The trials studies, in this primetime special. Good evening everyone, i am laura coats, the Closing Argument today in the Alex MurdaughDouble Murder trial will resume tomorrow. They come after five weeks of intense, emotional, and graphic moments. As a jury of 12 in South Carolina will soon decide Alex Murdaughs face, and for the very first time today they visited the scene of the murders of maggie and paul murdoch, traveling to the families hunting property. We also got to look at the crime scene of close we have video released today. Here is how tonight is going to work. We have assembled some of the nations most prominent trial and jury veterans to analyze the key pieces of evidence. And which side may have the best argument. On the defense table, mark omara, who defended george zimmerman. Jennifer vaughan jean who defended bill cosby, and r. Kelly. And lonnie coombs, a former los angeles Criminal Prosecutor and a veteran former homicide prosecutor in brooklyn. In our makes a jury box, the neutral voices at least four tonight, richard gabriel, a Jury Consultant in many highprofile cases, including the og simpson and Casey Anthony chiles. Judge Glenda Hatchet who was the first African American chief judge of the state of georgia, and ken , who everyone from hold hogan to sarah palin. Before we begin, if you have not been following this trial we are going to give you the quick overview of just how we get here. Lets go live to right randi kaye has been following every twist and turn, randy . Laura, his all started nearly two years ago. With a Double Murder not far from this courthouse on a property known as moselle. Ever since then, it has turned into a twisted tale of greed, lies, and more lies and the state says that there is one man orchestrating all of it and that was Alex Murdaugh. [inaudible] my wife and child [inaudible]. June 7th, 2021, Alec Murdaugh says that he called 911 after finding his wife and youngest son debt other hunting property known as moselle. Did you touch maggie at all . I did. I touched them both. I mean, i try to do it as limited as possible. But i tried to take their pulse on both of them. 52yearold Maggie Murdoch has been shot four or five times with a black out rifle. Paul murdoch has been shot twice with a shotgun. ,. Horrendous. Horrible. But during. Both were murdered near the dog kennels on the familys property, not far from the main house where Alex Murdaugh said he was not being at the time. That was a lie. Was that you on the Cannelville Eo at 8 44 pm on june 7th the night that maggie and paul were murdered . It is. He was backed into the corner. Investigators found this video on his cell phone after his death. It was recorded at 8 44 pm just a few minutes before prosecutor say that the murders occurred. Alex murdaugh can be heard talking in the background. I was nowhere near paul and maggie when they got shot. Despite his denials, prosecutors say that murdaugh killed them from distracting from his financial schemes that were coming to light. He was conflicted about missing funds and his law firm, and his personal finances were about to be exposed at an Upcoming Court hearing. There are plenty of times where i took money that i should not have taken. Murdaughs defense team pushed back on the alleged motive in this defense witness told the jury that after analyzing peoples trajectory he determines that someone much shorter than Alex Murdaugh who is about 65 likely was responsible for killing his wife. It puts the shooter or whoever fired the weapon, if they were that tall, it puts them in an unrealistic shooting position. Now you have been up to speed. I want to go right to the evidence. It comes down to two things that every single prosecutor has to contend with. We are talking motive, and opportunity. And without direct evidence, or eyewitnesses, or even the weapons themselves, the prosecution is going to have to prove the latter. Opportunity, better known as time. Lets focus first on the timeline. The prosecution is laid out and the big question, did murdaugh has time to commit murder, get rid of the guns, clean himself up, leave, and return in about an hour and 17 minutes . Or, is there reasonable doubt . Lets drill down on that key kennel video that was mentioned. I want to turn to the prosecution first because listen, he is emitting now that he is on the Scene Of The Crime, moments before the murders. Is that enough . With Everything Else, yes. It is not cell phone that is the cornerstone of the prosecutions case. Paul gave an investigator, and the prosecution the exact tools they needed to figure out who it was that killed maggie, and paul, and it was his father, his wife, and he can get away from it when you put all of the pieces together. You cant get away in the sense of this, you are playing devils advocate, but look, it shows it in the kennel. I dont see direct evidence of the murder yet. What do you think . There is no direct evidence of the murder whatsoever. This case, as we all know, is a substantial evidence case. The prosecution has got to do away with, to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. That there is someone else who may have done it and quite honestly, without that type of direct evidence i think that it is a very questionable case that 12 people are going to say without question we have no doubt that he did it. But he did a disservice here, which is your point as well, why did he lie . You could have said it at anytime, anytime in the last two years, i was at the kettles. When it comes in witness after witness, suddenly it is like i was there. Absolutely. I think this video is the most important piece of evidence. Because it explodes the big lie. Im not talking about the hundreds of lies that he told in the past im talking about the big lie, his alibi, where he said that i was not there are the crime scene, i was at the house taking a nap. He told this from the first moment he called 911 to the first responder, to