00:00:06
Speaker 1: Amy Roboc and TJ.
00:00:07
Speaker 2: Holmes present Killer Thriller with your host Elisa Donovan.
00:00:15
Speaker 3: Hey, everyone, Elisa Donovan here, and this is Killer Thriller. For years, the Alec Murdoch case has felt less like one crime story and more like a Southern Gothic nightmare.
00:00:27
Speaker 1: A powerful legal dynasty, financial.
00:00:29
Speaker 3: Fraud, addiction, mysterious deaths, a fatal boat crash, a staged roadside shooting, and ultimately, the shocking murders of Maggie and Paul Murdoch at the family's hunting estate in South Carolina. In twenty twenty three, Alec Murdoch was convicted of murdering his wife and son and sentenced to life in prison. But now, in a stunning twist, the South Carolina Supreme Court has overturned those murder convictions, ruling that former Colton County Clerk of Court, Becky Hill, improperly influenced the jury and denied Murdock a fair trial. At the same time, journalist and podcaster Mandy Mattney has been pulled into a separate contempt fight connected to a deposition dispute. Today, Mandy returns to Killer Thriller to help us break down the latest bombshell developments and one of the most complicated and bizarre.
00:01:28
Speaker 1: True crime sagas in America. Oh, Mandy, welcome back to Killer Thriller.
00:01:33
Speaker 2: Thank you.
00:01:35
Speaker 3: I let me just say first of all, when you know you are our very first guests on this podcast, you and Liz, and when I said we are going to have you back, and we all said yay, I in no way, shape or form thought this would be the circumstances under which you would be back here.
00:01:55
Speaker 1: So, I mean, we have a lot to cover here.
00:01:58
Speaker 3: But first, when nah Alec Murdoch's murder conviction was overturned, what was your immediate reaction?
00:02:06
Speaker 2: Well, I knew about it a few weeks ago. We had so I did, and we reported it on our podcast Through Sunlight a few weeks ago. Our sources were always good and they still are. Just have to say that. But so I at least had like a couple of weeks to kind of come to terms with it and like feel uh, you know, let the emotions go through the motions of the whole thing. And so when it happened, I was not shocked. Was I angry though, yes, And was like reality hitting me that this story that I feel like I've been trapped in or like I I'm sure on the last podcast we discussed like I was really ready to break free. I thought the whou was like a book, and a nice bookend of that part of my story and that part of my life. And so it's just been coming to terms with like we're opening up all those chapters again and nothing is ever over.
00:03:14
Speaker 1: I mean, I can't imagine.
00:03:17
Speaker 3: Yeah, I can't imagine how you feel because I feel that way from it, outside of it, Like it just keeps.
00:03:22
Speaker 1: This is like yet another turn with this whole saga.
00:03:29
Speaker 3: And I mean, did you really did you initially think when he was convicted that this was a possibility that they would control.
00:03:36
Speaker 2: Honestly, I really didn't, and I have I haven't been asked that question. And I really thought that everything was so solid in the trial. I mean, the trial was six weeks long, it was very extensive. Creighton Waters did a fantastic job, and I thought Judge Newman did a fantastic job. This doesn't happen often, but at that point I was proud of the South Carolina justice system and I was really thought everything was solid. I was I expected Alex's attorneys Dick and Jim to find something wrong with it, right. They They are very expensive, well resourced attorneys that can turn over every single leaf in a trial, and they have that money in time to do so. I saw this coming from when the Supreme Court had their hearing in February, and I could tell the justices were all on his side. And that is when I really like knew that it was a possibility. Knew that it was a big possibility. And there was just moments where they were almost helping him in that hearing, and it was just kind of weird. There was a moment where one of the Supreme Court justices called him Elick like by his first name instead of the defendant or mister murder Like. I was worrying to him as his buddy elc and I was just like this word, Oh my god, we're screwed.
00:05:08
Speaker 3: So this whole thing they they didn't just so this is regarding Becky Hill. The first of all, how unusual is this for a court clerk to have any influence over a jury at all? And they use very strong language and Supreme Court saying things like shocking jury interference and she quote placed her fingers on the scale of Justice.
00:05:32
Speaker 2: Yeah, so what are they talking about, Oh, the Becky Hills story. So yes, all of this is extremely unusual and it all goes back to Becky's book coming out in I believe July of twenty twenty three, So a couple months after the murder, after Alex Murdoch was convicted, the clerk of court came out with a tell all book about the trial, like that it does not happen, is not And that's like where all problems kind of start to bubble up. And I really would like to know at this point who encouraged her to write this book, because this book obviously made her an easy target that like, this lady does not follow the rules. There was somebody who compete unethical in this trial, and so it gave Dick and Jim permission, those are the attorneys to dig into everybody in the jury, and they went to they knocked on the doors of their houses and asked, like, did Becky influence you in any way, shape or form, And all of them except for one said no. They said, I came up with my verdict on my own because of the evidence. Becky had nothing to do with it. Like they said, yeah, she was a little weird and like, yeah, she had like decorations and things, like.
00:06:58
Speaker 1: She she decorated her desk.
00:07:00
Speaker 2: Right, and like she obviously used this case as like she thought it was like her ticket out, you know, or like her ticket to money and fame, and like she thought that she she's a very she's a small town clerk of court and had never seen anything or the publicly right, so public or the college in County has never gotten our most cases never get like a fraction of the attention that the Murdock case got, you know, So she felt important for several months there where like journalists were bub buddying up to her trying to get the scoop. Like she felt like she had power of like who has press passes and who doesn't in the case, and like she was definitely power hunger like and I saw that too, Like Liz and I joked at the during the trial, Becky was like using press passes like backstage passes. We called her backstage. We called her backstage Becky because she was like, oh my god, one like she was using it.
00:08:08
Speaker 1: This seems absurd. That's like a circus, is she?
00:08:13
Speaker 3: I Just like I'm struck that you could even I mean, I'm not surprised she could get a book deal. I feel like anybody that thinks I can sell something, but it seems illegal because she is she allowed.
00:08:23
Speaker 2: To do any of those things, so right, and she went to the South Carolina Ethics Commission. And this also goes back to the fact that, like we have very very weak rules when it comes to ethics in South Carolina, and Becky is a part of a system where everybody is so used to bending the rules and getting away with it, Like Becky is not the first clerk of court to be inappropriate or break the rules or been the rules by all means, like this is a whole system well constantly. I mean, Becky did it in a very very stupid and public way. But so she is accused of like like you said, the justices really came down hard on her and said she had a finger on the scales of justice in this case. But at the same time, she was criminally charged with a few things, but never jury tampering, and she was she was never convicted of jury tampering. So that's like really important to know and still to this day, like besides one juror who flip flopped back and forth, and like again, she only said that her jur her verdict was interfered with after Dick and Jim came knocking on her door and asking her to sign an affidavit and asking her, you know, like and so you have this one juror that said like a yeah, maybe Becky did say something weird, or like maybe yeah, Becky did influence me, you know, and then she went back and forth. So all of this is because of that. But there was never anything like incredibly solid, and this is important to know, there's never any thing like incredibly solid that they ever pinned down that she actually tampered with the jury or influenced the verdict at any point. And also the jury all swore, after swore to Judge Newman after they rendered their verdict, that they were that they came to that conclusion on their own, like they all and that So what I'm worried about at this point, And sorry, I don't even know what the question was.
00:10:28
Speaker 1: I'm like, you're answering it, you're answering it.
00:10:31
Speaker 2: But like, my what my concern is is what does this tell other defense attorneys who have like lots of money once they get a jury verdict that they do not agree with that they can just go knocking on jurors doors. And right, that is the problem, you know, like there's there's something really important. I've talked to lawyers about this. So with the finality of a verdict, you know, like.
00:10:57
Speaker 3: That's what our legal system is for, that's what they say, and if you want to change it, then you have to, you know, have a neutrial, Like I just it seems crazy to me the night.
00:11:07
Speaker 1: It's like co very, coercive.
00:11:09
Speaker 2: It does. And like, yes, Becky was dumb and like her book was stupid, like she she did she asked the South Carolina f ex Commission, like can I write this book? And they basically said, like we advise against it, but like don't do X, Y and Z. And she broke all the role, like she did everything with people, like she was just in it. You could see it so clearly. I've gone through our emails. I've gone through like I have unfortunately dug way into Becky Hill and like is she you see just this small town clerk accurt who got a little bit of power and got a little bit of fame, and like she went on the Today Show right after the verdict with the jurors and that was her first time that she had ever been on a plane.
00:11:58
Speaker 1: Oh wow.
00:12:00
Speaker 2: So like think about how small world was and.
00:12:03
Speaker 1: How like, yeah, how exciting that all was right, and how.
00:12:08
Speaker 2: It's it could be easy to get swept up and think like, this is my chance. I got to write a book and I got to do all of these things. And who knows who was pressuring her to to like appear to be super unethical, because.
00:12:23
Speaker 1: Well, right, that's what I was going to ask, is that.
00:12:25
Speaker 3: I mean, I suppose there's no way to nobody will ever admit it. But it feels like where Alex's attorney's going, you know, paying her off or something. I mean, it just seems like so possible, the whole thing.
00:12:39
Speaker 2: It's it's just very shocking, but not shocking because all along on the Murdoch Martyrs podcast, we've said two systems of justice, right, and like it was all shocking to us that he was convicted to begin with, just because of our system in the way that it is. And so yeah, I really did not foresee an appeal, especially this quickly. I always thought appeals took a lot. I mean, I guess we're three years out.
00:13:09
Speaker 1: Yeah further.
00:13:10
Speaker 3: So okay, So now that they have been overturned the murder convictions, what happens next procedurally.
