witness: Staying in your lane.

Wilson: “The shooter is running around, and so is the victim. It’s chaotic. It’s crazy.”

“There’s no way to know how the gun is being held, it’s shouldered, it’s angled.”

Wilson: We can’t say how the shootings took place, exactly.

Kinsey agrees.

Kinsey is done on the stand.

The state rests its rebuttal case. The jury is excused for a break.

Judge Newman says we have run out of time to take the jury to Moselle today. He is now conferring with attorneys on both sides privately now. Not sure about what.

So, almost five and a half weeks in, jurors have heard from 76 witnesses, several of them more than once. One, Ronnie Crosby, testified three times.

The state called 61 in its initial case. The defense then called 14. The state called one new witness, TC Smalls, in its reply.

The jury is coming back in.

Judge Newman tells them we are done for the day, but when they return tomorrow morning, they will be escorted to Moselle.

Newman: While you are on the way to the scene and from the scene, you are not allowed to discuss the case with anyone, including fellow jurors.

While there, you can’t ask anyone any questions, including law enforcement. If you have any questions, you can only ask me.

Newman: After seeing Moselle, we will have closing arguments. Then I will instruct you as to the law you are to apply, and then you will begin deliberations.

Newman: “It has been a year and a half or more since June 7, 2021, since the alleged crime occurred. Things have most likely changed. We’re in a different season of the year.”

You will have to keep that in mind as you consider what you see.

Jury is dismissed for the day.

Judge Newman: Court will resume at 11 a.m. tomorrow when the jurors return from Moselle.

Closing arguments tomorrow. Jury deliberations could also start as early as tomorrow, though it seems more likely they will begin Thursday morning.

I still don't know about the email Judge Newman mentioned over lunch. It wasn't mentioned again. Jury instructions will be debated tomorrow.

I'm transitioning to writing now.

We've just posted our full story from the final day of witness testimony

https://twitter.com/AveryGWilks/status/1630729196145188866

I joined FOX tonight to discuss the Murdaugh case. There is a funny moment about five minutes in where the motion-sensing lights go out and I wasn’t sure what was going on. 😃

But otherwise it went well

So ends today’s Megathread!

Come back tomorrow for some more Megathread.