Closing Arguments - Prosecution

MR. WATERS: It's been a long trial, hasn't it? On June 7, 2021, at the Moselle Property in Colleton County, Maggie Murdaugh and Paul Murdaugh were brutally and maliciously murdered at the kennels by Alex Murdaugh. Paul, as you know, suffered two shotgun blasts, Maggie suffered five Blackout rifle wounds, and after an exhaustive investigation there is only one person who had the motive, who had the means, who had the opportunity to commit these crimes, and also whose guilty conduct after these crimes betrays him. The defendant was the one person who was living a lie. The defendant is the person on which a storm was descending, and the defendant is a person where his own storm would actually mean consequences for Maggie and Paul, and consequences for those who trusted him, and that person is the defendant, Richard Alexander Murdaugh. I know this has been a long trial because it's a complicated case, and I'm not going to talk forever, I promise, but I am going to try to distill this down for you.

And the first thing I want to do is set the stage, and to set the stage we have to understand a little bit about Alex Murdaugh and who he was and who he is. He was a person of singular prominence and respect in this community, but he's also a person who's been able to avoid accountability for all of his life. While he was outwardly giving the illusion of wealth and a very lucrative law practice, some bad land deals and that sort of thing exacerbated by the economic recession led to some financial problems. And then he had some big cases in the early 2000 -- 2011, 2012, and all of his partners, and you've heard testimony to this, thought that that had taken care of things. You've heard cases like the Thomas case and the Pinckney case and the Plyler case and the Badger case.

But the evidence that you've heard shows that the defendant became so addicted and so dependent on a velocity of money that the millions of dollars in legal fees that he was receiving was not enough, so he started to steal. And how did he steal? He stole by billing personal expenses to the firm. He stole by stealing from his own family. You heard the testimony about the check he stole from his brother Randy. But then the main ways were two schemes that he developed, and the first one was to get checks made out from the client trust account to Palmetto State Bank, to fast talk the staff and fast talk the clients with those disbursements, and then take it to Palmetto State Bank where his buddy Russell Laffitte would convert those and use those to pay personal expenses. And each time until the end it worked because the client was also getting a big check, and they were walking out of there thinking that everything had been fine when it was not.

But then in 2015 he opened up the fake Forge account, and then all had he to do was get disbursements made out to the Forge account, and once he did that, he would convert those to his personal use. And to do that, though, he also had to fast talk staff and fast talk clients, and that scheme continued up until everything fell apart in the end. The other thing you have to understand is during this time when he's earning millions of dollars and stealing millions of dollars, he's also borrowing millions of dollars from wherever he can: the bank, his law partners, his father. And it still wasn't enough. And this slow burn was continuing and continuing until the boat crash happened in February of 2019, and that changed everything. That set in motion things that were going to happen because of the criminal charges related to that case, as well as the civil charges related to that case. In the aftermath of the boat case, things changed. The pace of his stealing increased.

In fact, that's when he stole the money from Tony Satterfield that you heard from, ultimately stole about 4.5 million between the Satterfields and others, and unlike other cases, Tony Satterfield, who was the son of his longtime housekeeper, he took all of the money, took every bit of it. And that was coming to a head as we move into the spring of 2021 because there had been some publicity. And you heard from Tony Satterfield that he was -- the defendant reached out and in the spring of 2021, because there had been publicity -- and saying, hey, I'm still working on the case. Everything is fine. I'm still working on the case. It's good. But the reality is the defendant didn't have that money to pay it back, and he had one saving grace because, as you've heard, they don't get paid until the end of the year, and his saving grace was the Faris case, which they tried in December.

They get the verdict and get paid in March, and that's when he convinces Chris Wilson to send those $792,000 of fees to him. But the problem is that only lasted for about two months, $792 only lasted for about two months, and then he is running out of money again. Meanwhile, you've heard in the boat case that Mark Tinsley was seeking to get a large personal recovery from Alex Murdaugh of $10 million because he thought, as many people did, that he was wealthy and had a lot of money, and when they said he didn't, he filed a motion to compel. And you've heard testimony about whether that would have been granted, but it doesn't change the fact that that's what Mark Tinsley was seeking to do, and that boat case hearing had been scheduled for June 10th.

In May of 2021, as we move into June, that's when Alex's own paralegal got the expense check for the Faris case but not the fee check and tried to raise that to Alex and couldn't get a straight answer, tried to raise it to Chris Wilson and couldn't get a straight answer, or to his office, and so it goes to Jeannie Seckinger. And Jeannie Seckinger goes to the partners and they can't get an answer about that either, and they want to -- an answer to that because they're worried because Alex has been talking about structuring fees, and they're worried he may be trying to hide assets because of the boat case, and they don't want to be a part of that. All of these things are coming to a head, and his finances are falling apart. And you heard from the banker there. You heard where his finances were at on June 7, 2021, and you saw what happened in the wake of that. Within a short period of time, he was negative $347,000. On June 7, 2021, he was in the office.

He was working on the boat case, working on those financial disclosures when Jeannie Seckinger came in and confronted him about those fees that he no longer had and couldn't pay back. And on June 7, 2021, and he tells this to Jeannie Seckinger: his father, Randolph, was having a very difficult time, and while they might have said it was some positive news, the reality is, is that he was very, very sick. And he had always been someone that the defendant could go to, that he could borrow money from, and so that pressure is happening as well. And on June 7, 2021, as all of these pressures were mounting, the defendant killed Maggie and Paul. And how do we know that? We're going to talk in detail about that, but the timeline puts him there. The forensic timeline puts him there. The use of his family weapons corroborates that, and his lies and guilty actions afterwards confirms it, and we'll go over each of those in great detail.

Before we get to that, though, I want to finish out because in the wake of this, everything changes. All of those things that were coming to a head immediately go away. It's a different world now. They're not asking about the Faris fees anymore, and you heard testimony to that. Mark Tinsley doesn't believe the case is going to have the same value anymore because the sympathies of the case have changed after this tragedy, and you heard that, and who would better understand that than Alex Murdaugh who does the same work? The boat case hearing goes away, and everyone immediately rallies around Alex Murdaugh. And it worked because it allowed him to borrow $250,000 from Johnny Parker, his law partner, who, of course, wouldn't have loaned him that money if he knew what Alex was up to.

And allowed him to go to Palmetto State Bank and get $350,000 for an off-the-books loan that hadn't been applied for, and to send that money to Chris Wilson and convince Chris Wilson to pay $192,000 of his own money, and to send an email to the firm that everything was okay. And that made it another month or so until Annette Griswold found that Faris check in his office, and Jeannie Seckinger looked up the Forge accounts. And what happened in the wake of that? What was the reaction of Alex Murdaugh? Within a day of September 3rd, of him being forced to resign, his buddy, Chris Wilson, is trying to see him, comes and sees him on September 4th and confronts him about what he's been doing. And then within 2 hours, the side of the road happens and Alex is a victim again. When accountability was at his door, he was a victim again, and he told an extremely detailed lie, and went so far as to draw a composite sketch with the police of this assailant.