00:13:16
Speaker 2: That's a great question. So Attorney General Alan Wilson has said he's going to retry the case. He does not have to recharge him because it does not charge it does not like take the charges away. But and he also has said that the death penalty is now on the table. But there's also background here at Attorney General Alan Wilson, who's the like in charge of the prosecution on the case, he is running for governor right now, so that makes a different that makes a different factor, right. He is obviously motivated to puff's chest up and say things like I'm going going to go for the death penalty, and I'm gonna we want to get this done as soon as possible, and we want to get this done this year, is what he has said. But will day, I don't know. So procedurally, I am not sure what happens next, to be honest with you, but I'll tell you this. Right before we got on the phone, right before we started talking, Alex's attorneys filed a lawsuit against Becky Hill on behalf of Alex Murdoch. So now we have a federal lawsuit and it just keeps coming.
00:14:39
Speaker 1: Oh my god, do you think so.
00:14:45
Speaker 3: Right, I'm going to say that the prosecutors they wanted as aggressively this time as the last problem, I would think more so.
00:14:52
Speaker 2: No, Yeah, I mean I do think that the one thing that's good about Alan Wilson running for governor is that he is motivated to please the people, and I think he will be motivated to get this done quickly and correctly.
00:15:07
Speaker 3: So do you think that people are emotionally separating two ideas right now that like Alec probably did it versus he may not have received a fair trial. Like I'm always curious about those things, like this is where that justice part is? So yeah, murky to me.
00:15:28
Speaker 2: I was talking to a podcast from Ireland the other day about this too, because I wrestled with that question as well, Like what is a fair trial? It's the right person is behind bars, and most of us believe that the right person is behind bars and isn't that what our justice system aims for the Other thing that I can't really that I wrestle with and that I can't really fully conclude, is like I don't think that this. People love to say, like two things can exist at once. He can be guilty, but he deserves a fair trial. But it's not like this betters everybody in the system. It's not right. It's not like every black person that is that would have the exact same argument would get the same outcome. It is not like a poor white person would get the same outcome. It's Alex Murdock is somebody with a lot of power and a lot of sway, and that is a huge part of this outcome. So, like, yes, was Becky inappropriate? Yes, does that necessarily mean that he did not get a fair trial? I just can't really, I can't come to that conclusion because I believe in my art and soul that he did it, and I believe that we have seen the evidence. And I'm also a South Carolina tax fair I don't want to pay for another trial.
00:16:55
Speaker 3: Yes, I mean the amount of time and energy and emotional strife and try all of that, But the actual financial burden that this puts on this day, it's outrageous.
00:17:09
Speaker 2: Yeah. Right, And then like you said, I do think, I do think for the most part of majority people are saying, Okay, the Supreme Court said what they said, and maybe he does deserve a new trial, or he does deserve a new trial, but I still believe that he's guilty. I'm seeing a lot of that, But I am also seeing a lot arise in the comments of like, but did he do it? Which is which is hard. I think we haven't seen any more evidence, Like there has not been a shred of evidence since he was convicted showing us that he was innocent, or showing us that another person did it, or pointing us to any other direction. There's not There has been nothing new in all of us, and I feel like that's another like solid point to get across. This does not mean that he presented any new evidence, because he definitely didn't.
00:18:03
Speaker 3: I mean, the the kennel video, the confession lie, thing like that. That's such a defining piece of the first trial. And they can still, well they use that again. They can use all of the same things, right they Nothing is sort of exempt.
00:18:19
Speaker 1: It's just they just have to have a new trial.
00:18:22
Speaker 2: So unfortunately, the Supreme Court in their ruling said A, we're giving you a new trial because of Becky, but b we believed that too much of the financial crimes was allowed in what.
00:18:37
Speaker 1: Yeah, isn't that part of the motive. That's part of goes to motive.
00:18:42
Speaker 2: It goes directly to motive. And what I was talking to my co host of Cove of Justice about a long time South Carolina attorney, great attorney Eric Bland, who he and I uncover the financial crimes together. He was like, this, put this what the Supreme Court laid out, and their ruling puts the next judge in a really really tough position to allow any financial crimes in because then it's immediately appealable.
00:19:11
Speaker 1: Oh my god, yeah.
00:19:13
Speaker 2: And it's in my god of it because like it's like you said, anyone who was paying attention understands how it's not a far leap from the financial crimes to the motive. You see the gathering storm, You see all the pressure that he was facing in his life, and that like his law firm was coming down on him that day and he was being caught.
00:19:36
Speaker 1: How can that not be allowed?
00:19:38
Speaker 2: Why? And what? And it was weird the way that they put it. They didn't they didn't necessarily say like, they didn't say it's not allowed, but they said you went too far and too hard on the financial crimes, and an example of that, which I thought was really weird was Tony Sadderfield's testimony, and he was it was the only financial victim who testified.
00:20:04
Speaker 1: He's the son correct of Gloria, and Gloria Sadden was.
00:20:07
Speaker 3: Supposed to receive the money from the uh ALEC when he did the reverse is another like.
00:20:17
Speaker 2: It's okay, it's okay to explain that quickly.
00:20:20
Speaker 1: I know it is, but I can't explain it.
00:20:22
Speaker 2: You're doing a great job and it's really difficult, and like, I've had to review so many things in the last couple of weeks, so I'm like, what did happen there?
00:20:29
Speaker 3: No?
00:20:31
Speaker 1: So uh.
00:20:33
Speaker 2: Tony Saderfield is the son of Gloria Sadderfield and Gloria Sadderfield was the housekeeper and nanny, and a lot of people close to the Murdochs really credit Gloria for raising the children, like she was a huge part of both Bustering and Paul's lives. She was a part of the Murdochs family, and Tony also considered Alex Murdoch like a father figure, like somebody who he really looked up to. So Gloria unfortunately died after allegedly falling on the Murdoch's property, and that's a whole nother thing that has never been completely there's no closed loops on that. But what we do know is that Alex took that as an opportunity to steal from her family, and he went to Gloria's sons at the funeral and said, hey, look we can get you money. Here's my buddy, Corey Fleming. He's going to be your lawyer, and you guys are going to assume me.
00:21:35
Speaker 1: Because I'm such a stand up guy.
00:21:37
Speaker 2: Because I'm such a stand up guy, and they were, you know, confused, but also Alex, it's Alex Murdoch saying that like his father, his father, grandfather, and great grandfather were all prosecutors of that area. So the like the I don't question Tony of like he was probably like, Okay, that's weird, but that's fine. Sure, he did not get any of that money. They settled for over four million dollars against Alex Murdoch's insurance company, and Alex took the money. Also, Tony was questioned because I had written an article that Tony had seen that had been his only awareness of the settlement existing. He had no idea. Alex kept telling him, hey, buddy, like, if we're not getting there, like nothing's happening, don't worry about it. I'll I'll tell you about it when it's settled. And then he reads in the newspaper for my article, and so he starts asking Alex questions in the spring of twenty twenty one, like, hey, like, I read that there's this this five hundred thousand dollars settlement, which is just a part of it. And what really gets me is that he could have just given them like ten thousand dollars or like give him something, just a little part of it, and they would have been over the moon. Like these were boys working really, really hard. Gloria's Sun got kicked out of his home during this time because he couldn't afford to live there, Like they were struggling so any ounce of money. But he was so incredibly greedy and so incredibly short sighted that he didn't give them a single dime. And so for the Supreme Court.
00:23:26
Speaker 3: It's so despicable, it's almost it's it's unfathomable.
00:23:31
Speaker 2: So for the Supreme Court right to say, like that was way too much, you wed like hearing from that guy that was over the top, and it just feels like a slap in the face to the victims. It feels like they don't care about the what it speaks to the motive and what it like. Tony Sanderfield is also like an example of like how despicable Alex Murdoch can be. He looked this, He looked this young man in the eyes who had just lost his mother and said, I got you, don't worry, and then he stole from him.
00:24:20
Speaker 3: How difficult is it do you think to see an impartial jury now that this case has become so globally famous and people have such big feelings about it.
00:24:32
Speaker 2: You know, it's it's really it's literally. First of all, it's impossible to seat a jury that is not aware of this case, at least a jury. I'm sorry, but like, if you have a sane mind in the state of South Carolina you've heard of from are not case and like and unless you're like real weird living and like do we want those people as you're like living under our literal rock. No, So like people that have already built their opinions and had are aware of the case. That's I don't think we can go anywhere in the United States without that, maybe even like a good portion of the world, that would be difficult. But can we get an impartial jury, a jury that's able to look at the facts and decide again if there's enough evidence to convict him of double homicide, which is what this case comes down to. I think that that's possible. I mean, but I also feel like nowadays that's something that we have to discuss with our jury system of like people have heard, the true crime has evolved so much. People are so much more involved in cases and know so much more. Do we really want jurors who have never heard of cases and do that?
00:25:53
Speaker 3: Don't We all have, you know, minds that are that can process a lot of information and be influenced by like that sort of the you can't you have to come to the table with some sort of you know, opinions and moral work for things. And it doesn't mean you can't be you should be influenced by what happens. It's a confusing I don't know, it feels very unm you know, imperfect to say the least.
00:26:24
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, and that, But I do think, like you said, and we need to think of like jurors do have the ability to think of their opinions separate from them, separate their opinions from what they're seeing in court and the evidence, and decide from that. And I also do think that the jurors didn't do that in this case. I think that there was. I think that it's the jury tampering that the Supreme Court is making out is acting like happened existed. I think one of the jurors would have said something before Dick and Jim came knocking on their doors asking, you know, like, I think something would have came out before the book. I think that something would have come up if she was truly being this like out of control.
00:27:14
Speaker 3: We have to convict him, right, I Mean, it also just seems so illogical that she could be in the courtroom like.
00:27:21
Speaker 1: PST, don't listen to the evidence. I mean, it's just like ludicrous.
00:27:27
Speaker 2: Right, and that they wouldn't. And I also I feel bad for those chruers, like they they gave up six weeks of their lives and came to a decision and it's just kind of insulting for them and for I feel like Judge Newman did a really great job and it's unfortunate that this is reversed and he he's retired now, so he's not going to come back, and so that's another thing that's going to happen, and a new judge and that's going to make a I think that's I think this time is going to be very, very different.
00:28:00
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:28:01
Speaker 3: So one of the things that you get into in your podcast is the fear that this could retraumatize everyone who's connected to the case all over again. And you've spent obviously years talking to people that are connected to this story.
