But as you see it, who won?

Oh, the prosecution one, to get his testimony in from the first trial about him lying and being at the kennels and other things that he disclosed under oath about how he wasn't truthful with law enforcement officers.

even when they interviewed him initially at 10 o'clock at night when he found Maggie and Paul's body, continuing on through the trial, to be able to get his own words to come in before a jury where he admitted being a liar and he admitted being a financial thief and stealing from his friends and his clients, I think it's a very, very positive prosecution ruling, and it exceeds the fact that there's going to be a change of the venue.

Quite frankly, I think that he would have gotten a better trial from people in Hampton County because he's so well known and there's a lot of people that still like him in Hampton County.

And to see him today come in in a suit and tie was something as well.

Yeah, I mean, ultimately, that's a good thing.

It will show maybe to jurors or potential jurors, oh, my goodness, he looks like he's not in prison.

But everybody knows he's serving the rest of his life in state and federal prison for stealing millions of dollars from his clients and my clients.

What, what advice would you give them?

Tenacious.

Um, get the public involved.

Um, don't give up.

Demand answers.

Uh, ask for cooperation between local law enforcement and, uh, if there's state law enforcement, uh, investigating.

Um, demand answers from those that have been on the island.

Why is that important?

What did you mean by that?

Well, I think that, you know, always the second trial benefits the defense.

And Harpoolian gave away that they're going to have eight new expert witnesses.

And a lot of it could be related to AI.

Jim Griffin, his co-counsel, said that in 2021, when a lot of the DNA was tested and the blood tests were done, AI wasn't even around.

So they have eight new expert witnesses.

The judge's tell was that she said, look, I prefer this type of large courtroom.

What do you think about that?

Mm-hmm.

And it opens up discovery that he can't get in a criminal case.

So he's gonna use a lot of discovery in his civil case to see if he can uncover, through subpoena, uh, information that's relevant, uh, to his defense that this was a murder committed by others, uh, in connection with, uh, retaliation for Paul killing Mallory in the boat case.

Now, look, you know, we've waited for this evidence to come forward.

You know, if two people, you know, uh, if there were two killers, one who used a shotgun and another who used a high-powered rifle, they're the dumbest executioners I've ever seen.

I don't know any executioners that come onto a southern property in the dark of night without their own weapons, and the plan's gonna be, "I'll break into the house and I'm gonna steal the weapons of the owner, and then go kill the wife and the son." No.

Executioners bring their own guns.

Yeah

Mm-hmm.

And it opens up discovery that he can't get in a criminal case.

So he's gonna use a lot of discovery in his civil case to see if he can uncover, through subpoena, uh, information that's relevant, uh, to his defense that this was a murder committed by others, uh, in connection with, uh, retaliation for Paul killing Mallory in the boat case.

Now, look, you know, we've waited for this evidence to come forward, you know.

If two people, you know, uh, if there were two killers, one who used a shotgun and another who used a high-powered rifle, they're the dumbest executioners I've ever seen.

I don't know any executioners that come onto a southern property in the dark of night without their own weapons, and the plan's gonna be, "I'll break into the house, and I'm gonna steal the weapons of the owner and then go kill the wife and the son." No, executioners bring their own guns.

Um, but Dick is going to subpoena around the edges.

Yeah

know, who

said he was going to spend the rest of his life finding out who killed Ron and Nicole.

And it turned out he spent the rest of his life on a golf course.

So, you know, we were a little suspect of Dick saying what Mark Garagos did, that we're going to prove who the murderer is.

The defense never has to prove that.

So that was not a smart thing that I think Dick should have said.

However...

Are they going to how deep are they going to go in terms of a third party culprit? Are we going to see them literally getting to an area where they're naming names or strongly insinuating people that are identifiable? Or is it going to just be down to, well, this group over here has some animosity, so it could be any one of It'll be general.

Mm-hmm.

And it opens up discovery that he can't get in a criminal case, so he's gonna use a lot of discovery in his civil case to see if he can uncover through subpoena, uh, information that's relevant, uh, to his defense that this was a murder committed by others, uh, in connection with, uh, retaliation for Paul killing Mallory in the boat case.