And the accountability that had arrived at his doorstep again, he tried again, he tried to get it to go away, and it worked for a little while. People thought oh my gosh, what's happened here? Should we be suspicious of Alex anymore? But this time it fell apart a little quicker because his own brother figured out that he was trying to buy drugs, and the case fell apart very quickly. This is the setup for what we look at and what's going on, and it seems like a story that's far removed from most people's experience because it is. It is a different story like has never been seen before, but the reason is, is that he is a different man than the kind of stories that we've seen before. This is a different set of circumstances than we've seen before, and it's certainly easy to understand when you have a middle aged man who is outwardly successful, who has a strong family legacy, who has a prominence in the community and a reputation, but is living a lie. Is living a lie.

And that leads to and can lead to those pressures being overwhelming and actions like this happening. Husbands have been killing wives unfortunately for years, and husbands killing sons goes back as far as King Herod, probably further, and those pressures mount when someone becomes a family. Can I have the computer input, please? All right, we've got to do a little of law school. I'm certainly not a professor, but let me go through a few of the concepts here. And one of the most important concepts is the fundamental role -- one of the fundamental roles while y'all are here. As the judge has told you, he's the judge of the law, but y'all are the judge of the facts. And what does the judge of the facts mean? Well, a big part of that is that you determine credibility. You determine believability. You determine which witnesses you want to rely on or not rely on. You can rely on a part of a witness's testimony or all of the witness's testimony, one against many, many against one.

It's up to each one of you individually to make that determinations and decisions, and then to collectively discuss those into a group decision, but credibility is important. Is it believable? Is what somebody is telling you believable? And there's many things you can consider in credibility, but a few of those are the demeanor of the witness on the witness stand. Whether the witness has a reason to be biased. Whether the testimony of a witness was contradicted on one hand, or supported or corroborated on another. Whether the witness has been dishonest in the past. And, again, you can believe witnesses all against one, one against others, and you can believe portions of the witness's testimony as you see fit. The same thing goes for experts. Expert is a legal determination that allows them to give an opinion. Just because someone is qualified as an expert doesn't mean that you have to accept their opinion.

You can judge that based on the -- your assessment of the credibility, and the relevance, and the believability of that testimony. There's nothing different about that when someone is an expert. Beyond a reasonable doubt. I talked about this at the beginning of the case. And it's our burden, and it's a burden that we welcome. It's how this system works, that we have to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And what is a reasonable doubt? A reasonable doubt is a doubt that makes a reasonable, honest, sincere juror hesitate to act. It's proof that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely on in their affairs, but a reasonable doubt is not -- and leaves you firmly convinced of the guilt of defendant, but it doesn't have to overcome every possible doubt. It doesn't have to overcome every possible doubt. I used to try a case against a defense attorney, and he would pull up a picture of something.

Right here I have the Mona Lisa, and he would tear off a piece like that and say ladies and gentlemen, that's reasonable doubt. My response to that is you still know what this is, right? You still know what it is, and that's reasonable doubt. Okay, if you still know what it is and you're firmly convinced, then it's your duty under the oath that you've taken and it's the law, as the judge will give you the law, to convict the defendant. Direct and circumstantial. Direct directly proves the existence of the a fact. And circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating the existence of that fact, and we talked a little bit about that at the beginning. Sometimes people in common discussions will say, oh, the case is just circumstantial. But the law says that it doesn't matter, that circumstantial evidence can be just as good as direct evidence. It is just as good. It makes no distinction between that, and the judge will charge you on that.

There's no greater degree of certainty required of circumstantial evidence than of direct evidence. The circumstances must be consistent with each other, and when taken together point conclusively to the guilt of the defendant. And I gave y'all an illustration at the beginning, and I'm not going to redo the whole thing. But about being inside, and you go outside and it starts raining, then you know it's raining. Okay? Because you've got direct evidence. You're getting wet. But if you go inside and you're in a closed room, all of a sudden it gets dark and you hear thunder, and you hear the wind rustling, and hear the rain coming down on top of the roof, and then after an hour or so you go outside and the sun is shining but there's limbs all down in the yard and it's wet as far as the eye can see, and there are puddles in the yard, and puddles in the driveway, is there any reasonable doubt what happened, that it rained? Now, again -- I'll say it again.

Supposedly, I guess, somebody could have sprayed the whole neighborhood and hose and blown a fan to blow the wind down -- or blow the limbs down and simulate winds, but that's not a reasonable doubt, ladies and gentlemen. Circumstantial evidence can be just as strong as direct evidence. It is just as strong. The law makes no distinction just because it's circumstantial. All right, let's talk about murder. Murder is the willful killing of someone with malice aforethought. It's the unlawful and willful killing of any person by one with malice aforethought. The crime of murder is really, as far as the elements go, fairly simple. The operative terms here, the most important terms are malice, which is the mental state that the person must have, and aforethought. But let's talk about those. What exactly do they mean? Malice, and it can be any of these.

It can be the hatred, ill-will, or hostility towards another, but it also can be the intentional doing of a wrongful act with an intent to inflict an injury under the circumstances that the law would infer an evil intent. It can be a general malignant recklessness of the lives and safety of others. It can be a wicked or depraved spirit intent on doing wrong. It can be using firearms, a shotgun, and a Blackout to blow somebody away. That can be malice, ladies and gentlemen, if that's what you decide. Aforethought. Sounds like it has to be planned, and certainly planning would account for aforethought, but it may be conceived at the very moment, a split second, or in conjunction with the act. So, aforethought doesn't require planning for that malice to occur. All it has to do is exist in the moment, just a split second or in the moment that the act occurs.

So, when that trigger is pulled, as long as there is that intentional doing of a wrongful act, intent to inflict an injury, it would be an evil intent, a malignant recklessness, which you can infer from the circumstances of the case, and that's all you need. And how do you do that? I said infer because people don't always yell out what their intentions are. You would have to infer it from the circumstances of the case itself. Look at the crime scene, look at what happened, look at the back story, look at all the circumstances that come together, and you can infer malice from those. Last little bit of law school. Malice and drugs. Voluntary intoxication does not impair a person's ability to act with malice aforethought. That's a legal principle. If you voluntarily get intoxicated, it is not a defense to a crime, and it does not negate the malicious nature of that crime.

If one voluntarily intoxicates themselves, they are just as responsible for their actions as when they are not intoxicated. And the judge, again -- take what -- the law comes from the judge, but this is a legal principle that you will hear. Voluntarily intoxication is not a defense to a crime. Why does the law say that? Well, you can't take whatever it is and deny responsibility for what you've done under the law. All right, I'll move through this quickly because we've already talked about it. And just for scheduling, I'm going to have to stop my argument so that we can all eat, but that will give y'all a chance to get away from this for a little bit. But I'm going to go ahead and go through some of this that we just talked about but very quickly. Gathering storms in Alex's life. We talked about the family legacy, you've heard about how important that was to him, and how important that was to this family, and how it was in danger because of the boat case.