00:28:16
Speaker 1: So do you feel that people.
00:28:18
Speaker 3: In South Carolina are emotionally exhausted by this whole case?
00:28:23
Speaker 2: Yeah? I do. I think that I think that they take comfort in the fact that he's not getting out of prison for the next few decades, because he should die in prison just for the financial crimes alone, right, Yeah, which like ninety.
00:28:39
Speaker 3: Make that clear that he isn't he won't be released from prison because of this.
00:28:43
Speaker 2: He's still and that's a huge part to discuss with the process. He is, like he has twenty seven years in state prison for his financial crimes, in forty years in federal prison for his federal financial crimes. Like that's a pretty solid he can't be behind bars forever. So I think they do take comfort in that. I do, but I also think, yeah, they're exhausted by it. And yeah, most people think that he's guilty, so they're like, why are we doing why are we doing this?
00:29:18
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that's what I was just going to ask. Are we over this?
00:29:21
Speaker 2: Like, yeah, aren't we over this? And again if this was if this was a situation, I would feel a whole lot differently about it if there was new evidence, Like I also see datelines in twenty twenties of like people who do deserve to get a new trial because of various reasons and don't get it across the country, not just in South Carolina. But I mean, I have no idea how many people innocent people are in prison in our system. But as we were talking about, like, we know it's not perfect, and we know I know that the there's a lot more people that deserve another trial, more so than Alex. Like I've seen cases where like DNA has basically exonerated a person and it still takes years for them to get a new trial.
00:30:16
Speaker 1: Yep, if they do, it's so upsetting to me.
00:30:23
Speaker 2: It's just really really upsetting.
00:30:27
Speaker 3: So before we get into the contempt hearing that you are currently involved in, which also outrages me, one thing that you know that people forget is how quickly alec He started unraveling publicly after the murders. There were the financial theft allegations, the roadside shooting, the opioid addiction claims.
00:30:53
Speaker 1: So how much of this case do you think.
00:30:56
Speaker 3: Is really just about privilege and power protecting people for decades, all of it.
00:31:02
Speaker 2: I mean, I think that it's really impossible to talk about this case in a responsible way that helps people understand what's going on without talking about power and privilege. I mean, this man, his family was the law in South Carolina, and we can't like get past we can't like I remember, we covered stories on the murderch Murders podcast of like his father, his father got him out of everything that he ever did, and he would so many people would tell me. He would joke, like, my daddy's a solicitor, I can do whatever I want, and like my family is the law in South Carolina. Sorry for my bad accent. I'm not trying to insult Southern people. Just Alex Murdoch. By the way, but like, yeah, it's a when it come. When you really look at this case and everything about it and why people so fascinated by it, I think it's a man that was given so much power and privilege his entire life and believed that he could get away with anything, and he's still doing that. Like I still think that he believes that he's going to wiggle his way out of all of this.
00:32:17
Speaker 1: Right, he's quite literally above the law, just right.
00:32:21
Speaker 2: But the system has created that monster. It's not like it came out of nowhere.
00:32:27
Speaker 4: Yeah.
00:32:42
Speaker 3: Do you think that all this media attention ultimately helped to expose corruption in South Carolina or did it just create chaos around the trial?
00:32:54
Speaker 2: I think it helped expose it. I think at the end of the day, I think that again, our prosecution did the best that they possibly could have done, and what happened with Becky was not their fault at all. I think that they because the eyes in the world of the world were on them, they really really cared to do a great job. And yeah, I mean I think that it does help, but it's also really frustrating when you uncover corruption and you show everybody and then like people in California are outraged, and people in Wisconsin are outraged, and people in Italy are outraged. But it's still like I need the people, the few people in power in this state to see it, you know, like it does help. But at the same time, it gets so frustrating when we're all like we see it, don't you see it? It's so messed up. I mean, like, what have you heard with it? Like what has you been like as you have seen in the last week the reaction to the case. What have you seen?
00:34:09
Speaker 1: I mean everyone is outraged.
00:34:11
Speaker 3: I mean the amount of people that are sending me all the articles like did.
00:34:15
Speaker 1: You see this? Did you see this kid? You believe it?
00:34:17
Speaker 3: You know? Uh yeah, I mean everyone thinks that he's guilty and it's ridiculous, Like that's what that's generally what the feeling is. And then a fascination again because here we go again, here is yet one more tributary, and this whole thing that is just gonna it just keeps. It's like it has more and more tentacles, this whole family. And I think anytime I went back and watched one of the documentaries and I was like, God, it's just.
00:34:52
Speaker 1: It's all right there, it's all right there. He basically says it in court on the stand. You know, they he's guilty. It's just like it's uh, it's kind of unreal. Yeah. Yes, that's a long witted way of saying.
00:35:09
Speaker 3: Everyone that I have ever spoken to about this things, he's guilty.
00:35:14
Speaker 2: Right, And like it's funny because they say one thing to me, right, and like what I see and com I try to limit myself and not get too crazy with looking through Facebook comments, but it's the same thing when I've what I've seen, Like I think that overwhelmingly people see it, and we all saw it in the trial. And like you said, like during the trial, first of all, he testified, which is supposed to decrease your chances of getting an appeal. It's supposed to like when you testified. I mean, I'm probably saying it wrong for lawyers will probably correct me. But I remember my lawyer friends were saying at the time, like basically, because when you when you testify, like you're rolling a big, big dice, and you are, you're also convincing, like you're also giving a lot of wiggle room for the jury to say, I believe what he did. I believe he did it because of what you said, which is what happened, Like a lot of them said. His testimony convinced me his testimony in the kennel video, because it all comes down to, like he could not explain why he was there at the kennels right before they were murdered, and then lied about it about.
00:36:36
Speaker 1: You how, I mean, yeah, I don't know, how do you.
00:36:43
Speaker 2: Get past that? And like it's it's also I guess that's reassuring for whatever happens with the new trial if nothing about if for some reason, nothing about like the motive is allowed in I mean, you still have that, and that's pretty damning and hard to get past of, like why were you there? What do you know? Why did you lie about it?
00:37:09
Speaker 1: And also that there's no other evidence.
00:37:11
Speaker 3: They've never presented someone exactly some other reason, right.
00:37:16
Speaker 2: Another theory, right, I mean, before trial, it was a big question if they were going to blame like drug dealers or like the cartel. You know, that was a big rumor, Yeah, blame the cartel, And I was kind of surprised that they didn't. They still have never offered anything like that because even that like makes it and I don't believe that, but like it makes a lot more sense than you have this guy who was there right before they were murdered, and there's evidence showing that he's right there, and he claims that he like ran into his house and took a nap while they were while his family and.
00:37:56
Speaker 1: Then like put the clothes out.
00:37:58
Speaker 3: There were so many weird, right tales of the case that you're like, this makes no sense.
00:38:04
Speaker 2: Right and unless you's house and at nine o'clock at night, like and was going seventy miles an hour on a country like there's all these things that is like what and drove past Maggie's phone? How do you drive past Maggie's like or gotta go down all of these stupid rabbit holes again? But it all like and I know that everybody. The biggest criticism that I've ever gotten is that I'm biased. And it's like I've been very open to hearing other theories that make sense and seeing other evidence that would makes sense.
00:38:41
Speaker 3: Isn't bias more defined by when you don't? It's like a you have actual evidence and experience of research, which I feel like that's a different word.
00:38:52
Speaker 2: That's just it.
00:38:53
Speaker 1: You're educated on the big facts.
00:38:56
Speaker 2: Right, an educated opinion, right, Like, and I'm fine with telling people that, like, here's everything that I've known about this guy, and like, I really believe that he did it, and I think that there's enough evidence to believe that other for another jury again to believe that he did it.
00:39:15
Speaker 3: Will they be able to bring in the boat crash and Mallory Beach's death and all of that.
00:39:20
Speaker 1: Will they be allowed to bring that?
00:39:22
Speaker 2: It's a financial part, right, Like, it's a part of the financial pressure that he was facing. So I think that circling back to your last question, probably we're going to have some hearings about what's going to be allowed in and what isn't before the trial. And I will be very interested because of the wording that the Supreme Court gave how careful they're going to be with allowing anything. But yeah, the boat crash was a huge part of it. There's just all of these crazy events going on in this man's life that led to the moment where I believe he killed his wife and son. And I will also say this, I just don't understand for the life of me, how in other cases that we've seen, like cheating is always an easy motive for people to believe, you know, like, oh, he was cheating or she was cheating, so of course he killed his wife, Like wanting a divorce is always an easy motive. And then you see in trials like them hammering that home of like the husband being unfaithful or whatever. I just don't see how this is any different. It's a factor like jumping to the conclusion of murder and jumping to like I'm going to use murder to solve my problems. Should never be like anything that makes anybody that makes sense in anybody's brain. Ever, Like I find it weird when people are like it makes sense why he killed Maggie, but why did he kill his son Paul, And like it does not make any sense money, like it never makes sense unless you're defending your life as like in real time, murder should never make sense, and like this motive is complicated, but is it that far fetch.
00:41:18
Speaker 3: Well, he has like all of them, the he was unfaithful to her, exact financial problems, and he had a drug addiction, right, sort of has all of the factors, So like just pick or you know, it's any and all of.
00:41:33
Speaker 2: Them, right, it's all of the factors. But it's just really funny like speaking to like you, for instance, and people from other places besides South Carolina, because here it was such a big deal and it's hard, like, do you remember another recent trial that's captured people's attention in the way that Jay Simpson, which is a very long time ago, Yeah.
00:41:59
Speaker 1: Very long time. I go for Scott Peterson.
00:42:02
Speaker 2: Scott Peterson, it was pretty big.
00:42:03
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's also trying to get into a trial, and I think they just said bye bye.
00:42:08
Speaker 1: I think later.
00:42:10
Speaker 2: They did, which is fine, But yeah, I mean, there are very few trials that capture people's attention to this extent. And so the fact that everybody and I keep getting messages of like, how are you feeling? Because I don't want to go through this again?