the first interview with Law Enforcement on night to do more interviews with Law Enforcement, to all of his family members, to friends to everyone. Until as you said, this video came up and in court, witness after witness came in and said that is him on that video. So that explains, it blows that up. And now we have to explain, why did he tell that lie . If his family has just been murdered, and he wants to help Law Enforcement find the real killer, he knows that telling them the last time that he saw them was a critical piece of evidence. He lied, why . Because he knows when the time of death is because he wasnt there. That is why he went through so much lengths to make his alibi the ally is the crown jewel of the prosecution. However, it does not provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Because people lie in circumstances like this all the time. I represented plenty of people, factually innocent, who have told them lies because in the moment the stress, the how does this look, do i look like i might be guilty, i know i am not guilty, and it is an instinctive lie. It is true it creates a problem because there are so many lies that have to throw from it. But i think that the video also raises interesting questions like what happened in those few minutes . You have a seemingly normal video, this kennel video, there does not seem to be anyone in distress. Versus does not seem to be yelling, anything unusual. And then all of a sudden this horrendous crime happens, what happened . As much as the prosecution wants to say that this is a mastermind, this was not a very well thought out crime. If in fact, you are saying he calculated this, it was a big scheme to deflect from all of these financial crimes. So i think that the defense could use the video to their advantage although i believe it started off as a big problem. This is not a direct evidence case, but i think there is so much stronger. Because of the, and the puzzle has to show one face, and one face, alone and here it is. Alex murdaugh, yeah, people live for innocent reasons. That is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But when you couple it with all of these small evidence, every different thing that happened, all the lies, this is a tsunami about to hit this man to rip apart this legacy that his family has been the meaning of there being in the area for years. And you look at the fact, the motive, means, opportunity, every small piece, large piece, in that case the lies coupled together with the other pieces i think the jury sees what the prosecution has been putting together, can overcome that extremely high burden as it should be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is an enormous stretch to say that i will steal from people but not to cover up that ice toll from people, or my opiate addiction, whatever, i will kill my son, and i will kill my wife. That is such a stretch. If the states case was so strong, circumstantial as it, is why the big focus on the finances . Why the big focus on the try . Why try to convict him for that which he is not being prosecuted for in front of the jury . It is because they do not have a strong case on the actual murders. I want to hear your point but i also want to hear how this is landing. Because this has been a really big question for so many. Not only the idea of motive and opportunity but the idea of the big lie. Lets hear from our fact finders and of course, you are not here to decide guilt or innocence, you are not the actual jurors in this case. But i want to lean on your neutrality nonetheless. Tell me, who do you think has a stronger argument, is that a justifiable lie or is it that he lied, therefore he killed . Can i just say two things . Because we are all lawyers. And i just want to make sure that we remember that the people who are viewing this typically are not. So i want to do two things quickly, it one is the point about reasonable doubt. It doesnt mean that you have to prove beyond any doubt, it means that you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And secondly the prosecution under the law is not required to outline or prove the motive. I just want to frame that as we are talking about that. Having said that, i think the fact that he waited until there was testimony, in this courtroom, for multiple people. And then said yes, i was there, and i was paranoid. Really, i think that the credibility has a gap, and once you have that Credibility Gap i think that it also can take your other testimony. Whether you are credible or not. Think about that as we are having this conversation. What about to you . I think you hit on an important point here. Juries make decisions in a different way than what lawyers and judges do. They have an interesting way of saying that it is not really about the evidence. For them, it is about the story. What are they putting together . They may think okay, he has the means, he has the opportunity, it is really the why. It is how they constructed it. What is going through his head . A lot of times, i think that a lot of attorneys here know that trial sometimes is about rational explanations for rational behavior. They are trying to figure out the explanation of this. They are trying to construct their own either reasonable doubt, because the real issue for a jury is what they want to believe, and that is do they want to believe that he is guilty, and that actually happens much earlier in the case. It sometimes happens as early as Jury Selection where they go look at this guy, and then they go i dont know about the murdochs. And i dont like them. I will put on one more piece of evidence because you talked about the idea of constructing. And mind you, this is a team that wants the jury in front of the people who might say i know murdaugh let me point this out to you guys, because i want to point out what has been happening in terms of what the prosecution has been saying about the movement. We know he was at the Scene Of The Crime because he said it, he admitted to it. The question is, what was he doing in between the time that he was at the kennel, and called the police . Listen to this. Cell phone data, filling the gaps in a case with dramatically little physical evidence. State investigators piece together a detailed timeline of events using cellular and gps data. There are 4820 data points that make up these lines here. Prosecutors pointed out that Alex Murdaugh, who is more active at the time of the murders that at any point that night. 