The criminal charges as well as civil charges, that legacy was in danger, and it was threatening also to expose him for who he really was, which would totally destroy his part of that legacy. Lose his career, lose his bar license, face consequences like he's never seen. He's also a successful lawyer and a part-time prosecutor. And as we go through and talk about the circumstances of this case and talk about the crime scene and the timeline and all the rest of it, think of it with that in mind, that this is an individual who was trained to understand how to put together cases, complex cases. He's been a prosecutor, he's done complex car wrecks, he understands the law. He's given closing arguments to juries before. So, when you have a defendant like that, be thinking about whether or not this individual is constructing a defense and constructing alibis. We've talked about his law practice; you've heard how lucrative it is.

I had to struggle with him to get him to admit that he was wealthy, making more than a million dollars a year. I'll let y'all decide whether that was wealthy. But he admitted ultimately, you know, that that was not uncommon for him to make that much money on top of stealing and borrowing on top of that. The important thing, though, to remember -- again, and I want to highlight this -- is that they get -- the way that firm worked, they get their money at the end of the year, and then it's up to them to make it last, and that's the big problem that he had. That's why he had to get the Faris fees. He can't -- if he's out of money in May, he's not going to -- unless he can borrow it or steal it, he's out of luck. And the hounds were at the gate. All right, we talked about this. He's got -- you heard -- I think Jeannie described him as having intentional chaos. We had the land deals, he's serving this huge debt load, he constantly needs new money coming.

And this has been going on for more than a decade, a constant hamster wheel. The stress and the pressure of that would be extreme because it's been going on for so long, always having to stay one step ahead of the game. Always having to beg, literally beg, borrow, or steal for over a decade to have the truth from being exposed. That's been going on all that time. The big cases. His partners think he's, he's straightened it out and paid off his debts, but he hasn't. He's been paid millions of dollars but he's stealing on top of that. It's not enough to keep that hamster wheel going. So, he borrows and he steals. The methods I mentioned, you've got the PSB checks. You've got the fake Forge. You've got fake business expenses. Running the firm card. And from his family and his law partners.

Each one of these depends on him being able to sit down and look someone in the eye and convince them that what they're doing is right, when in reality that wasn't happening, and all of those clients trusted him based on that. And he sat there and went through that, and it may have been exhausting, and I apologize for that, but he couldn't tell you about one conversation that he had that stuck with him. That's how easily it came to him. Is that relevant to your consideration to what he had to tell -- say to you? That's for y'all to decide. He couldn't name one conversation. Just had that same answer that he had rehearsed. He didn't want to talk about any of those individuals that trusted him as he looked you in the eye and asked you to do the same for him. Down at the bottom, it's not just the clients. Too, it's his staff. They're doing the paperwork; they're filling out that. He had to fast talk them as well.

Alex's situation I think is akin to a Ponzi, and a Ponzi is kind of like a pyramid scheme where it depends on new money coming in to pay old investors. And it works. It'll work for a long time as long as you can keep that money coming in, but the second you can't, the second that you're out of options, it crashes he's and burns. That's how every upon Ponzi crashes and burns, and that's the situation that fundamentally his finances were like, and that's the situation that was arriving in June of 2021 when he was at the scene with the victims minutes before they died and lied to everyone who would listen. A gathering storm: the boat case, other factors that were arising, each one leading to that inevitable day of reckoning. He had the trial lawyers conference where he was confronted -- Mark Tinsley was confronted by Alex. Alex, of course, denied it. Everybody is lying on Alex. Alex is telling you truth, even though everyone who knew him had no idea who he was, everyone.

No one knew who he really was. The people who came in here and said we thought this about him, not a single person knew who he really was. That's how convincing he was. But he denies this conversation when Mark Tinsley is like -- he bows up on Mark Tinsley and he's, like, what you doing, man, about the boat case? And Mark says you're going to have to pay money to the Beach family, millions of dollars. Alex doesn't have that; he's barely one step ahead of the game at this point. He doesn't have insurance coverage anymore, or at least not a big umbrella policy. And why? Because his insurance company dropped him after the Satterfield case. The insurance company thinks the money went to the Satterfield boys, but it didn't. They don't know that he's stolen it all, but they don't want to insure him anymore, so he doesn't have that to help him pay the Beach case. And so what's the one hope he has? And that's the Faris case, and it's tried.

They get a verdict in February of 2021 of $792,000, and eventually he tells Chris Wilson I'm going to structure those, which is a lie, and gets the fees sent to him in March, and it's spent in two months. But the boat case isn't going away. Mark says show us your books if you're telling me you're broke. And I think his testimony was they said that he could probably cobble together a million dollars, which I guess that's broke for him, but it wasn't enough, and so they refuse, and that's what leads to the motion to compel. And there's been a lot of argument about, oh, is that going to be granted or not, and the judge had granted it. What we do know is that Mark Tinsley said that's what he was seeking to do, and he was seeking to do it because he had been told by the defense that he didn't have money, so he, like, prove it. None of us believed that, knowing what we know about you in this community. Prove it.

Well, Alex can't have anybody scanning his financial records because it's all going to be apparent. That Forge account is going to open right up. He can't have that happen; it will all end. He'll lose his career. He will lose his livelihood. He will face investigations and consequences like he's never -- like he's been able to avoid his entire life. But if he can just stay one step ahead just one month longer, one day longer, then he's never going to have to face that accountability that he has to face. The hearing is scheduled for June 10, 2021, and no one is here to argue to you that it's definitely going to be granted. All we're to be arguing to you is what the witnesses said they were intending to do. And as you've seen in court over the past six weeks, things happen and a process starts, and once that process starts, there's a conclusion to it. There's a conclusion to that.

And then you heard from Tony Satterfield, who got up on the stand and talked about the fact that there was some coverage about this case as we move into the spring of 2021, and he hears from Alex. And Alex lies to him and says yeah, we're hoping to get this case moving. And you saw the text message to that effect, when the reality was it had already been stolen. How is he going to pay that, ladies and gentlemen? That's millions of dollars. That's million of dollars. And eventually, eventually, they're going to figure out that this money has already been paid. The insurance company thinks it's going to the right place. At some point, the question is going to get asked, and that alone is going to break everything apart. The Faris case, this is when his paralegal finds the expense check and not the fee check, and we've already told you this part of the story and y'all have heard the testimony, but it sets off that inquiry from Ms. Seckinger.

So, now we have this on top of everything else that we've mentioned. This is like nothing he's ever experienced. He's always been able to stay one head -- step ahead of the game, but after the boat case, his appetite has increased greatly. He has started stealing millions of dollars and now he's running out of options, and all of these factors are converging, all of them are converging, and they're converging on one week and one day. And that arrives. His father is in the hospital. There's a confrontation with Jeannie. Alex tells her -- he manages to ward off the conversation by saying Mr. Randolph is terminal. He, of course, denies that, so I guess Jeannie is lying on him, too, but that's what she says happened. He's working on the boat case, and then the tragedy happens, and it worked. It's not the only reason, but it's part of the reason.

The pressures on this man are unbearable, and they were all reaching a crescendo the day his wife and son were murdered by him, all on that day. And in the wake of this, everything changes. People stop asking about these things. The community has changed, like you would expect. People were concerned. They're scared; they're worried. And everything has changed. The backlash from the boat case has gone away, and all of that has changed, and that's why Mark Tinsley thought his case was over. This may seem like, really? But who would understand this better than him? This is exactly the kind of work he did. His skills as a lawyer were understanding the emotional value of a case, understanding the sympathies of the case. If you have a sympathetic plaintiff and an unsympathetic defendant, that is -- in the civil courts, that's a big case. But if those get reversed, if those change, if all of the sudden your defendant is more sympathetic, it changes it.