00:42:28
Speaker 3: Right right, everybody's like looking to you, I guide us through this.
00:42:33
Speaker 1: Help us, help us make it.
00:42:35
Speaker 2: We're gonna be okay. I mean, I do feel like they can do the they can get a guilty verdict. Again, it's but it's again, it's it's it's all proving the point. It's all proving the point that our justice system is not fair, and it's definitely not fair in South Carolina. And he gets the system that everybody else doesn't.
00:43:13
Speaker 1: Talking about not fair.
00:43:15
Speaker 3: That's a great segue into whatever you're comfortable talking about or allowed to. You have found yourself pulled into a legal drama yourself, and that is really tangentially related or quite directly related to the murder murders and the entire case. I just want to say before I even talk about this, that I am so disgusted at the way that you have been treated publicly by people that are supposed to be upholding the law, by people that are you know, should be exemplary in.
00:43:56
Speaker 1: Their moral, you know behavior.
00:44:00
Speaker 3: I just with like my jaw is on the ground at some of the things that have been said to you.
00:44:06
Speaker 1: So what is going on exactly?
00:44:11
Speaker 2: Well, thank you for that, and I appreciate that this could take hours, so I will be as short as possible. I could go on and on and on about all this craziness, but yes, I have unfortunately been wrapped up in legal warfare for six months now with of all people, Greg Parker and his attorneys who represented Alex Murdoch's co conspirators. So this legal warfare that involves the Second Beach case, so the Malory Beach case, for just a recap of everybody. And when I started covering this case, this was like ground zero of everything. Was this lawsuit where Mark ten On, behalf of the Beach family, sued Alex Murdoch, Buster Murdoch, the Alex Murdoch's father, whose house they were at that night, another restaurant that they were at that night, and a gas station called Parker's gas Station. And most everybody settled very quickly in the lawsuit except for Greg Parker, Buster and of course Alex Murdoch. And as we know, this lawsuit was a big pressure point for Alex Murdoch and his financial crisis that he was experiencing at the time that his and his father was dying and all these other things were going on around the time of the murders. But he no longer had insurance. Insurance was not covering him on this massive lawsuit. And so this billionaire Greg Parker owns a gas station. And I always thought it was weird that like his gas station sold sold the liquor there, sold the alcohol to Paul Murdoch and Pal Murdoch's friends that night before she died. They were underage, and it was it was pretty much point blank, like they did this. It was bad, right, And I always wrote it like that, like it's just weird. This guy isn't settling, Like we all know why Alex Murdoch isn't settling because he's got all this other crazy stuff, But why isn't this guy settling? So Greig Parker did not like me for a lot of reasons for a lot of years, and he finally settled with the Beach family for millions and millions of dollars in twenty twenty three. But during the course of his lawsuit, he he was sued again by the Beach family for intentional infliction of emotional harm. And what Mark Tinsley accuses him of doing, which is so horrible, is basically pressuring the Beach family, making the Beach family's lives more horrible, and pressuring them to drop the lawsuit against him, and one of those things this is so horrible, But a fake want to be journalist who was hired by Greg Parker to sort of shape the narrative in his favor, got a hold of these horrible photos of Mallory Beach's body and use them for a sizzle reel for a document to sell a documentary.
00:47:38
Speaker 1: Oh my god.
00:47:43
Speaker 2: Somehow in the course of this crazy lawsuit, I my name was brought up as like, but what didmanity do? And people start accusing me of having the pictures, of selling the pictures I had nothing to it, of being paid by Mark Tensley to push his narrative. All of these crazy things that like did not happen and there is no evidence.
00:48:10
Speaker 3: And go completely contrary to any sort of way you have presented yourself since you have been in the public eye.
00:48:18
Speaker 2: Thank you, thank you. Right, it would be like it'd be the dumbest thing that I could pass it like it is the I stand for victims. I stand for people who are pushed around by the justice system, Like I would never do that. I hate when journalists use their use their positions to do things to make grieving families worse, like and make I take that very personal, like like you said, it's it's everything that I've ever been against that I was suddenly accused of, And I was like, what, So I got a subpoena to be deposed, and my lawyers stood up for my rights as a journalist to not be deposed, and like also just said, like she has noting to do with this, and then Liz was deposed as well. Liz sat in this deposition where they tormented her for hours and use this case basically to badger her, torment her, get information about our company and post it on the internet. And they've just done all these horrible things in the last few months. So now I don't even know how to like bring this to basically I finally did a deposition. I also have seen evidence of them collaborating with this man who I believe is a stalker of mine. He posts about me obsessively all the time. This is like I could get into this for really forever. But like just all of these horrible and crazy things that made me feel unsafe about these people. And like you said, there should be some meeting about being an officer of the CORE, but there is not in South Carolina. Like, I do not trust these people whatsoever. And I believe that like I believe that they want me to feel unsafe. I believe that they want me to be quiet because I also I expose their clients. I expose Corey Fleming and Russell Lafeete and Liz, and I made them both look dumb and they are. It feels like wanting revenge on that. So all of that is to say that they are using the court system now in an attempt to hold me in contempt. So I have kind of like a mini trial going on, and I laugh so I can't cry, and I know that they will use this for like they use everything, all my words against me in a long motion. So that's been a really fun like every single thing that I say appears in a legal motion of like shame on her for saying that. But yeah, I mean I this has just been so stressful. It's all proven my point of like just how wrong the justice system is. This all could have been so like if these lawyers behaved in a way that was ethical and that made me feel safe, none of this would have happened. But like here we are, and I could possibly end up paying a billionaire's legal fees, which could be up to five hundred thousand dollars.
00:51:24
Speaker 1: Oh my god, I can't I get. It's like I don't even I don't have the words. It's it's all so un believable.
00:51:34
Speaker 3: It just is so even the things like that I was reading and listening to Liz the episode where she really broke down everything that had been going on with here. I was like, I can't, like, I just it's it's unfathomable that this is happening. So I just really like and I and I've read I'm so happy that you have so many people that support you. And I don't know, I'm assuming you don't even know half of these people on the internet that support you. And I just read some comments where they were like, please let us help you with those fees if you have, you know. I just so there is something quite beautiful about that, right, connection with the public. I just I'm I I'm sorry, and I like, you have so much support, and.
00:52:28
Speaker 2: Well, thank you and thank you for listening to me, Like I am like, I don't want to bore people. This is an exhaustive, stupid it's like it's and it's extremely complicated. They also accuse me constantly of like doing all of this to get views on my podcast, and I'm like, it is so hard to explain to people what's going on, Like people just want to hear about murder, like that's right, I want to hear about like back and forth legal drama. It does not get anybody going.
00:52:56
Speaker 1: They will want to fatigue you. So that you actually you talk about.
00:53:00
Speaker 3: What's really so because you are so outspoken about victims' rights through all your reporting, what concerns you most right now?
00:53:09
Speaker 1: For Maggie and Paul's surviving family members.
00:53:13
Speaker 2: It's again, it's just a lot of trauma that they have to deal with again, a lot of and some of them do believe that Alex did not do it, which that's their right to believe that, But I mean, this is just a lot of reliving trauma. Trial is a very very horrific, grueling experience for anybody, but especially a victim. And that has been one thing that I have noticed and come to terms with with all of my legal stuff, is like I didn't lose a loved one. I'm not fighting for it. Like there's a lot people people fight the legal system and have a lot more to lose and a lot more on the line. And I'm thankful that it's it's money that I have to worry about. But like it is I have experienced in a way like how exhausted. It's all exhausting, It's all stressful, it's exhausting, and you have to put people through so much, and people that just wanted like people want to move on, wanted to move on with their lives, like most people involved in this wanted to move on to the next thing and not be stuck in this. Like maybe Becky Hill probably wanted to talk about.
00:54:42
Speaker 3: Him forever, not anymore so save Becky, everyone else was pretty done.
00:54:48
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're like we're done, and it. I just I feel horrible for like Blanca the housekeeper who had testified, like she has to relive all of this again. There's just a lot of really key witnesses that I'm sure that was probably one of the scariest things that they've ever done in their life, spinning up and testifying against Alex Murdock and then to have to do it again. I really feel for all those people.
00:55:21
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do too. I do too.
00:55:25
Speaker 3: Oh man, Well, I mean I wish I was saying I'm next time we'll talk about something else, but maybe.
00:55:32
Speaker 1: Maybe that won't be the case.
00:55:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll have me on whenever. I love talking to you, so whenever. I feel like some of that was like, oh, this is like a therapy session, let me get this.
00:55:44
Speaker 3: Out, good good, good good good.
00:55:47
Speaker 2: But yeah, I mean it's it's a never ending where like oh, Jay ended.
00:55:54
Speaker 3: I mean it took a lot. Then he wrote his book If I did it, I mean.
00:55:59
Speaker 2: Good, and he just wouldn't go away.
00:56:01
Speaker 1: He just wouldn't go away until he actually died.
00:56:05
Speaker 2: Right. He even commented on this case he thought he thought Ali did it even believe he even didn't.
00:56:16
Speaker 1: Even OJ thinks you're guilty, right.
00:56:19
Speaker 2: Trouble right exactly, so that guy.
00:56:22
Speaker 1: Thinks you've did it. You you you definitely did.
00:56:24
Speaker 2: It, right.
00:56:26
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:56:26
Speaker 2: I just loved how he chimed in. That was just such a I was like, that was one of my moments where I was like, oh God, like everybody's watching this, like, oh God, this is oj is what is happening? But yeah, I mean I always believe like gotta be positive and see the positive, and I think that a thing that I will walk away from is like, Yeah, that's the discussion right now, is like what in the world is happening in South Carolina that this has to happen again, and what is wrong with their justices. I'm there and I'm glad that people are having those conversations.
00:57:03
Speaker 1: I am too, Mandy.
00:57:05
Speaker 3: It is always such a pleasure to speak with you, and I continue to be in awe of the work that you do, and I just I think you're a rock star. So keep going and thank you so much for talking with us today.
00:57:20
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, and good luck with your case. I'll keep you updated.