Now, look, you know, we've waited for this evidence to come forward.

You know, if two people, you know, uh, if there were two killers, one who used a shotgun and another who used a high-powered rifle, they're the dumbest executioners I've ever seen.

I don't know any executioners that come onto a southern property in the dark of night without their own weapons, and the plan's gonna be, "I'll break into the house, and I'm gonna steal the weapons of the owner and then go kill the wife and the son." No.

Executioners bring their own guns.

Um, but Dick is going to subpoena Around the edges.

Yeah

That's, that's some big news

... big news.

We got Judge Debbie McClasen, who's been a, a state court judge probably for the better part of six or seven years.

Sh- a, a lot of criminal experience as a lawyer.

She was a defense lawyer.

She has tried a lot of cases.

She has probably worked with Dick Harpootlian on the defense side, where they represented co-defendants in a lot of criminal cases.

Yep

That's, that's some big news

... big news.

We got Judge Debbie McClassen, who's been a, a state court judge probably for, uh, the better part of six or seven years.

Sh- uh, a lot of criminal experience as a lawyer.

She was a defense lawyer.

She has tried a lot of cases.

She has probably worked with Dick Harpootlian on the defense side, where they represented co-defendants in a lot of criminal cases.

Yep

That is true.

After the verdict, everyone raised their hand.

And, and Tony, we don't want a system, we don't want a system where jurors can go out in the public and get infected after a trial by, uh, um, uh, people like you and people like me that go on and we, we give our commentary, and then they're subject to the scrutiny of friends and family.

"Why did you vote him guilty? What about this, and this, and this?" And then six months later they're asked, "Well, do you have any reservations about your verdict?" Well, of course.

You know, when you're salted with a lot of stuff over the ensuing six, seven months after your trial, w- you know, it's dangerous to go ask a juror then to put your head back into the, the, the jury room and say, "Were you influenced?" So-

That's, that's some big news

... big news.

We got Judge Debbie McClassen, who's been a, a state court judge probably for the better part of six or seven years.

Especially

if...

Let's be clear, though.

Becky's influence has been so overblown.

Remember, I represented six of the seated jurors.

who testified, one, that they never heard her say anything, but two, that their verdict was the product of their own deliberation on the evidence, on the testimony, on the judge's instructions.

And five other jurors said the same thing when they testified in front of Chief Justice Toll.

Is it very important that all of it, every inch of it, reaches those jurors' ears on a round two?

Uh, is it, uh, very important that all of it, every inch of it, reaches those jurors' ears on a round two?

No, I, I, I think that that would be foolish on the part of Creighton if he would disregard the, uh, clear admonition by the Supreme Court of going too far and too deep.

The question is, okay, you say it, you could put in that he stole $4.3 million from the Satterfield's, uh, estate and, and that Tony had called him seven weeks before the murders after there was an article written in the paper by my co-host, Mandy Matney, that, um, 500,000 of the 4.3 million that was stolen, um, was discovered.

So you can go into that.

You gotta go into the fact that Maggie was living at Edisto.

Alex had borrowed $750,000 from Palmetto State Bank, and she was required to guarantee that, and he asked her to come back and guarantee, sign the loan documents, and she refused.

That put a lot of pressure on him.

That's, that's some big news

you know, who

said he was going to spend the rest of his life finding out who killed Ron and Nicole.

And it turns out he spent the rest of his life on a golf course.

So, you know, we were a little suspect of Dick saying what Mark Garagos did, that we're going to prove who the murderer is.

The defense never has to prove that.

So that was not a smart thing that I think Dick should have said.

However...

I mean, do we know the answer to that question? What was what was the nexus here that somehow brought the Murdaugh name to the Smith case?

Is it very important that all of it, every inch of it reaches those jurors ears on a round two?

No, I think that that would be foolish on the part of Creighton if he would disregard the clear admonition by the Supreme Court of going too far and too deep.