It changes the entirety of what Mark Tinsley's position on this case was for the Beach family, that Alex was going to have to pay money, and that's what he told you from the stand. He said the second -- if Alex had been the victim of some unsuspected -- or some random vigilante, the entirety of the case has changed, and I'm not taking the same position. I'm not trying to demand that level of recovery. He gets his 750. Well, he gets 600 of it. He ultimately gets the 750 loan. He convinces Chris Wilson. That heads off Faris. It's pretty much the main thing he did after this was to make sure he could get that money, or enough of it to Chris Wilson, so that he would send an email to the law firm saying everything -- hey, everything is cool. I've got it. It's all good. And that's what the law firm thought. It's the main thing he did in the wake of the murders of his wife and son was he made sure to stay again one step ahead of the game because he had more time now.

He had time he didn't have on June 7th, but he had it now, and that's the first thing he did. It's the first thing he did. It's the main thing he did was keep the hamster wheel going. I know it seems like a lot, but you have to consider the unique circumstances of this particular man. This particular man who has proven over and over again that he will do anything to keep that hamster wheel going, and to avoid accountability, and he's been doing it for over ten years. It just finally reached a point that he'd never reached before. Of course the hearing on the motion to compel gets canceled. Who would go forward with that in the wake of what's happened? That goes away. It doesn't -- I think you heard from the testimony up there it doesn't get rescheduled until long after everything crashes and burns in September. Then it'll get rescheduled in the wake of this. He doesn't have to worry about that either and the potential that had for exposing who he was.

Because the second somebody looks at this accounts, the second his own partner, Danny Henderson, looks at his accounts as -- in representing him, says, well, let me see them, he can't do that. He can't do that. He can't even show them to his own partner because what's going to happen? They're going to see it, too. He can't let that happen or everything falls apart and he loses everything, including that legacy that you heard from individuals up there that's so important to him, more important than anything. I'm not going to go through all of this, but this is the timeline, and you can see as we -- and I'll let y'all look at that, but you can see how this developed. How this hamster wheel continues. How he always has to be one step ahead of the game. You know, we've talked about the Red Beard and the Zero United. Those are the land deals that went bad. They get charged off, but yet, you know, Palmetto State Bank is still dealing with him.

He then appoints Russell Laffitte a conservator and borrows up to $1 million dollars from the Plyler girls' accounts without their knowledge. And then he has to steal money from the Badger case where he's already making a huge amount of legal fees. He has to steal money from the Badger case to pay off the Plyler girls before they turn eighteen, and then there's an accounting of that. And then he opens up the Forge account, and it continues. 338,000 from Deon Martin, Johnny Bush, Rico Santis-Cristiani, 225. He's maxing a million dollar line of credit. The only way to stay afloat is to beg, borrow, and steal. He's maxing out a million dollar line of credit. He's steals some more money, but he's right back to where he was. March of 2018, he has not maxed out not only a million dollar line of credit, but also a $600,000 line of credit. A lot of credit, almost like a credit card, maxed out. Then the boat crash happens, and look what happens to the figures.

3.7 million, 1.1 million, $1 million. And then you have the double homicide. This is some of the exhibits. This is some of the exhibits. This is -- as you recall, there'll be statements, and they're in evidence, showing the defendant's assets on June 7, 2021, and the reds are his liabilities. That one is green but it's negative. And then over here, that's where he was a couple of months later. He borrowed $750,000 and still ended up $347,000 in the hole, which part of that had to cover. I think it was called the most generous overdraft policy ever conceived because -- I mean, in fairness, though, he did get a $5 overdraft charge from it, but anyway. All right, what else do we have?

Because we talked about a lot of things about the finances, and I know that there's been a lot of that, but it's really the only way to understand all the things that were affecting this middle aged, outwardly successful, professional man who had all of these pressures on him like no one had ever seen. Well, we've got the pills. He claims he's had a pill addiction for twenty years, and what does he say about that? He says it makes him paranoid; he says it makes him agitated. His says opiates give him energy. Use your common sense about that. But he also says, and he even said this in the telephone interview after the side of the road that withdrawals will make you do anything, anything to get rid of them. That's common sense as well. We know how powerful opiates can be, and how the addiction of opiates can be extremely powerful. The withdrawals, not being dope sick can be extremely powerful.

But he's also saying he's taking 1,000 milligrams a day, and he's trying to blame all of this theft on that. But that's not what these records reflect. They reflect an insatiable desire for money, and a hamster wheel that's been going on for a long time, and you don't really see the escalation from his drug dealer until March of 2021. I would ask you -- also, one of the tenants of juries is common sense. That's what you're here for is for an individual and a collective common sense. Common sense. 1,000 milligrams a day, does that sound survivable? He sat there on that stand and told you that's what he was taking, and as we're going to go through this process, we're going to talk about what he said on the stand and how many times on the fly that he looked you in your eyes and didn't tell you the truth. He's very good at it. His own partner said that. He's very, very good at it. I'd leave it to you to decide whether a thousand milligrams a day is survivable with opiates.

And if it was, that you could still engage in work, have a successful practice, and then on top of that engage in these complex conspiracies to steal and fool everyone, and live a life, and how people outwardly think that you're, you know, who you profess to be in public if you were taking 1,000 milligrams a day. Does that make common sense? I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, it doesn't. I have no doubt that he was taking opiate pills, but I think he looked you -- and I would submit to you to decide whether or not he looked you in the eye and claimed an amount that's inconsistent with whatever else we know about this man. And it's really inconsistent with the survivability as a matter of common sense. He can never function at the level he's been functioning, keeping up with these pressures, staying one step ahead for over a decade if he was taking that much dope, I would submit to you.

Just one other lie that I would submit to you is a lie that he's trying to get you to believe to feel sympathetic for him, as if the dope was the cause of the money and the cause of his issues, when the reality is it wasn't. This had been going on for a long time, and the finances proved differently. But what else about this? You've seen the interviews. And we're going to play some clips of these interviews, but I'm not going to play them all for you again. You've watched them, but if you have any question, go back and watch them. He talks about being paranoid. Watch those interviews with -- when he's with David Owen. He doesn't look like he's withdrawing from any drugs. His responses are appropriate. He's not displaying any paranoia. He's smooth. He's focused on the events. He's focused on trying to get information about the case from law enforcement officers, which is interesting in its own right. Why is he so focused on that?

And in Savannah, where supposedly he was detoxing, he sat down, as you've heard the testimony, with a composite sketch artist and went through the whole process to come up with this picture, which I swear is not me. How do you do that? How do you do that if you're on that much dope? So, why did he tell you that, ladies and gentlemen? Why did he look you in the eye and tell you that as he sat there on that stand trying to explain what was going on? It's interesting, also, that in one of the interviews with law enforcement -- there were three interviews: June 8th, June 10th, and August 11th -- before we get to the side of the road that he mentions that Paul was a little detective. And that's very interesting for him to mention that because you heard from Marian Proctor, Maggie's sister, that Maggie called Paul that, the Little Detective, specifically in reference to Paul paying attention and trying to keep Alex from taking pills. Why would he bring that up?