00:57:25
Speaker 1: Yes, please please do
Speaker 1: Amy Roboc and TJ.
00:00:07
Speaker 2: Holmes present Killer Thriller with your host Elisa Donovan.
00:00:15
Speaker 3: Hey, everyone, Elisa Donovan here, and this is Killer Thriller. For years, the Alec Murdoch case has felt less like one crime story and more like a Southern Gothic nightmare.
00:00:27
Speaker 1: A powerful legal dynasty, financial.
00:00:29
Speaker 3: Fraud, addiction, mysterious deaths, a fatal boat crash, a staged roadside shooting, and ultimately, the shocking murders of Maggie and Paul Murdoch at the family's hunting estate in South Carolina. In twenty twenty three, Alec Murdoch was convicted of murdering his wife and son and sentenced to life in prison. But now, in a stunning twist, the South Carolina Supreme Court has overturned those murder convictions, ruling that former Colton County Clerk of Court, Becky Hill, improperly influenced the jury and denied Murdock a fair trial. At the same time, journalist and podcaster Mandy Mattney has been pulled into a separate contempt fight connected to a deposition dispute. Today, Mandy returns to Killer Thriller to help us break down the latest bombshell developments and one of the most complicated and bizarre.
00:01:28
Speaker 1: True crime sagas in America. Oh, Mandy, welcome back to Killer Thriller.
00:01:33
Speaker 2: Thank you.
00:01:35
Speaker 3: I let me just say first of all, when you know you are our very first guests on this podcast, you and Liz, and when I said we are going to have you back, and we all said yay, I in no way, shape or form thought this would be the circumstances under which you would be back here.
00:01:55
Speaker 1: So, I mean, we have a lot to cover here.
00:01:58
Speaker 3: But first, when nah Alec Murdoch's murder conviction was overturned, what was your immediate reaction?
00:02:06
Speaker 2: Well, I knew about it a few weeks ago. We had so I did, and we reported it on our podcast Through Sunlight a few weeks ago. Our sources were always good and they still are. Just have to say that. But so I at least had like a couple of weeks to kind of come to terms with it and like feel uh, you know, let the emotions go through the motions of the whole thing. And so when it happened, I was not shocked. Was I angry though, yes, And was like reality hitting me that this story that I feel like I've been trapped in or like I I'm sure on the last podcast we discussed like I was really ready to break free. I thought the whou was like a book, and a nice bookend of that part of my story and that part of my life. And so it's just been coming to terms with like we're opening up all those chapters again and nothing is ever over.
00:03:14
Speaker 1: I mean, I can't imagine.
00:03:17
Speaker 3: Yeah, I can't imagine how you feel because I feel that way from it, outside of it, Like it just keeps.
00:03:22
Speaker 1: This is like yet another turn with this whole saga.
00:03:29
Speaker 3: And I mean, did you really did you initially think when he was convicted that this was a possibility that they would control.
00:03:36
Speaker 2: Honestly, I really didn't, and I have I haven't been asked that question. And I really thought that everything was so solid in the trial. I mean, the trial was six weeks long, it was very extensive. Creighton Waters did a fantastic job, and I thought Judge Newman did a fantastic job. This doesn't happen often, but at that point I was proud of the South Carolina justice system and I was really thought everything was solid. I was I expected Alex's attorneys Dick and Jim to find something wrong with it, right. They They are very expensive, well resourced attorneys that can turn over every single leaf in a trial, and they have that money in time to do so. I saw this coming from when the Supreme Court had their hearing in February, and I could tell the justices were all on his side. And that is when I really like knew that it was a possibility. Knew that it was a big possibility. And there was just moments where they were almost helping him in that hearing, and it was just kind of weird. There was a moment where one of the Supreme Court justices called him Elick like by his first name instead of the defendant or mister murder Like. I was worrying to him as his buddy elc and I was just like this word, Oh my god, we're screwed.
00:05:08
Speaker 3: So this whole thing they they didn't just so this is regarding Becky Hill. The first of all, how unusual is this for a court clerk to have any influence over a jury at all? And they use very strong language and Supreme Court saying things like shocking jury interference and she quote placed her fingers on the scale of Justice.
00:05:32
Speaker 2: Yeah, so what are they talking about, Oh, the Becky Hills story. So yes, all of this is extremely unusual and it all goes back to Becky's book coming out in I believe July of twenty twenty three, So a couple months after the murder, after Alex Murdoch was convicted, the clerk of court came out with a tell all book about the trial, like that it does not happen, is not And that's like where all problems kind of start to bubble up. And I really would like to know at this point who encouraged her to write this book, because this book obviously made her an easy target that like, this lady does not follow the rules. There was somebody who compete unethical in this trial, and so it gave Dick and Jim permission, those are the attorneys to dig into everybody in the jury, and they went to they knocked on the doors of their houses and asked, like, did Becky influence you in any way, shape or form, And all of them except for one said no. They said, I came up with my verdict on my own because of the evidence. Becky had nothing to do with it. Like they said, yeah, she was a little weird and like, yeah, she had like decorations and things, like.
00:06:58
Speaker 1: She she decorated her desk.
00:07:00
Speaker 2: Right, and like she obviously used this case as like she thought it was like her ticket out, you know, or like her ticket to money and fame, and like she thought that she she's a very she's a small town clerk of court and had never seen anything or the publicly right, so public or the college in County has never gotten our most cases never get like a fraction of the attention that the Murdock case got, you know, So she felt important for several months there where like journalists were bub buddying up to her trying to get the scoop. Like she felt like she had power of like who has press passes and who doesn't in the case, and like she was definitely power hunger like and I saw that too, Like Liz and I joked at the during the trial, Becky was like using press passes like backstage passes. We called her backstage. We called her backstage Becky because she was like, oh my god, one like she was using it.
00:08:08
Speaker 1: This seems absurd. That's like a circus, is she?
00:08:13
Speaker 3: I Just like I'm struck that you could even I mean, I'm not surprised she could get a book deal. I feel like anybody that thinks I can sell something, but it seems illegal because she is she allowed.
00:08:23
Speaker 2: To do any of those things, so right, and she went to the South Carolina Ethics Commission. And this also goes back to the fact that, like we have very very weak rules when it comes to ethics in South Carolina, and Becky is a part of a system where everybody is so used to bending the rules and getting away with it, Like Becky is not the first clerk of court to be inappropriate or break the rules or been the rules by all means, like this is a whole system well constantly. I mean, Becky did it in a very very stupid and public way. But so she is accused of like like you said, the justices really came down hard on her and said she had a finger on the scales of justice in this case. But at the same time, she was criminally charged with a few things, but never jury tampering, and she was she was never convicted of jury tampering. So that's like really important to know and still to this day, like besides one juror who flip flopped back and forth, and like again, she only said that her jur her verdict was interfered with after Dick and Jim came knocking on her door and asking her to sign an affidavit and asking her, you know, like and so you have this one juror that said like a yeah, maybe Becky did say something weird, or like maybe yeah, Becky did influence me, you know, and then she went back and forth. So all of this is because of that. But there was never anything like incredibly solid, and this is important to know, there's never any thing like incredibly solid that they ever pinned down that she actually tampered with the jury or influenced the verdict at any point. And also the jury all swore, after swore to Judge Newman after they rendered their verdict, that they were that they came to that conclusion on their own, like they all and that So what I'm worried about at this point, And sorry, I don't even know what the question was.
00:10:28
Speaker 1: I'm like, you're answering it, you're answering it.
00:10:31
Speaker 2: But like, my what my concern is is what does this tell other defense attorneys who have like lots of money once they get a jury verdict that they do not agree with that they can just go knocking on jurors doors. And right, that is the problem, you know, like there's there's something really important. I've talked to lawyers about this. So with the finality of a verdict, you know, like.
00:10:57
Speaker 3: That's what our legal system is for, that's what they say, and if you want to change it, then you have to, you know, have a neutrial, Like I just it seems crazy to me the night.
00:11:07
Speaker 1: It's like co very, coercive.
00:11:09
Speaker 2: It does. And like, yes, Becky was dumb and like her book was stupid, like she she did she asked the South Carolina f ex Commission, like can I write this book? And they basically said, like we advise against it, but like don't do X, Y and Z. And she broke all the role, like she did everything with people, like she was just in it. You could see it so clearly. I've gone through our emails. I've gone through like I have unfortunately dug way into Becky Hill and like is she you see just this small town clerk accurt who got a little bit of power and got a little bit of fame, and like she went on the Today Show right after the verdict with the jurors and that was her first time that she had ever been on a plane.
00:11:58
Speaker 1: Oh wow.
00:12:00
Speaker 2: So like think about how small world was and.
00:12:03
Speaker 1: How like, yeah, how exciting that all was right, and how.
00:12:08
Speaker 2: It's it could be easy to get swept up and think like, this is my chance. I got to write a book and I got to do all of these things. And who knows who was pressuring her to to like appear to be super unethical, because.
00:12:23
Speaker 1: Well, right, that's what I was going to ask, is that.
00:12:25
Speaker 3: I mean, I suppose there's no way to nobody will ever admit it. But it feels like where Alex's attorney's going, you know, paying her off or something. I mean, it just seems like so possible, the whole thing.
00:12:39
Speaker 2: It's it's just very shocking, but not shocking because all along on the Murdoch Martyrs podcast, we've said two systems of justice, right, and like it was all shocking to us that he was convicted to begin with, just because of our system in the way that it is. And so yeah, I really did not foresee an appeal, especially this quickly. I always thought appeals took a lot. I mean, I guess we're three years out.
00:13:09
Speaker 1: Yeah further.
00:13:10
Speaker 3: So okay, So now that they have been overturned the murder convictions, what happens next procedurally.
