Skip to content
Alex Murdaugh— Case Archive
2023 Murder Trialtrial-daytrial-dayJohn B. ConradCreighton WatersAlan WilsonPhillip D. BarberJim GriffinDick HarpootlianT.C. SmallsKenneth L. KinseyPaul McManigalEllen RiemerMark BallRonnie Crosbydirectcrossredirectrecrossvoir_direDay 24 - February 28, 2023State rebuttal witnesses disputed the defense pathology, phone-screen, and shooting reconstructions while facing challenges to their methods and limits. The State rested, the court denied renewed directed-verdict motions, and jury-view and charge preparations began.
← Day 232023 Murder TrialDay 25 →

Day 24 - February 28, 2023

Pathology, phone testing, and scene reconstruction close the State’s rebuttal

Judge Clifton B. Newman
23Proceedings
8Pages
6Witnesses
2,613Lines
Day 24 of 27
Appearing:
John B. Conrad Creighton Waters Alan Wilson Phillip D. Barber Jim Griffin Dick Harpootlian T.C. Smalls Kenneth L. Kinsey Paul McManigal Ellen Riemer Mark Ball Ronnie Crosby

State rebuttal witnesses disputed the defense pathology, phone-screen, and shooting reconstructions while facing challenges to their methods and limits. The State rested, the court denied renewed directed-verdict motions, and jury-view and charge preparations began.

Full day summary

The judge opened by limiting the State to finely tailored reply testimony rather than a repetition of its case. Ronnie Crosby and Mark Ball testified that Alex Murdaugh had discussed checking Maggie and Paul but had not told them he was at the kennels; both also addressed daytime hog hunting and the family’s .300 Blackout rifles. Crosby rejected the suggestion that anger or the firm’s financial losses affected his testimony. Former sheriff T.C. Smalls denied authorizing blue lights in Murdaugh’s personal vehicle or hearing about threats related to the boat case. Forensic pathologist Ellen Riemer disputed the defense interpretations of Maggie’s wound direction and Paul’s fatal shotgun wound. She maintained that Paul’s wound traveled upward from the left shoulder through the head and was not a contact wound, while acknowledging missing photographs, an unperformed brain X-ray, limits in her ballistics expertise, and that the packing-material observation was absent from her report. Cellphone examiner Paul McManigal described weekend tests in which throwing a comparable iPhone did not always activate Raise to Wake. Under cross-examination, he acknowledged that the tests were unrecorded and unmeasured and limited his conclusion to saying the screen might not illuminate. The court declined to strike that testimony. Kenneth Kinsey challenged the defense shooter-height and feed-room reconstructions, citing uncertainty about angles, movement, distance, weapon position, and cartridge-case locations. He rejected the proposed contact wound but acknowledged that the evidence could neither include nor exclude two shooters. The State then rested its rebuttal case, and the defense declined surrebuttal. After a sealed proceeding, the court denied renewed dismissal and directed-verdict motions, prepared the jury for a Moselle view, and began settling jury instructions, including a ruling that other-bad-acts evidence could be considered only as it related to motive.

Video thumbnail9:02:24
Watch →

2. Ronnie Crosby — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross (Recall 2)

Before the jury entered, the judge limited the State to narrowly tailored reply testimony rather than a retrial of its case. Ronnie Crosby then testified about firearms, Alex Murdaugh's statements and courtroom demeanor, and Barrett Boulware's finances before facing questions about his memory and impartiality.

→
Procedural
Scope of Rebuttal Testimony

The defense challenged the proposed breadth of the State's reply case, and the judge required rebuttal to be finely tailored while reserving individual rulings for specific objections.

Direct
Ronnie CrosbyCreighton Waters
109 lines

Ronnie Crosby rebutted testimony about daytime hog hunting, said Alex Murdaugh's trial testimony was the first time he heard Alex admit being at the kennels, discussed money taken from a Boulware matter, and distinguished David Williams from David Owen.

Cross
Ronnie CrosbyDick Harpootlian
138 lines

Ronnie Crosby qualified his firearms testimony and faced a heated challenge over whether anger and financial losses from Alex Murdaugh's thefts influenced his testimony.

Redirect
Ronnie CrosbyCreighton Waters
25 lines

Ronnie Crosby defended his integrity after the challenge to his impartiality, agreed that Alex Murdaugh had lied convincingly to him, and clarified his limited testimony about hog-hunting firearms.

Recross
Ronnie CrosbyDick Harpootlian
7 lines

Ronnie Crosby confirmed that the .300 Blackout rifle in evidence with a thermal scope was Paul Murdaugh's favorite.