That's an interesting thing to bring up because that was what that was in reference to. And what do we know? We know about in May if we talk about all of the pressures that are coming upon him, all of these financial things that we've talked about, this exhausting hamster wheel that's going on forever, the need to beg, borrow, and steal to stay one step ahead and he's running out of options there, on top of that we know in May that Paul sends a text to him saying Mom found some pills. We need to talk. Mom found some pills, and we need to talk. Another pressure from Paul and Maggie on him. And if you look at the texts the weekend of the ballgame on the June 7th, and those are in evidence, Alex is not at the game. And he's texting back and forth and Maggie is, like, don't come if you feel bad. And he's, like, well, they're making me -- you know, I think I can get a late checkout. And then he's, like, at 1:00 they made me leave.

I submit to you it's a reasonable inference they were on to him this time. They were watching him like a hawk. Opiates, the most powerful of withdrawals, and everything is coming to a head, including this as well. He's run out of money. Running out of options. Doesn't get paid in any significant way until December. Already stole the Faris fees and spent that money in two months. Has an expensive pill habit. And accountability and consequences will do everything -- undo everything in his life, everything that is his self identity, everything -- the only things that he cares about. Because he doesn't care about lying to his partners, and his family, and his friends, and his clients. If it will delay accountability for him, he'll do it in a heartbeat, and all of that is about to be undone.

MR. WATERS: All right. I hope everybody had a good lunch. Motive, means, opportunity, guilty acts, that's the basic way to determine identity. So, let's talk a little bit now about means, the tools to commit the crime. The family weapons were used to commit this crime, and this is forensic evidence that was presented to you. First of all we'll talk about the Blackout, and you've heard testimony that there were two Blackouts purchased in December of '16, and that one went missing around Halloween of '17, years prior to these murders, and that a replacement without a thermal scope was bought in April of 2018. Three Blackouts that the defendant purchased, he could only account for one of them, and its this third Blackout which is the one that's at issue. You heard from Paul's friend, Will Loving. And first of all let me say this. You heard the defendant in his various statements, and he's very concerned about saying that there's no -- they didn't have a Blackout.

There was no Blackout along with them, even though he slipped up once and said yeah, we were out looking for hogs. And you heard from his law partners that do the same thing saying, yeah, you could look for hogs in the daytime. Very, very, concerned early on in his statements in saying they didn't have a Blackout. They just had a .22 pistol. And he also said -- eventually he was, like, well, I think I replaced it. Well, I guess I replaced it. I'm certain I replaced it. If you listen to his various statements, very vague and fuzzy about this third Blackout until the friends, Paul's friends, who one of whom -- both of whom testified, but Will Loving in particular, and what did Will Loving say? The defendant said the gun went missing around Christmastime of 2020, but Will Loving said no, I was with Paul. I was with Paul in turkey season, which is in the spring.

I was with Paul in turkey season, and we sat out at the steps right outside the house that y'all went to today, right on that side entrance that goes into the gun room. And if you look down, you can see how they were digging a pond and how you could fire down in that area, and they set up some targets to sight it in. And we were shooting that other gun. We were shooting that other gun, that replacement gun, and it had a red dot sight on it. Not a thermal scope but a red dot. A red dot, which is not good at shooting at night, but they were shooting it and sighting it in with the red dot, the tan gun. He was with Paul while they were shooting that gun right there. And what did Jeff Croft, who testified before you, find right there? Weathered cases, or casings. Weathered cases right where Will said and he Paul were shooting that gun just a couple of months prior to the murders.

S&B 147 grain Blackout rounds, and those rounds and empty boxes, and the pictures were in evidence, and the rounds are in evidence, were found all over that property. S&B 147 grain Blackout. There were full clips found, there were empty boxes found, and there were also cases found, S&B 147 grain Blackout rounds found across the street at their shooting house. Two separate locations on the property. But what's really important, again, goes back to what Will said: I was with Paul when he shot that replacement gun right there. Right there. And you heard the forensic scientist Paul Greer testify that the six cases, Items 2 through 7, the six cases found around Maggie that killed her were loaded into, extracted, and ejected through the same firearms that fired those weathered cases right outside the door where y'all went to today and at the shooting range across the street. A family Blackout killed Maggie. It was present just a couple of months prior to the murders, and it's gone now.

It's gone now. The family weapon the defendant cannot account for killed Maggie. But what about the shotgun, the 12 gauge shotgun that was loaded with one Federal Double Ought Buck, and one Drylok Number Two Steel Shot? Well, first of all you heard that the two weapons that Paul often favored and often carried were this shotgun right here and the Blackout. Those were his two guns, his favorite guns aside from his deer rifle. The defendant had that gun with him when Daniel Greene, the first deputy on the scene, showed up. And shotguns, as you heard, are a little bit different than rifles. And the conclusion there was was that the two fired shells that were inside the feed room that killed Paul had class characteristics similar with that Benelli Super Black Eagle Three but insufficient individual, identifying marks to either match or exclude it, that shotgun right there. But what did you -- else did you hear about the shotguns? Paul had this Benelli Super Black Eagle Three.

That was his gun, camo print, camo strap. Nolen Tuten, Nathan Tuten, Will Loving, Rogan all identified that as Paul's gun. It's the one that Alex had. It's got Maggie's DNA and blood on the receiver, you heard from the DNA expert, and it was loaded with a 12 gauge and a 16 gauge misloaded round. What else did you hear? You also heard about the Super Black Eagle Two, and you heard from Nolen and Nathan that this was Buster's gun. This is the Super Black Eagle Two that had the Mojo sticker on it, and that was recovered during SLED's search of the residence the next day. But what else did you hear? You heard from Nathan and Nolen that the defendant's favorite gun was a Super Black Eagle One. You remember Nathan going through each one of these guns and how knowledgeable he was as to the differences between them? SLED searched Moselle for every 12 gauge. No Super Black Eagle One. Family weapons. Family weapons killed them.

And on top of that, just like the S&B 147, while not as much but they're in evidence, Federal Double Ought Buck, and the Winchester Drylok Steel Two Shot, rounds were recovered at various locations on the property. What does that mean? At the start we talked about motive, means. The defendant had the means to commit these crimes. At the beginning of the case, I talked to you about some of the evidence that you would hear, and I held up my cell phone, and there's been a lot of that evidence, but the last witness you heard in the State's case in chief was Peter Rudofski, and he went through that timeline. What does it show? Motive, means, opportunity. Opportunity to commit the crime. And what does this timeline show? These are all of the information, the various sources of information that were in this timeline, and let's look at what it shows. The first thing right here is that the defendant arrived at Moselle at 6:42. And I'll say one thing.