00:13:16
Speaker 2: That's a great question. So Attorney General Alan Wilson has said he's going to retry the case. He does not have to recharge him because it does not charge it does not like take the charges away. But and he also has said that the death penalty is now on the table. But there's also background here at Attorney General Alan Wilson, who's the like in charge of the prosecution on the case, he is running for governor right now, so that makes a different that makes a different factor, right. He is obviously motivated to puff's chest up and say things like I'm going going to go for the death penalty, and I'm gonna we want to get this done as soon as possible, and we want to get this done this year, is what he has said. But will day, I don't know. So procedurally, I am not sure what happens next, to be honest with you, but I'll tell you this. Right before we got on the phone, right before we started talking, Alex's attorneys filed a lawsuit against Becky Hill on behalf of Alex Murdoch. So now we have a federal lawsuit and it just keeps coming.
00:14:39
Speaker 1: Oh my god, do you think so.
00:14:45
Speaker 3: Right, I'm going to say that the prosecutors they wanted as aggressively this time as the last problem, I would think more so.
00:14:52
Speaker 2: No, Yeah, I mean I do think that the one thing that's good about Alan Wilson running for governor is that he is motivated to please the people, and I think he will be motivated to get this done quickly and correctly.
00:15:07
Speaker 3: So do you think that people are emotionally separating two ideas right now that like Alec probably did it versus he may not have received a fair trial. Like I'm always curious about those things, like this is where that justice part is? So yeah, murky to me.
00:15:28
Speaker 2: I was talking to a podcast from Ireland the other day about this too, because I wrestled with that question as well, Like what is a fair trial? It's the right person is behind bars, and most of us believe that the right person is behind bars and isn't that what our justice system aims for the Other thing that I can't really that I wrestle with and that I can't really fully conclude, is like I don't think that this. People love to say, like two things can exist at once. He can be guilty, but he deserves a fair trial. But it's not like this betters everybody in the system. It's not right. It's not like every black person that is that would have the exact same argument would get the same outcome. It is not like a poor white person would get the same outcome. It's Alex Murdock is somebody with a lot of power and a lot of sway, and that is a huge part of this outcome. So, like, yes, was Becky inappropriate? Yes, does that necessarily mean that he did not get a fair trial? I just can't really, I can't come to that conclusion because I believe in my art and soul that he did it, and I believe that we have seen the evidence. And I'm also a South Carolina tax fair I don't want to pay for another trial.
00:16:55
Speaker 3: Yes, I mean the amount of time and energy and emotional strife and try all of that, But the actual financial burden that this puts on this day, it's outrageous.
00:17:09
Speaker 2: Yeah. Right, And then like you said, I do think, I do think for the most part of majority people are saying, Okay, the Supreme Court said what they said, and maybe he does deserve a new trial, or he does deserve a new trial, but I still believe that he's guilty. I'm seeing a lot of that, But I am also seeing a lot arise in the comments of like, but did he do it? Which is which is hard. I think we haven't seen any more evidence, Like there has not been a shred of evidence since he was convicted showing us that he was innocent, or showing us that another person did it, or pointing us to any other direction. There's not There has been nothing new in all of us, and I feel like that's another like solid point to get across. This does not mean that he presented any new evidence, because he definitely didn't.
00:18:03
Speaker 3: I mean, the the kennel video, the confession lie, thing like that. That's such a defining piece of the first trial. And they can still, well they use that again. They can use all of the same things, right they Nothing is sort of exempt.
00:18:19
Speaker 1: It's just they just have to have a new trial.
00:18:22
Speaker 2: So unfortunately, the Supreme Court in their ruling said A, we're giving you a new trial because of Becky, but b we believed that too much of the financial crimes was allowed in what.
00:18:37
Speaker 1: Yeah, isn't that part of the motive. That's part of goes to motive.
00:18:42
Speaker 2: It goes directly to motive. And what I was talking to my co host of Cove of Justice about a long time South Carolina attorney, great attorney Eric Bland, who he and I uncover the financial crimes together. He was like, this, put this what the Supreme Court laid out, and their ruling puts the next judge in a really really tough position to allow any financial crimes in because then it's immediately appealable.
00:19:11
Speaker 1: Oh my god, yeah.
00:19:13
Speaker 2: And it's in my god of it because like it's like you said, anyone who was paying attention understands how it's not a far leap from the financial crimes to the motive. You see the gathering storm, You see all the pressure that he was facing in his life, and that like his law firm was coming down on him that day and he was being caught.
00:19:36
Speaker 1: How can that not be allowed?
00:19:38
Speaker 2: Why? And what? And it was weird the way that they put it. They didn't they didn't necessarily say like, they didn't say it's not allowed, but they said you went too far and too hard on the financial crimes, and an example of that, which I thought was really weird was Tony Sadderfield's testimony, and he was it was the only financial victim who testified.
00:20:04
Speaker 1: He's the son correct of Gloria, and Gloria Sadden was.
00:20:07
Speaker 3: Supposed to receive the money from the uh ALEC when he did the reverse is another like.
00:20:17
Speaker 2: It's okay, it's okay to explain that quickly.
00:20:20
Speaker 1: I know it is, but I can't explain it.
00:20:22
Speaker 2: You're doing a great job and it's really difficult, and like, I've had to review so many things in the last couple of weeks, so I'm like, what did happen there?
00:20:29
Speaker 3: No?
00:20:31
Speaker 1: So uh.
00:20:33
Speaker 2: Tony Saderfield is the son of Gloria Sadderfield and Gloria Sadderfield was the housekeeper and nanny, and a lot of people close to the Murdochs really credit Gloria for raising the children, like she was a huge part of both Bustering and Paul's lives. She was a part of the Murdochs family, and Tony also considered Alex Murdoch like a father figure, like somebody who he really looked up to. So Gloria unfortunately died after allegedly falling on the Murdoch's property, and that's a whole nother thing that has never been completely there's no closed loops on that. But what we do know is that Alex took that as an opportunity to steal from her family, and he went to Gloria's sons at the funeral and said, hey, look we can get you money. Here's my buddy, Corey Fleming. He's going to be your lawyer, and you guys are going to assume me.
00:21:35
Speaker 1: Because I'm such a stand up guy.
00:21:37
Speaker 2: Because I'm such a stand up guy, and they were, you know, confused, but also Alex, it's Alex Murdoch saying that like his father, his father, grandfather, and great grandfather were all prosecutors of that area. So the like the I don't question Tony of like he was probably like, Okay, that's weird, but that's fine. Sure, he did not get any of that money. They settled for over four million dollars against Alex Murdoch's insurance company, and Alex took the money. Also, Tony was questioned because I had written an article that Tony had seen that had been his only awareness of the settlement existing. He had no idea. Alex kept telling him, hey, buddy, like, if we're not getting there, like nothing's happening, don't worry about it. I'll I'll tell you about it when it's settled. And then he reads in the newspaper for my article, and so he starts asking Alex questions in the spring of twenty twenty one, like, hey, like, I read that there's this this five hundred thousand dollars settlement, which is just a part of it. And what really gets me is that he could have just given them like ten thousand dollars or like give him something, just a little part of it, and they would have been over the moon. Like these were boys working really, really hard. Gloria's Sun got kicked out of his home during this time because he couldn't afford to live there, Like they were struggling so any ounce of money. But he was so incredibly greedy and so incredibly short sighted that he didn't give them a single dime. And so for the Supreme Court.
00:23:26
Speaker 3: It's so despicable, it's almost it's it's unfathomable.
00:23:31
Speaker 2: So for the Supreme Court right to say, like that was way too much, you wed like hearing from that guy that was over the top, and it just feels like a slap in the face to the victims. It feels like they don't care about the what it speaks to the motive and what it like. Tony Sanderfield is also like an example of like how despicable Alex Murdoch can be. He looked this, He looked this young man in the eyes who had just lost his mother and said, I got you, don't worry, and then he stole from him.
00:24:20
Speaker 3: How difficult is it do you think to see an impartial jury now that this case has become so globally famous and people have such big feelings about it.
00:24:32
Speaker 2: You know, it's it's really it's literally. First of all, it's impossible to seat a jury that is not aware of this case, at least a jury. I'm sorry, but like, if you have a sane mind in the state of South Carolina you've heard of from are not case and like and unless you're like real weird living and like do we want those people as you're like living under our literal rock. No, So like people that have already built their opinions and had are aware of the case. That's I don't think we can go anywhere in the United States without that, maybe even like a good portion of the world, that would be difficult. But can we get an impartial jury, a jury that's able to look at the facts and decide again if there's enough evidence to convict him of double homicide, which is what this case comes down to. I think that that's possible. I mean, but I also feel like nowadays that's something that we have to discuss with our jury system of like people have heard, the true crime has evolved so much. People are so much more involved in cases and know so much more. Do we really want jurors who have never heard of cases and do that?
00:25:53
Speaker 3: Don't We all have, you know, minds that are that can process a lot of information and be influenced by like that sort of the you can't you have to come to the table with some sort of you know, opinions and moral work for things. And it doesn't mean you can't be you should be influenced by what happens. It's a confusing I don't know, it feels very unm you know, imperfect to say the least.
00:26:24
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, and that, But I do think, like you said, and we need to think of like jurors do have the ability to think of their opinions separate from them, separate their opinions from what they're seeing in court and the evidence, and decide from that. And I also do think that the jurors didn't do that in this case. I think that there was. I think that it's the jury tampering that the Supreme Court is making out is acting like happened existed. I think one of the jurors would have said something before Dick and Jim came knocking on their doors asking, you know, like, I think something would have came out before the book. I think that something would have come up if she was truly being this like out of control.
00:27:14
Speaker 3: We have to convict him, right, I Mean, it also just seems so illogical that she could be in the courtroom like.
00:27:21
Speaker 1: PST, don't listen to the evidence. I mean, it's just like ludicrous.
00:27:27
Speaker 2: Right, and that they wouldn't. And I also I feel bad for those chruers, like they they gave up six weeks of their lives and came to a decision and it's just kind of insulting for them and for I feel like Judge Newman did a really great job and it's unfortunate that this is reversed and he he's retired now, so he's not going to come back, and so that's another thing that's going to happen, and a new judge and that's going to make a I think that's I think this time is going to be very, very different.
00:28:00
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:28:01
Speaker 3: So one of the things that you get into in your podcast is the fear that this could retraumatize everyone who's connected to the case all over again. And you've spent obviously years talking to people that are connected to this story.