The question is, OK, you say you could put in that he stole four point three million dollars from the Satterfield estate and that Tony had called him seven weeks before the murders.

after there was an article written in the paper by my co-host, Mandy Matney, that 500,000 of the 4.3 million that was stolen was discovered.

So you can go into that.

You got to go into the fact that Maggie- was living at Edisto.

Alex had borrowed $750,000 from Palmetto State Bank, and she was required to guarantee that.

I mean, do we know the answer to that question? What was what was the nexus here that somehow brought the Murdoch name to the Smith case?

Is it very important that all of it, every inch of it reaches those jurors ears on a round two?

No, I think that that would be foolish on the part of Creighton if he would disregard the clear admonition by the Supreme Court of going too far and too deep.

The question is, okay, you say you could put in that he stole $4.3 million from the Satterfield estate and that Tony had called him seven weeks before the murders, after there was an article written in the paper by my co-host, Mandy Matney, that 500,000 of the 4.3 million that was stolen was discovered.

So you can go into that.

You got to go into the fact that Maggie was living at Edisto.

Alex had borrowed $750,000 from Palmetto State Bank, and she was required to guarantee that.

And he asked her to come back and guarantee, sign the loan documents, and she refused.

I mean, do we know the answer to that question? What was what was the nexus here that somehow brought the Murdoch name to the Smith case?

I mean, do we know the answer to that question? What was what was the nexus here that somehow brought the Murdoch name to the Smith case?

It had to have been some kind of electronic discovery.

It happened in July of 2021.

The murders were obviously on June 7th of 2021.

And something happened which led to reopen the investigation.

The highway department had the file essentially from 2015 all the way through until they closed it.

And during the murder investigation, something they discovered, and Chief Keel has never told me, but I believe it was some kind of electronic evidence that either was on somebody's phone or whether it was a photo or something that caused the investigation to open.

But if people are reading the tea leaves and they're saying, well, this may come about, could that have slowed it down? I mean, again, I or are they just is it just cold? Do they have nowhere to

I mean, do we know the answer to that question? What was what was the nexus here that somehow brought the Murdoch name to the Smith case?

It had to have been some kind of electronic discovery.

It happened in July of 2021.

The murders were obviously on June 7th of 2021.

And something happened which led to reopen the investigation.

The highway department had the file essentially from 2015 all the way through until they closed it.

And during the murder investigation, something they discovered, and Chief Keel has never told me, but I believe it was some kind of electronic evidence that either was on somebody's phone or whether it was a photo or something that caused the investigation to open.

But if people are reading the tea leaves and they're saying, well, this may come about, could that have slowed it down? I mean, again, or are they just, is it just cold? Do they have nowhere to

I mean, do we know the answer to that question? What was what was the nexus here that somehow brought the Murdoch name to the Smith case?

It had to have been some kind of electronic discovery.

It happened in July of 2021.

The murders were obviously on June 7th of 2021.

And something happened which caused SLED to reopen the investigation.

The highway department had the file essentially from 2015 all the way through until they closed it.

And during the murder investigation, something they discovered, and Chief Keel has never told me, but I believe it was some kind of electronic evidence that either was on somebody's phone or whether it was a photo or something that caused the investigation to open.

And maybe more of an open invite, just in very easy to digest terms for someone out there in the ether who has knowledge that goes beyond money to inspire, because obviously 50,000 hasn't done it yet.

I mean, do we know the answer to that question? What was what was the nexus here that somehow brought the Murdoch name to the Smith case?

It had to have been some kind of electronic discovery.

It happened in July of 2021.

The murders were obviously on June 7th of 2021.

And something happened which caused SLED to reopen the investigation.

The highway department had the file essentially from 2015 all the way through until they closed it.

And during the murder investigation, something they discovered, and Chief Keel has never told me, but I believe it was some kind of electronic evidence that either was on somebody's phone or whether it was a photo or something that caused the investigation to open.