Highlights

Scope of Rebuttal TestimonyrulingAfter the parties disputed whether rebuttal was a right or a matter controlled by the court, the judge said the State could not retry its case and that reply testimony must be finely tailored. He declined to rule globally in advance and said he would decide the scope issue by issue and objection by objection.Scope of Rebuttal Testimony“Well, certainly the State cannot retry the entire case, but the State has the right to reply to contradict certain issues presented by the defense, or certain issues of credibility.”— Clifton NewmanThe judge stated the governing boundary between permissible rebuttal and an impermissible repetition of the State's case.Ronnie Crosby - Directtestimony highlightCrosby said Alex Murdaugh had clearly told him that he checked Paul and Maggie before calling 911, and that he first heard Alex acknowledge being at the kennels when Alex testified at trial.Ronnie Crosby - Direct“I haven't watched all of this trial like a lot of people have, but when I heard that Alex was taking the stand -- I believe it was last Thursday -- I did set up my work station so that I could watch his testimony, and it would have been when he told you that he was at the kennels was the first time that I'd ever heard that.”— Ronnie CrosbyCrosby said Alex Murdaugh had not previously disclosed his presence at the kennels to him despite their discussions of Alex's account.

3. Ellen Riemer — Direct/Cross/Redirect (Recall)

Forensic pathologist Ellen Riemer defended her conclusions about Maggie and Paul Murdaugh’s wounds while acknowledging limitations in her autopsy documentation and evidence collection. She maintained that Paul’s shotgun wound traveled upward from his left shoulder and rejected the proposed contact-wound theory.

→
Direct
Ellen RiemerCreighton Waters
70 lines

Ellen Riemer rebutted the defense experts' wound reconstructions, defending her conclusions that Maggie's wound traveled upward and that Paul's fatal shotgun wound entered near the shoulder rather than through a contact shot to the head.

Cross
Ellen RiemerDick Harpootlian
408 lines

The defense pressed Ellen Riemer on omitted photographs, notes, brain X-rays, pellet counts, and an unreported packing-material observation; she acknowledged those limits but maintained her shoulder-to-head trajectory and noncontact-wound conclusion.

Redirect
Ellen RiemerCreighton Waters
18 lines

Ellen Riemer reaffirmed that her opinions relied on extensive autopsy experience and direct examination of bodies, rejected the proposed contact wound to Paul's head, and concluded after a repetitive-questioning objection was sustained.

Highlights

Ellen Riemer - Directtestimony highlightRiemer rejected the proposed contact wound to the top of Paul Murdaugh's head. She cited the condition of his face and orbital bones, the angled shoulder wound, packing material at the shoulder, surrounding abrasions, and the wound path she traced upward through the left cheek and head.Ellen Riemer - Direct“What we have here is not consistent with a contact shotgun wound to the head. The damage to the head would have been much worse, even though this was already horrible.”— Ellen RiemerRiemer stated her central rebuttal conclusion about the defense contact-wound theory while acknowledging the severity of the existing injury.Ellen Riemer - CrossimpeachmentRiemer confirmed that the packing-material observation was absent from her report and had not been mentioned previously, while agreeing that some investigative steps were omitted because she did not consider them helpful to her conclusion.

4. T.C. Smalls — Direct/Cross/Redirect

Former Sheriff T.C. Smalls denied authorizing blue lights for Alex Murdaugh’s vehicle or discussing boat-case threats with him, then addressed possible authorization by another official on cross-examination.

→
Direct
T.C. SmallsCreighton Waters
31 lines

Former Hampton County Sheriff T.C. Smalls denied authorizing blue lights for Alex Murdaugh's personal vehicle or hearing from him about boat-case threats.

Cross
T.C. SmallsJim Griffin
56 lines

T.C. Smalls said he could not determine whether another official authorized blue lights for Alex Murdaugh and maintained that he never knew Murdaugh had them.

Redirect
T.C. SmallsCreighton Waters
13 lines

T.C. Smalls clarified that he retired on December 31, 2022.

5. Paul McManigal — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross/Voir Dire (Recall)

Paul McManigal was qualified as a cell phone forensics expert and testified about iPhone Raise to Wake experiments. Cross- and recross-examination focused on the tests' limited documentation, controls, statistical basis, and conclusions.

→
Voir Dire
Paul McManigalJohn B. Conrad
30 lines

Paul McManigal described his digital-forensics experience and was qualified without objection as an expert in cell phone forensics.

Direct
Paul McManigalJohn B. Conrad
58 lines

Paul McManigal testified that a thrown iPhone may not activate Raise to Wake, while acknowledging different software and variable test results.

Cross
Paul McManigalPhillip D. Barber
143 lines

The defense exposed documentation and expertise limits in McManigal's Raise to Wake experiments, but the judge declined to strike his qualified opinion that a moved phone's screen might remain off.

Redirect
Paul McManigalJohn B. Conrad
32 lines

Paul McManigal defended his Raise to Wake testing, saying thrown phones often remained dark while acknowledging that he did not know exactly how the accelerometers work.

Recross
Paul McManigalPhillip D. Barber
20 lines

Paul McManigal acknowledged that he did not apply the statistical control-and-sample method he described when judging his experiment's reliability.

Highlights

Paul McManigal - Crosstestimony highlightMcManigal ultimately limited his conclusion: he could not say the screen would remain off during the proposed driving-and-throwing scenario, only that it might remain off.Paul McManigal - Cross“I cannot tell you that it will not come on. I can tell you that it might not come on.”— Paul McManigalMcManigal expressly limited what his experiments could establish about the screen during the proposed phone-disposal scenario.