283 steps, he was a busy guy. And he tried to indicate that murdaugh disposed of his wifes phone using data to show that he drove by slowly where it was later found. After passing that location, the vehicle started to accelerate. They wanted to show that their phones were never together tonight and that her phone did not appear to be motion activated at the time that the state suggested that Alec Murdaugh tossed it out of his moving car. At that time the screen never came on. That is correct, they indicated it was off. They talked about 4000 data points, how about nine . The idea that the points in time, his phone records, what it really means, think about the volume of information that a jury as the judge points out, they are not used to doing this all day long. They do not live, eat, and breathe the case. How is it playing to have so many different points, and then coming down to the Cell Phone Timeline . It is terribly difficult for me to be neutral. I am hearing so many things that i like, and when you piece them all together, i dont think that jurors sit there and concentrate on 283 steps. I think they concentrate on a story. That story has got to be authentic. When i want to stop doing this, authentic means the facts with the bad ones and the good ones. Being able to tell a story that will make sense to people in a way that you can win your case. If you cant win the, case you should not i dont think of the steps, all of that, there are 1 million ways. These phones and how they track your steps, i dont think that is what this breaks down. I dont think they put him on the stand until the take comes up and. They know he is there. Hes got to explain this away and i will tell you this, when i first started looking at this, and what they dont know theyre in tv land is that we do not courtney dislodged. We all looked at this, and when i first looked at the motive jumped out at me because there was no authenticity to the story, it does not make sense that a guy is going to murder his wife and his son to distract from a financial crimes investigation. I mean, this guy is a lawyer, he would take the hit on the financial crimes. It is a much more defensible scenario than this. Im hearing all of this murmuring, youre talking about, it i want to go here because i hear you talk about it. I will talk about your point, as the Prosecution Team and the defense, talk to me about this. Because what is jumping out, in theory, is emotive issue. It was in the middle of all of this, and the idea of the minutiae, the devil being in the details, but is the devil in the details helpful to this case . I think it is, because this is someone who is a true narcissist. Who puts his interest above everyones, his son, his wife, look who he was stealing, from his housekeepers family, people who had almost nothing. He was willing to take it all the way for his own personal gain. And you know what can testing about these steps, i absolutely agree. However look at that, i wish that i could do 283 steps every few minutes of my day. We would all be in a lot better shape. This is a man who says that he had taken a nap, and that has gone to see his ailing mother. That is not 283 step. That becomes part of a cohesive story, which is that this is someone who has thought this out, who has decided in his warped mind that this is the way to get out from under, so he is putting his plan in action. I agree with jennifer, it is not a great plan, but the most mastermind it is why people are convicted, and in the end of the day we will keep it down everyone for a moment, i want to talk about this issue. It is hard not to get riled up with these arguments, and what is going on. She saying that this is all the concocted alibi. If the Motive Evidence is so loud, the prosecution does not have to prove motive but it is the one thing that juries really want to hear. They really want to know why. And this motive makes no sense. Let me get this straight, i have this House Of Cards ready to tumble down all of these financial crimes. Let me throw a Double Homicide on. That will fix everything. It makes zero sense. And why two . You could kill one person and have the same effect if you really want to just it doesnt make sense. I think that it is the weakest point, and yet still, the most important point, notwithstanding the prosecution doesnt have to prove it. I agree, even as the trial unfolded just from the opening statements, when he laid out that the motive for the Double Murder of your wife and son was to distract, nobody is going to buy that. You dont just have a horrific, violent murder and that is where the defense got up and described the brain going up, and eventually you are like no, theres no way that he could have done that. However, as this case unfolded, i agree that the prosecution spent way too much time on the financial crimes. The details were important because they could talk about how he was so cold about stealing from friends who are dying and taking their money and saying im sorry you are doing so poorly, but in the Closing Argument, he expanded the motive. He said that it wasnt just the financial thing, it was the familys legacy. And that is one thing that came out very clear. His legacy that goes back 100 years, it is the most important thing for him. His prominence in the community, all of it was tied in with what was going on on the financial side that was being covered up and it