But if people are reading the tea leaves and they're saying, well, this may come about, could that have slowed it down? I mean, again, or are they just is it just cold? Do they have nowhere to

I mean, what could they have that's genuinely new in your scope of knowledge here?

Um, well, Dick said that they were going to prove who the murderer was before the first trial.

And that never happened.

It rang a lot like OJ, you know, who said he was going to spend the rest of his life finding out who killed Ron and Nicole.

And it turned out he spent the rest of his life on a golf course.

So, you know, we were a little suspect of Dick saying what Mark Garagos did, that we're going to prove who the murderer is.

The defense never has to prove that.

Are they going to how deep are they going to go in terms of a third party culprit? Are we going to see them literally getting to an area where they're naming names or strongly insinuating people that are identifiable? Or is it going to just be down to, well, this group over here has some animosity, so it could be any one of them.

you know, who

said he was going to spend the rest of his life finding out who killed Ron and Nicole.

And it turned out he spent the rest of his life on a golf course.

So, you know, we were a little suspect of Dick saying what Mark Garagos did, that we're going to prove who the murderer is.

The defense never has to prove that.

So that was not a smart thing that I think Dick should have said.

However...

Are they going to how deep are they going to go in terms of a third party culprit? Are we going to see them literally getting to an area where they're naming names or strongly insinuating people that are identifiable? Or is it going to just be down to, well, this group over here has some animosity, so it could be any one of them

I mean, what could they have that's genuinely new in your scope of knowledge here?

Well, Dick said that they were going to prove who the murderer was before the first trial, and that never happened.

OJ.

It rang a lot like OJ, you know, who said he was going to spend the rest of his life finding out who killed Ron and Nicole, and it turned out he spent the rest of his life on a golf course.

So, you know, we were a little suspect of Dick saying what Mark Garagos did, that we're going to prove who the murderer is.

The defense never has to prove that.

So that was not a smart thing that I think Dick should have said.

Are they going to how deep are they going to go in terms of a third party culprit? Are we going to see them literally getting to an area where they're naming names or strongly insinuating people that are identifiable? Or is it going to just be down to, well, this group over here has some animosity, so it could be any one of them

I mean, what could they have that's genuinely new in your scope of knowledge here?

Um, well, Dick said that they were going to prove who the murderer was before the first trial.

And that never happened.

It rang a lot like OJ, you know, who said he was going to spend the rest of his life finding out who killed Ron and Nicole.

And it turned out he spent the rest of his life on a golf course.

So, you know, we were a little suspect of Dick saying what Mark Garagos did, that we're going to prove who the murderer is.

The defense never has to prove that.

Are they going to how deep are they going to go in terms of a third party culprit? Are we going to see them literally getting to an area where they're naming names or strongly insinuating people that are identifiable? Or is it going to just be down to, well, this group over here has some animosity, so it could be any one of them

If we go into this or when we get into the second one, will there be that same sort of replay? Will there be one or two that are feeling the same way? Minus a Becky Hill to to to push her influence into it, especially if

let's be clear, though.

Yeah.

Becky's influence has been so overblown.

Remember, I represented six of the seated jurors who testified, one, that they never heard her say anything, but two, that their verdict was the product of their own deliberation on the evidence, on the testimony, on the judge's instructions.

And five other jurors said the same thing when they testified in front of Chief Justice Toll.

It was only the juror, Z, that said she vacillated back and forth.

Is it very important that all of it, every inch of it reaches those jurors ears on a round two?

If we go into this or when we get into the second one, will there be that same sort of replay? Will there be one or two that are feeling the same way? Minus a Becky Hill to to to push her influence into it, especially

if let's be clear, though.

Yeah.

Becky's influence has been so overblown.

Remember, I represented six of the seated jurors who testified, one, that they never heard her say anything, but two, that their verdict was the product of their own deliberation on the evidence, on the testimony, on the judge's instructions.

And five other jurors said the same thing when they testified in front of Chief Justice Toll.

It was only the juror, Z, that said she vacillated back and forth.

Is it very important that all of it, every inch of it reaches those jurors ears on a round two?