6. Mark Ball — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross (Recall)

Mark Ball completed his testimony about Alex Murdaugh's accounts, the family's firearms and hog hunting, and local law enforcement and solicitor involvement.

→
Direct
Mark BallCreighton Waters
62 lines

Mark Ball rebutted claims about daytime hog hunting and .300 Blackout rifles, then said Alex Murdaugh had not disclosed his kennel visit in their earlier conversations and had been untruthful about other matters.

Cross
Mark BallJim Griffin
117 lines

Mark Ball limited his knowledge of Alex Murdaugh's later disclosures, qualified claims about distrust of law enforcement, and provided defense context about hog hunting, family firearms, emotional demeanor, and post-killing security concerns.

Redirect
Mark BallCreighton Waters
11 lines

Mark Ball said local authorities continued assisting early in the investigation and confirmed that Alex Murdaugh and his father had served as assistant solicitors in the same office.

Recross
Mark BallJim Griffin
9 lines

Mark Ball agreed that law enforcement normally investigates while the solicitor's office prosecutes.

7. Council Motion and Rebuttal Issues

Before the jury entered, the judge declined to strike the cellphone expert’s Raise to Wake experiment testimony, addressed possible surrebuttal, and later allowed corrected worksheets while planning a jury view.

→
Procedural
Council Motion and Rebuttal Issues
57 lines

The judge left the challenged Raise to Wake experiment testimony before the jury, deferred a final decision on requested surrebuttal, and allowed both sides to replace worksheets affected by a disclosed math error.

8. Kenneth L. Kinsey — Direct/Cross/Redirect (Recall)

Kenneth Kinsey challenged fixed shooter-height and two-shooter conclusions, then defended his reconstruction of Paul’s wounds and the feed-room evidence under cross-examination and redirect.

→
Direct
Kenneth L. KinseyAlan Wilson
429 lines

Kenneth Kinsey rebutted defense theories about shooter height, Paul's fatal wound, pellet trajectories, and two shooters while acknowledging that the number of shooters remained unresolved by his analysis.

Cross
Kenneth L. KinseyJim Griffin
466 lines

The defense tested Kinsey's trajectory reconstruction and its limits, while Kinsey maintained his account of Paul's fatal wound and acknowledged likely biological blowback on the shooter.

Redirect
Kenneth L. KinseyAlan Wilson
47 lines

Kenneth Kinsey defended his reconstruction against competing pathology and shooter-height theories while acknowledging limits involving firing distance, stippling, weapon position, and exhibit photographs.

Highlights

Kenneth L. Kinsey - Directtestimony highlightKinsey demonstrated that shooter height, distance, weapon position, movement, uncertain cardboard angles, and dispersed cartridge cases prevented him from accepting a fixed height of 5 feet 2 inches to 5 feet 4 inches.Kenneth L. Kinsey - Direct“I just think it's an unknown. I don't -- I mean, there's many more variables you have to know: how the shooter was holding the gun, you know, how his proportion to legs matches up with body. I mean, that's something that we're all a little bit different. And unless you've got a video of that, or someone tells you how they held a weapon, I think the notion that being able to look at this evidence and determine that is unscientific.”— Kenneth L. KinseyKinsey explained why he believed the physical evidence could not establish a definitive shooter height.Kenneth L. Kinsey - DirectadmissionKinsey said he could neither include nor exclude two shooters, but rejected treating two shooters as the only possible explanation.

9. State Rests Rebuttal and Surrebuttal Discussion

The State rested its rebuttal case, the defense declined surrebuttal, and the court announced that testimony had ended before addressing renewed motions, the Moselle jury view, and proposed jury instructions.

→
Procedural
State Rests Rebuttal and Surrebuttal Discussion

The State rested rebuttal, the defense declined surrebuttal, and the judge deferred the jury view before recessing to confer with counsel.

Procedural
In-camera Hearing

After a sealed in-camera portion, the defense renewed its prior directed-verdict motions, the judge denied them, and the court set safeguards for the jury's next-day view of Moselle.

Procedural
In-camera Hearing

The judge limited other-bad-acts evidence to motive, reserved the voluntary-intoxication charge, required an instruction addressing other charges and punishment, and resolved several additional charge requests.

Highlights

State Rests Rebuttal and Surrebuttal Discussionprocedural actionThe State rested its rebuttal case, and the judge sent the jury out for a break with an instruction not to discuss the case.In-camera HearingrulingThe defense renewed its previous directed-verdict motions for preservation without further argument, and the court denied motions concerning dismissal or directed verdicts.In-camera HearingrulingThe judge agreed with the defense that evidence of other bad acts could be considered only as it related to motive.In-camera Hearing“Okay. I agree with the defense on this. The evidence of bad acts can only considered by you as it relates to motive.”— Clifton NewmanThe judge expressly limited the jury's permitted use of the other-bad-acts evidence to motive.
← Day 232023 Murder TrialDay 25 →