00:28:16
Speaker 1: So do you feel that people.
00:28:18
Speaker 3: In South Carolina are emotionally exhausted by this whole case?
00:28:23
Speaker 2: Yeah? I do. I think that I think that they take comfort in the fact that he's not getting out of prison for the next few decades, because he should die in prison just for the financial crimes alone, right, Yeah, which like ninety.
00:28:39
Speaker 3: Make that clear that he isn't he won't be released from prison because of this.
00:28:43
Speaker 2: He's still and that's a huge part to discuss with the process. He is, like he has twenty seven years in state prison for his financial crimes, in forty years in federal prison for his federal financial crimes. Like that's a pretty solid he can't be behind bars forever. So I think they do take comfort in that. I do, but I also think, yeah, they're exhausted by it. And yeah, most people think that he's guilty, so they're like, why are we doing why are we doing this?
00:29:18
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that's what I was just going to ask. Are we over this?
00:29:21
Speaker 2: Like, yeah, aren't we over this? And again if this was if this was a situation, I would feel a whole lot differently about it if there was new evidence, Like I also see datelines in twenty twenties of like people who do deserve to get a new trial because of various reasons and don't get it across the country, not just in South Carolina. But I mean, I have no idea how many people innocent people are in prison in our system. But as we were talking about, like, we know it's not perfect, and we know I know that the there's a lot more people that deserve another trial, more so than Alex. Like I've seen cases where like DNA has basically exonerated a person and it still takes years for them to get a new trial.
00:30:16
Speaker 1: Yep, if they do, it's so upsetting to me.
00:30:23
Speaker 2: It's just really really upsetting.
00:30:27
Speaker 3: So before we get into the contempt hearing that you are currently involved in, which also outrages me, one thing that you know that people forget is how quickly alec He started unraveling publicly after the murders. There were the financial theft allegations, the roadside shooting, the opioid addiction claims.
00:30:53
Speaker 1: So how much of this case do you think.
00:30:56
Speaker 3: Is really just about privilege and power protecting people for decades, all of it.
00:31:02
Speaker 2: I mean, I think that it's really impossible to talk about this case in a responsible way that helps people understand what's going on without talking about power and privilege. I mean, this man, his family was the law in South Carolina, and we can't like get past we can't like I remember, we covered stories on the murderch Murders podcast of like his father, his father got him out of everything that he ever did, and he would so many people would tell me. He would joke, like, my daddy's a solicitor, I can do whatever I want, and like my family is the law in South Carolina. Sorry for my bad accent. I'm not trying to insult Southern people. Just Alex Murdoch. By the way, but like, yeah, it's a when it come. When you really look at this case and everything about it and why people so fascinated by it, I think it's a man that was given so much power and privilege his entire life and believed that he could get away with anything, and he's still doing that. Like I still think that he believes that he's going to wiggle his way out of all of this.
00:32:17
Speaker 1: Right, he's quite literally above the law, just right.
00:32:21
Speaker 2: But the system has created that monster. It's not like it came out of nowhere.
00:32:27
Speaker 4: Yeah.
00:32:42
Speaker 3: Do you think that all this media attention ultimately helped to expose corruption in South Carolina or did it just create chaos around the trial?
00:32:54
Speaker 2: I think it helped expose it. I think at the end of the day, I think that again, our prosecution did the best that they possibly could have done, and what happened with Becky was not their fault at all. I think that they because the eyes in the world of the world were on them, they really really cared to do a great job. And yeah, I mean I think that it does help, but it's also really frustrating when you uncover corruption and you show everybody and then like people in California are outraged, and people in Wisconsin are outraged, and people in Italy are outraged. But it's still like I need the people, the few people in power in this state to see it, you know, like it does help. But at the same time, it gets so frustrating when we're all like we see it, don't you see it? It's so messed up. I mean, like, what have you heard with it? Like what has you been like as you have seen in the last week the reaction to the case. What have you seen?
00:34:09
Speaker 1: I mean everyone is outraged.
00:34:11
Speaker 3: I mean the amount of people that are sending me all the articles like did.
00:34:15
Speaker 1: You see this? Did you see this kid? You believe it?
00:34:17
Speaker 3: You know? Uh yeah, I mean everyone thinks that he's guilty and it's ridiculous, Like that's what that's generally what the feeling is. And then a fascination again because here we go again, here is yet one more tributary, and this whole thing that is just gonna it just keeps. It's like it has more and more tentacles, this whole family. And I think anytime I went back and watched one of the documentaries and I was like, God, it's just.
00:34:52
Speaker 1: It's all right there, it's all right there. He basically says it in court on the stand. You know, they he's guilty. It's just like it's uh, it's kind of unreal. Yeah. Yes, that's a long witted way of saying.
00:35:09
Speaker 3: Everyone that I have ever spoken to about this things, he's guilty.
00:35:14
Speaker 2: Right, And like it's funny because they say one thing to me, right, and like what I see and com I try to limit myself and not get too crazy with looking through Facebook comments, but it's the same thing when I've what I've seen, Like I think that overwhelmingly people see it, and we all saw it in the trial. And like you said, like during the trial, first of all, he testified, which is supposed to decrease your chances of getting an appeal. It's supposed to like when you testified. I mean, I'm probably saying it wrong for lawyers will probably correct me. But I remember my lawyer friends were saying at the time, like basically, because when you when you testify, like you're rolling a big, big dice, and you are, you're also convincing, like you're also giving a lot of wiggle room for the jury to say, I believe what he did. I believe he did it because of what you said, which is what happened, Like a lot of them said. His testimony convinced me his testimony in the kennel video, because it all comes down to, like he could not explain why he was there at the kennels right before they were murdered, and then lied about it about.
00:36:36
Speaker 1: You how, I mean, yeah, I don't know, how do you.
00:36:43
Speaker 2: Get past that? And like it's it's also I guess that's reassuring for whatever happens with the new trial if nothing about if for some reason, nothing about like the motive is allowed in I mean, you still have that, and that's pretty damning and hard to get past of, like why were you there? What do you know? Why did you lie about it?
00:37:09
Speaker 1: And also that there's no other evidence.
00:37:11
Speaker 3: They've never presented someone exactly some other reason, right.
00:37:16
Speaker 2: Another theory, right, I mean, before trial, it was a big question if they were going to blame like drug dealers or like the cartel. You know, that was a big rumor, Yeah, blame the cartel, And I was kind of surprised that they didn't. They still have never offered anything like that because even that like makes it and I don't believe that, but like it makes a lot more sense than you have this guy who was there right before they were murdered, and there's evidence showing that he's right there, and he claims that he like ran into his house and took a nap while they were while his family and.
00:37:56
Speaker 1: Then like put the clothes out.
00:37:58
Speaker 3: There were so many weird, right tales of the case that you're like, this makes no sense.
00:38:04
Speaker 2: Right and unless you's house and at nine o'clock at night, like and was going seventy miles an hour on a country like there's all these things that is like what and drove past Maggie's phone? How do you drive past Maggie's like or gotta go down all of these stupid rabbit holes again? But it all like and I know that everybody. The biggest criticism that I've ever gotten is that I'm biased. And it's like I've been very open to hearing other theories that make sense and seeing other evidence that would makes sense.
00:38:41
Speaker 3: Isn't bias more defined by when you don't? It's like a you have actual evidence and experience of research, which I feel like that's a different word.
00:38:52
Speaker 2: That's just it.
00:38:53
Speaker 1: You're educated on the big facts.
00:38:56
Speaker 2: Right, an educated opinion, right, Like, and I'm fine with telling people that, like, here's everything that I've known about this guy, and like, I really believe that he did it, and I think that there's enough evidence to believe that other for another jury again to believe that he did it.
00:39:15
Speaker 3: Will they be able to bring in the boat crash and Mallory Beach's death and all of that.
00:39:20
Speaker 1: Will they be allowed to bring that?
00:39:22
Speaker 2: It's a financial part, right, Like, it's a part of the financial pressure that he was facing. So I think that circling back to your last question, probably we're going to have some hearings about what's going to be allowed in and what isn't before the trial. And I will be very interested because of the wording that the Supreme Court gave how careful they're going to be with allowing anything. But yeah, the boat crash was a huge part of it. There's just all of these crazy events going on in this man's life that led to the moment where I believe he killed his wife and son. And I will also say this, I just don't understand for the life of me, how in other cases that we've seen, like cheating is always an easy motive for people to believe, you know, like, oh, he was cheating or she was cheating, so of course he killed his wife, Like wanting a divorce is always an easy motive. And then you see in trials like them hammering that home of like the husband being unfaithful or whatever. I just don't see how this is any different. It's a factor like jumping to the conclusion of murder and jumping to like I'm going to use murder to solve my problems. Should never be like anything that makes anybody that makes sense in anybody's brain. Ever, Like I find it weird when people are like it makes sense why he killed Maggie, but why did he kill his son Paul, And like it does not make any sense money, like it never makes sense unless you're defending your life as like in real time, murder should never make sense, and like this motive is complicated, but is it that far fetch.
00:41:18
Speaker 3: Well, he has like all of them, the he was unfaithful to her, exact financial problems, and he had a drug addiction, right, sort of has all of the factors, So like just pick or you know, it's any and all of.
00:41:33
Speaker 2: Them, right, it's all of the factors. But it's just really funny like speaking to like you, for instance, and people from other places besides South Carolina, because here it was such a big deal and it's hard, like, do you remember another recent trial that's captured people's attention in the way that Jay Simpson, which is a very long time ago, Yeah.
00:41:59
Speaker 1: Very long time. I go for Scott Peterson.
00:42:02
Speaker 2: Scott Peterson, it was pretty big.
00:42:03
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's also trying to get into a trial, and I think they just said bye bye.
00:42:08
Speaker 1: I think later.
00:42:10
Speaker 2: They did, which is fine, But yeah, I mean, there are very few trials that capture people's attention to this extent. And so the fact that everybody and I keep getting messages of like, how are you feeling? Because I don't want to go through this again?