You've heard a lot of testimony about what he said about times: what time he got home, what time he went to the office, how long he was at Almeda. Certainly people can have some variability in assessing that, but he almost never was right. Almost never was right. 6:42, he arrives at Moselle. Paul, according to his extraction, gets there about 7:04. At about 7:03, you see the defendant, steps registering on his phone. And then over the next 30 minutes or so we see a symmetry, general symmetry between the steps between Paul's phone and Alex's phone as he described walking the property. At 7:39, we have creation of the Snapchat video that had the clothes on it. When that ultimately was recovered, and you saw the interview, it was shown to the defendant who had provided his clothes that night, and the first time then he started talking about changing his clothes, and we'll talk more about that later. Again, 7:55 to 8:05, we have some symmetry with the steps.

We have Paul Murdaugh's battery life, and you hear from the experts that have reviewed Paul's usage that like many kids his age, he's constantly flirting with it being low. That didn't stop him from using that, and you'll see that in the evidence in this case as well. 7:56, again, that's when Paul sends the Snapchat to his friends. And then at 8:08, we see Paul leave the kennel area at 8:06, and 8:08 make his way down to the residence. 8:05 to 8:09, around that time that Paul is getting here at 8:08, that's the last step activity on Alex's phone, and it's the last step activity until 9:02, which we'll talk about in a minute. Alex's phone pretty much goes with no activity for that time period. And also he has no cell activity from 6:52 to 9:04, which is right in that time period we'll talk about in a little bit. So, eating dinner. You heard the defendant talk about eating dinner. Paul was at that residence, if you look right here, from 8:14 down to 8:35.

And, again, that timeline exhibit, there's the big one and then there's the condensed one, and all of that is in there in evidence for y'all to look at. He's at that residence from 8:14 to 8:35. Now the defendant, again despite having a photographic memory -- a new photographic memory about things that he told y'all that people are hearing for the first time -- still can't remember specific things about Maggie's activities as to when Maggie arrived, as to what they talked about. He can remember dropping his phone down in the console, but he can't remember things like that. He wants to remember things that help him try to explain to you why he never told the truth about maybe the most important thing he could tell law enforcement, but he can remember very specific details. He still gets this wrong. When she arrives at 8:17 at Moselle, they're already there. And how do we know that?

Because her cell phone disconnects from her Mercedes at 8:17, and that's when she starts showing steps. And Paul, what's he doing? He's still using his phone like always. We see the battery life, but he's still sending snaps, receiving snaps -- bless you -- he's sending to his friends, all of these friends right here. He's receiving these snaps all during that time from 8:17 to 8:30, continuing to communicate with his friends using his phone like always. And then what happens? About 8:30 time Maggie's phone registers some steps, and consistent with that, consistent with her and Paul going down to the kennels, riding down to the kennels, we see Paul's Mora phone start showing steps. And then down here at 8:38, he's in that kennel area where those dots are. And if you look at that particular slide from 8:38 to 8:44, that's going to be the last GPS reading on Paul's phone, 8:44. You heard from Rogan, and you've heard from Rogan as it references this timeline.

And Rogan tells you, and told you from that witness stand, that he was having a conversation with Paul about Cash and the dog's tail. They were having an active conversation about that. Paul calls Rogan at 8:40, and they're talking about it, and Rogan says send me a FaceTime, but if it doesn't work, send me a video. At 8:44, 4 minutes and 14 seconds, we have right here the FaceTime but it only lasts 11 seconds, and then at 8:44:55 that's when the kennel video was recorded, the last 50 seconds. At the beginning of this investigation, as you'll recall the testimony, they didn't have Paul's password and couldn't get in. And you heard in the defendant's August 11th statement that when he was asked about Rogan saying he may have heard Alex on the phone during this time, he said, well, I'd be surprised if that were the case. Because law enforcement didn't have this kennel video.

They didn't have this kennel video until April of 2022 when Paul's phone was finally unlocked, and that changed everything. And why did it change everything? Opportunity. Being at the scene of the crime when the murders occurred. Opportunity. And, more importantly, exposing the defendant's lies about the most important thing he could have told law enforcement: when was the last time I saw my wife and child alive. Why in the world would an innocent reasonable father and husband lie about that, lie about it so early? Because he didn't know that was there, and he could always say, well, Rogan must be mistaken. I'm surprised. Not if my times are right is what he said. Rogan told you I was expecting that video right there. That was supposed to be the next thing that happened. Send me the video because we were worried about Cash, the dog's, tail. He talked about how his girlfriend was going to call a veterinarian, or she had some association with one.

There was an active conversation going on right then and right there. And what's going on still? Paul is still also texting his friends. You might recall that in opening statement the defense counsel said, oh, he was texting after that video for 10 minutes. It's not for 10 minutes. It's for barely a minute. Down here, 8:48:58 to 8:49:01, that's the last time that Paul's phone was unlocked. And what do we know? We know that the defendant was there just minutes earlier at the scene of the crime with the victims. 8:49:01, Paul's phone locks. He never sends that video to Rogan. You heard Rogan say that when he watched that video, you heard him say that that's the video I was supposed to receive. That is the video that my friend was supposed to send to me, and he never did. In fact, Rogan responds at 8:49:35 and says: See if you can get a good picture of him. Marianne -- His girlfriend. -- wants to send it to a girl we know that's a vet.

Tell him to sit and stay and he shouldn't move around too much. And even though this is an active conversation with Paul, who you heard from multiple friends was one to respond and use his cell phone, Paul never reads it. Paul never reads it. What happens at 8:49:31 -- or 8:49:01 for Paul? 8:49:31, Maggie reads Lynn's response to the group thread about Mr. Randolph, and then her phone locks forever. It was never unlocked again until it was recovered the next day, down here 6/8 at 1:10. 8:49 for both of them. The defendant, after hearing multiple individuals of his family, and friends, and law partners get on the stand and listen to that video and say that's him on that video, got on the stand for the first time and said okay, I was there. He was forced into doing what he does all the time, and that's coming up with a new lie when he's confronted with evidence he can no longer deny.

And the only reason he did that, the only reason he did that is because all of those witnesses at that witness stand said yeah, that's him. He's there. Why would he lie about that, ladies and gentlemen? Why would he even think to lie about that if he were an innocent man? Why would he even think about that? But he got on the stand and has told you a story, and we're going to talk about that story in a minute, but his story was was that he didn't want to go down there, and then he went down there, and he went down there really quick and got -- carried the chicken and went straight back, and can't remember anything about what he talked about with Maggie. He can't remember their conversation at dinner, but he's dadgum sure about the fact that he got down there and went straight back. But even if you give him the benefit of the doubt, his story can't make sense because that kennel video is 50 seconds. It's over at 8:45:45.

Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt that he could take care of the chicken, and maybe the fastest dog and chicken chase ever, and put that chicken up and not say a word to Maggie and Paul, and get on that golf cart and drive all the way back to the house, where does that put you? It puts you right at 8:49, at which point he claims he went inside and he managed to dose for a second, but then he's up at 9:02, perhaps the quickest nap ever. It doesn't make sense, ladies and gentlemen. It's a new story to fit facts he can no longer deny, from a person who -- not a single person who was close to him knew who he really was. Not a single person close to him hadn't been lied to by this man. And I will submit to you that this one is the most blatant one yet, and we'll talk more about that in a second. What happened at 8:49? Y'all have been to the scene. That feed room door is probably a bit tighter than this.