00:42:28
Speaker 3: Right right, everybody's like looking to you, I guide us through this.
00:42:33
Speaker 1: Help us, help us make it.
00:42:35
Speaker 2: We're gonna be okay. I mean, I do feel like they can do the they can get a guilty verdict. Again, it's but it's again, it's it's it's all proving the point. It's all proving the point that our justice system is not fair, and it's definitely not fair in South Carolina. And he gets the system that everybody else doesn't.
00:43:13
Speaker 1: Talking about not fair.
00:43:15
Speaker 3: That's a great segue into whatever you're comfortable talking about or allowed to. You have found yourself pulled into a legal drama yourself, and that is really tangentially related or quite directly related to the murder murders and the entire case. I just want to say before I even talk about this, that I am so disgusted at the way that you have been treated publicly by people that are supposed to be upholding the law, by people that are you know, should be exemplary in.
00:43:56
Speaker 1: Their moral, you know behavior.
00:44:00
Speaker 3: I just with like my jaw is on the ground at some of the things that have been said to you.
00:44:06
Speaker 1: So what is going on exactly?
00:44:11
Speaker 2: Well, thank you for that, and I appreciate that this could take hours, so I will be as short as possible. I could go on and on and on about all this craziness, but yes, I have unfortunately been wrapped up in legal warfare for six months now with of all people, Greg Parker and his attorneys who represented Alex Murdoch's co conspirators. So this legal warfare that involves the Second Beach case, so the Malory Beach case, for just a recap of everybody. And when I started covering this case, this was like ground zero of everything. Was this lawsuit where Mark ten On, behalf of the Beach family, sued Alex Murdoch, Buster Murdoch, the Alex Murdoch's father, whose house they were at that night, another restaurant that they were at that night, and a gas station called Parker's gas Station. And most everybody settled very quickly in the lawsuit except for Greg Parker, Buster and of course Alex Murdoch. And as we know, this lawsuit was a big pressure point for Alex Murdoch and his financial crisis that he was experiencing at the time that his and his father was dying and all these other things were going on around the time of the murders. But he no longer had insurance. Insurance was not covering him on this massive lawsuit. And so this billionaire Greg Parker owns a gas station. And I always thought it was weird that like his gas station sold sold the liquor there, sold the alcohol to Paul Murdoch and Pal Murdoch's friends that night before she died. They were underage, and it was it was pretty much point blank, like they did this. It was bad, right, And I always wrote it like that, like it's just weird. This guy isn't settling, Like we all know why Alex Murdoch isn't settling because he's got all this other crazy stuff, But why isn't this guy settling? So Greig Parker did not like me for a lot of reasons for a lot of years, and he finally settled with the Beach family for millions and millions of dollars in twenty twenty three. But during the course of his lawsuit, he he was sued again by the Beach family for intentional infliction of emotional harm. And what Mark Tinsley accuses him of doing, which is so horrible, is basically pressuring the Beach family, making the Beach family's lives more horrible, and pressuring them to drop the lawsuit against him, and one of those things this is so horrible, But a fake want to be journalist who was hired by Greg Parker to sort of shape the narrative in his favor, got a hold of these horrible photos of Mallory Beach's body and use them for a sizzle reel for a document to sell a documentary.
00:47:38
Speaker 1: Oh my god.
00:47:43
Speaker 2: Somehow in the course of this crazy lawsuit, I my name was brought up as like, but what didmanity do? And people start accusing me of having the pictures, of selling the pictures I had nothing to it, of being paid by Mark Tensley to push his narrative. All of these crazy things that like did not happen and there is no evidence.
00:48:10
Speaker 3: And go completely contrary to any sort of way you have presented yourself since you have been in the public eye.
00:48:18
Speaker 2: Thank you, thank you. Right, it would be like it'd be the dumbest thing that I could pass it like it is the I stand for victims. I stand for people who are pushed around by the justice system, Like I would never do that. I hate when journalists use their use their positions to do things to make grieving families worse, like and make I take that very personal, like like you said, it's it's everything that I've ever been against that I was suddenly accused of, And I was like, what, So I got a subpoena to be deposed, and my lawyers stood up for my rights as a journalist to not be deposed, and like also just said, like she has noting to do with this, and then Liz was deposed as well. Liz sat in this deposition where they tormented her for hours and use this case basically to badger her, torment her, get information about our company and post it on the internet. And they've just done all these horrible things in the last few months. So now I don't even know how to like bring this to basically I finally did a deposition. I also have seen evidence of them collaborating with this man who I believe is a stalker of mine. He posts about me obsessively all the time. This is like I could get into this for really forever. But like just all of these horrible and crazy things that made me feel unsafe about these people. And like you said, there should be some meeting about being an officer of the CORE, but there is not in South Carolina. Like, I do not trust these people whatsoever. And I believe that like I believe that they want me to feel unsafe. I believe that they want me to be quiet because I also I expose their clients. I expose Corey Fleming and Russell Lafeete and Liz, and I made them both look dumb and they are. It feels like wanting revenge on that. So all of that is to say that they are using the court system now in an attempt to hold me in contempt. So I have kind of like a mini trial going on, and I laugh so I can't cry, and I know that they will use this for like they use everything, all my words against me in a long motion. So that's been a really fun like every single thing that I say appears in a legal motion of like shame on her for saying that. But yeah, I mean I this has just been so stressful. It's all proven my point of like just how wrong the justice system is. This all could have been so like if these lawyers behaved in a way that was ethical and that made me feel safe, none of this would have happened. But like here we are, and I could possibly end up paying a billionaire's legal fees, which could be up to five hundred thousand dollars.
00:51:24
Speaker 1: Oh my god, I can't I get. It's like I don't even I don't have the words. It's it's all so un believable.
00:51:34
Speaker 3: It just is so even the things like that I was reading and listening to Liz the episode where she really broke down everything that had been going on with here. I was like, I can't, like, I just it's it's unfathomable that this is happening. So I just really like and I and I've read I'm so happy that you have so many people that support you. And I don't know, I'm assuming you don't even know half of these people on the internet that support you. And I just read some comments where they were like, please let us help you with those fees if you have, you know. I just so there is something quite beautiful about that, right, connection with the public. I just I'm I I'm sorry, and I like, you have so much support, and.
00:52:28
Speaker 2: Well, thank you and thank you for listening to me, Like I am like, I don't want to bore people. This is an exhaustive, stupid it's like it's and it's extremely complicated. They also accuse me constantly of like doing all of this to get views on my podcast, and I'm like, it is so hard to explain to people what's going on, Like people just want to hear about murder, like that's right, I want to hear about like back and forth legal drama. It does not get anybody going.
00:52:56
Speaker 1: They will want to fatigue you. So that you actually you talk about.
00:53:00
Speaker 3: What's really so because you are so outspoken about victims' rights through all your reporting, what concerns you most right now?
00:53:09
Speaker 1: For Maggie and Paul's surviving family members.
00:53:13
Speaker 2: It's again, it's just a lot of trauma that they have to deal with again, a lot of and some of them do believe that Alex did not do it, which that's their right to believe that, But I mean, this is just a lot of reliving trauma. Trial is a very very horrific, grueling experience for anybody, but especially a victim. And that has been one thing that I have noticed and come to terms with with all of my legal stuff, is like I didn't lose a loved one. I'm not fighting for it. Like there's a lot people people fight the legal system and have a lot more to lose and a lot more on the line. And I'm thankful that it's it's money that I have to worry about. But like it is I have experienced in a way like how exhausted. It's all exhausting, It's all stressful, it's exhausting, and you have to put people through so much, and people that just wanted like people want to move on, wanted to move on with their lives, like most people involved in this wanted to move on to the next thing and not be stuck in this. Like maybe Becky Hill probably wanted to talk about.
00:54:42
Speaker 3: Him forever, not anymore so save Becky, everyone else was pretty done.
00:54:48
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're like we're done, and it. I just I feel horrible for like Blanca the housekeeper who had testified, like she has to relive all of this again. There's just a lot of really key witnesses that I'm sure that was probably one of the scariest things that they've ever done in their life, spinning up and testifying against Alex Murdock and then to have to do it again. I really feel for all those people.
00:55:21
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do too. I do too.
00:55:25
Speaker 3: Oh man, Well, I mean I wish I was saying I'm next time we'll talk about something else, but maybe.
00:55:32
Speaker 1: Maybe that won't be the case.
00:55:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll have me on whenever. I love talking to you, so whenever. I feel like some of that was like, oh, this is like a therapy session, let me get this.
00:55:44
Speaker 3: Out, good good, good good good.
00:55:47
Speaker 2: But yeah, I mean it's it's a never ending where like oh, Jay ended.
00:55:54
Speaker 3: I mean it took a lot. Then he wrote his book If I did it, I mean.
00:55:59
Speaker 2: Good, and he just wouldn't go away.
00:56:01
Speaker 1: He just wouldn't go away until he actually died.
00:56:05
Speaker 2: Right. He even commented on this case he thought he thought Ali did it even believe he even didn't.
00:56:16
Speaker 1: Even OJ thinks you're guilty, right.
00:56:19
Speaker 2: Trouble right exactly, so that guy.
00:56:22
Speaker 1: Thinks you've did it. You you you definitely did.
00:56:24
Speaker 2: It, right.
00:56:26
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:56:26
Speaker 2: I just loved how he chimed in. That was just such a I was like, that was one of my moments where I was like, oh God, like everybody's watching this, like, oh God, this is oj is what is happening? But yeah, I mean I always believe like gotta be positive and see the positive, and I think that a thing that I will walk away from is like, Yeah, that's the discussion right now, is like what in the world is happening in South Carolina that this has to happen again, and what is wrong with their justices. I'm there and I'm glad that people are having those conversations.
00:57:03
Speaker 1: I am too, Mandy.
00:57:05
Speaker 3: It is always such a pleasure to speak with you, and I continue to be in awe of the work that you do, and I just I think you're a rock star. So keep going and thank you so much for talking with us today.
00:57:20
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, and good luck with your case. I'll keep you updated.
00:57:25
Speaker 1: Yes, please please do