But you saw the evidence from Kenny Kinsey and all the rest of them that clearly Paul was in the middle of that room. It's a kill zone. There's nobody in there with him; he's in that room. No defensive wounds at all. His hands are down, and he takes that shot, buckshot to the chest. And any person who did that could probably think that took care of business because it's buckshot, but for some reason he was canted this way, and it went through, it was a million to one shot that it didn't kill him. Alex thought it did: Alex, the lawyer; Alex, the prosecutor; Alex, who's thinking through that. We see he's manufactured an alibi, and he's also manufacturing the fact that there's two guns used. But we know, unlike the expert they called from Connecticut where they can't even get ARs -- he doesn't know about people riding around on property. He doesn't know Paul and the two guns he likes to use. He doesn't know about this family and how common those guns are together.

Says, well, his only conclusion is, oh, it wouldn't be practical for somebody just to fire out the clip. But this is him. This is Alex the prosecutor, the lawyer. He's thinking through this. He's thought this. He's going to use two guns because it's going to confuse people that perhaps there were two shooters. But again, it doesn't make sense. Two family weapons? But he thinks Paul is shot. And you heard the testimony that Paul appears in the feed room doorway. Is Alex putting down that shotgun to pick up the Blackout and is startled by Paul, and that's why the angle is like that, and catches Paul like that, and it goes up into the ceiling, as you've heard the testimony from Kinsey, and blows his brains out? And what happens with Maggie right here? We see activity on Maggie's phone. You heard about sandal prints. You heard from Kenny Kinsey about the mark on her leg from the Polaris over there by the overhang next to the feed room.

You've seen the diagrams and the crime scene photos that all of those cases are in that area between the doorway and the feed room and where Maggie was found. You heard that Maggie had no defensive wounds. You also heard Paul had stippling from that first shot, a close range shot, with no indication that he detected a threat from the person who fired that weapon. And why? Because it was him. The same with Maggie. Because Maggie sees what happens, and she comes running over there, running to her baby. Probably the last thing on her mind, thinking it was him who had done this. She's running to her baby while he's got -- picked up the Blackout and opens fire at close range, again with no defensive wounds. And she takes those two shots that you heard Dr. Riemer say were parallel, and it crumples her over, and those cases, you can see them move around, and takes that shot that goes through her, and she goes down flat, and then there's the shot in the back of her head. Malice.

Is that malice, ladies and gentlemen? Is that malice to do that? Is that intentional harm to another with a bad intent, with an evil intent to do those things? Clearly, I submit to you, clearly it's malicious. Clearly it's malicious. She was running to her baby. Heard that shot and was running to her baby, and she got mowed down by the only person that we have exclusive proof was at that scene just minutes before, and who lied about that very fact until he could no longer do it to you last week. Alex told you he went down there in the golf cart. We'll talk about this in a little bit, but they had their expert come up here with the two 5-2 people and all of the rest of it. He's sitting in the golf cart, but he comes up in the golf cart, but what we don't see, as I said before, is any activity on his phone until 9:02. If the crime occurred around 8:49 to 8:53 down there at the feed room -- State's Exhibit 516, it's just a diagram.

Remember what Roger Dale Davis did about the kennels and the hose there and how it wasn't put up the way he would put it up? If you're going to wash off real quick, what better place to do it? The water, the pictures of the water in State's 199 and 190, it wouldn't take long to strip down and wash yourself off, get in that cart, and head back to the house. And then at 9:02, the defendant over there, who wouldn't even admit until forced to that he was even at the scene, all of a sudden he is as busy as he has ever been. 9:02 to 9:06, 283 steps. 9:03, we see the system start up on the car, and that could mean that he's close by the car. Has he returned with Maggie's phone and placed it in that car? And then what we do we see from 9:02 to 9:06? Not only is he 283 steps in that 4 minute period, but he is making calls like crazy. And I asked him, I said what were you doing? What were you doing?

And even though he has a photographic memory about things that he thinks will convince you, he could not answer what he's doing during this 4 minute period that is so illustrative of what we're talking about here. That for 4 minutes he is not only going 283 steps -- and this is a defense exhibit, Defense 156, 283 steps. And they put in the distance. You heard the distance isn't as accurate, but it's a -- it illustrates the point: that's 208 meters. Meter, you know, roughly is a yard, a little bit more, a little bit less, I don't remember, but let's say it's 600 feet. That's a lot. And he couldn't remember what he was doing. I asked him, had you been on a treadmill? Were you doing jumping jacks? What were you doing at the same time you're calling all these folks? Why is he calling multiple times? We can see right here he calls Maggie, he calls Randolph, he calls Maggie again, all in that 4 minute period where he's moving around, but he couldn't remember what he was doing.

Just getting ready. Is the prosecutor, the lawyer, manufacturing his alibi? Because he knows he's got to get to Almeda quick. He's got to compress those timelines, and that's exactly why he knew to lie about being at the kennels to start with. He's got to compress timelines so that it would convince whoever down the road that he couldn't have done it. He's got to compress them, and that's why he's doing all of that right then and there. System startup, 9:05:56 on the Suburban. And then this is interesting, Maggie's phone has that orientation change to portrait 2 seconds before Alex's second call goes into her phone. If it's some random vigilante, some random vigilante who knew to hide out there and counting on family guns being there, did he have ESP? Did he have ESP to move that, or was that Alex turning the phone as he got to the Suburban checking, as he manufactured his alibi, that it was coming through?

And we saw how quickly out of the gate when law enforcement arrived and in his first interview how he's immediately referring to his phone. And besides that, you've heard about Alex, you heard from witnesses he went down to the kennels but he didn't take his phone. Is that also the lawyer and the prosecutor making sure his phone was not with him when he went down there? You heard testimony it would be unusual for him not to take that phone down to the kennels. And then he gets underway with this call right here, too. All of those calls, all of those steps when his phone finally goes active just minutes after he was at the scene with the victims and he lied about it, and he's so busy. But let's take him at his word. Again, why in the world if he's calling her so much? If he's so busy and so concerned to call her as many times as that in a 4 minute period, why would he not just drive by the kennels?

Why would he not just drive down there and say, hey, hey, Maggs, I'm going to Almeda. What you guys doing? Hey Paul, you want to go? Why is he so busy and making so many calls but doesn't drive the less than a minute down there to see what they're up to? Why would he not do that? And you've heard testimony from Marian. You even heard it from the defendant's on mouth about whether or not Maggie was going to go with him to Almeda, that Alex had actually asked her to come home that night, which he denies, and said in his statement that he found out later that that was the case. But you saw the text from Blanca, and you heard from Marian that Alex wanted Maggie to come home that night, and made sure of it. Malice. With all of that, why would he not just turn and drive down there? He was just there in a golf cart. Why would he not drive down there? Why is he so anxiousness to have missed calls with her and he was just there and not drive down there?

About the same general time period that he lied until he tried to tell you what he told you from the stand last week, right here the Suburban connects to the -- Alex's IPhone. He calls Maggie at 9:06:52, and he's getting in the Suburban right at that time. Maggie's backlight goes off from 9:07 to 9:31. And you've heard the testimony from the various experts about the backlight, and then he leaves Moselle Road at 9:07:06. All of this is fitting together. He's on the move. At 9:08:36, he's right here doing 42 miles an hour, and there's Maggie phone location, and at 9:08:42 he's just passing. And at 9:08:58, just 20 seconds after, he's almost at that location, he texts Maggie's phone and says: Going to check on M, be right back. That text was unread. Now, there's been a lot of discussion from all of the experts about the backlight issue, and every single one of them said that there's a lot of variables about that light coming on.

Every single one of them said it's not going to record an orientation change unless that light is on. And you heard from each one of the experts about those variables, and about the fact that there's no guarantee that it's going to come on or not come on. And you heard from Paul McManigal about that issue, and they cross- examined him about that and all the rest of it, but it's just a common sense determination about how IPhones work, about how they work. That Raise to Wake feature is set for actual -- somebody lifting it up in the normal course. It is not set to respond necessarily to violent motion, like flipping it, and every single expert testified to that. Every single one of them did. And then besides that, you would have to accept the fact that Alex is driving by just moments prior to that time. All of this, all of these circumstances would have to go the other way of the reasonable inferences in this case.

Paul McManigal got up there and testified as to these issues, and as to the fact that there's no guarantee, in fact, more likely than not, that the -- if a phone is violently thrown or flipped or frisbee'd or whatever, it's not going to light up, and that's consistent with what every or expert said. 9:07 to 9:22, the defendant is on the way to Almeda. And you heard testimony from Mr. Rudofski about this, from Agent Rudofski. He's hitting 74 miles an hour at night on that particular route. What's he in a hurry about? That's faster than he drove to work. Why is he in a hurry? Because he knows he has to compress that timeline. And then along the way he's manufacturing the alibi by making these short calls. 60 seconds. He calls Chris Wilson. He calls John Marvin. Chris Wilson calls him back. He's on the phone the entire way. Does he say to any of them, hey, I can't get Maggie on the phone? Does he say anything like that? They're very short. And he doesn't talk about much.

And then we get down here at 9:20. There's a 131 second call, which means that call is over at 9:22:45, and that's also when we see the vehicle go into park. That's when we have the arrival at Almeda as well. And you heard from defense witnesses that, well, people would park around back right there. Okay. It's also, though, near these structures. There's that line right there. But what do we see? From 9:22 to 9:32, we've got 195 steps taken. We have him calling Libby Murdaugh, which would be calling the house, 2 minutes later. And then from there we have at 9:31 and 9:32, we have system startups on the Suburban, which you've heard from the experts could be from having that remote key in your pocket and walking near the car. 9:22 to 9:32 is the steps, and 9:31 you've got two system startups. And what did you hear from Shelley? That he called but it still took a number of minutes before he came in. Well, that's about 6 minutes right there.

Meanwhile, what's he so busy right there at Almeda? Meanwhile, Rogan was trying to call his friend to no avail. He tries to message Maggie: Tell Paul to call me. Neither one of them can respond. Still a busy guy at Almeda. 9:35 to 9:45, we've got 60 steps. We've also got another -- at 9:36 at the beginning of that time period another hit on the system startup. 9:36 to 9:41, down here, about a 5 minute period, we've got another hit. And then at 9:43:05, the Suburban moves out of park. He's not there very long. And he's moving around a lot and he's hitting off that car while he's at Almeda. He told law enforcement multiple stories about his trip there. You heard Ms. Shelley Smith talk about that. You heard her talk about him trying to tell her how long he'd been there. He says he was just trying to tell her the truth, but that's not how she felt.

And Blanca didn't feel the same way when he tried to talk to her about what he was wearing that night, both of these being people that's worked for that family for a long time. But he's a business guy during all of this. Leaving Almeda, we have a pause. 9:44 and no seconds to 9:44 and 54 seconds, and that's during the time period that Alex calls that phone of Maggie's again. This is the time period where he remembered -- because I asked him on cross and he remembered very specifically about his phone falling down in the console and that whole story. Is that true, ladies and gentlemen? Or is he coming up with some details on the fly and he can't remember more important things, like what was the last conversation you had with your wife and child when you jetted down to the kennels and back? What did y'all talk about at dinner? What were you doing from 9:02 to 9:06? Those are questions he doesn't want to answer. But would a reasonable person remember those things?

Would they not replay in their mind every day the last conversations that they had? Why would you remember that console story? Because he lies convincingly and easily, and he can do it at the drop of a hat, and you've heard testimony about that. He's been doing it to all of the people who trust him for years, and he did it to y'all. He's manufacturing an alibi. He's smart. He's a good lawyer. His hand -- family has a history of prosecution; he understands these issues. That's why this case is a case that had to be figured out this particular way because he knows what to do to try to prevent evidence from being gathered. And if you listen to his statements again and listen to the questions he asks, he's asking questions like that and he's trying to figure out what do the police have. What do they know? He's a prosecutor trying to manufacture his alibi. And we see this again because Paul -- he sends a text: Call me, babe. Of course, none of that is read or responded to.

And then at 9:52:15 he calls Chris Wilson: Call me if you up. Call me if you up. And Chris calls back, and they chat for about 2 minutes, including the connection time. 2 minutes. And what does Chris Wilson say? Well, he says it was a normal conversation. Well, of course it is with this guy. He's convincing. But what does Chris say? The only thing that they talk about was Chris bringing up some case then, and then Alex was, like, hey, I've got to go. I'm at Almeda. Did Alex say, hey, I'm trying to get home, I can't get Maggie on the phone, I've called her, like, six times, Paul won't answer either? Did Alex say -- he said: Call me if you up. Did he say -- did Chris say that Alex said I've got to ask you a question, or let's talk about this? No. Chris brought up some case and it was mundane. It was mundane. It's manufacturing an alibi.

He's calling anybody who will answer the phone for these short conversations, and it's the first -- one of the first things out of his mouth on the first interview: look at my phone. I called this person, I called this person, I called this person, I called this person. He's manufacturing this alibi. Also throughout all of this, all of this relevant time period, you see from the Dylan Hightower extraction, and you'll see that over and over again, all of these call logs that are deleted from the extraction, they're deleted, which occurred on June 10th. What's up with that? On the way back -- and these are Defendant's Exhibits 141 and 142, -- rolling pretty heavy at 75 to get there, and I'm sure the defense will point out that that 80 miles an hour was a peak. Still running pretty good there. What's he in a hurry about in the dark doing 80 miles an hour? At 9:51:42, rolling 80 when he texts Chris: Call me if you're up. Hits peak speed when he's texting that.

10:01, he arrives at Almeda, and this is going to be important. Rogan, of course, is trying to call Paul, and he texts Paul: Yo, which is unread, but hits Paul's phone. And then he gets to -- it says Almeda, sorry about that. That's obviously back to Moselle. He gets there, and he's shifting in and out of park from 22:00, which is 10:00, to 10:01:43. He's calling Maggie at 10:03:58. And then at 10:05:06 he leaves for the kennels. At 10:05:57, he arrives at the kennels about a minute later. You can make it in a minute in a Suburban. How long is it going to take in a golf cart? 10:05:57, he arrives at the kennels, and 10:06:14 is the 911 call. Now, there's a lot of back and forth with him about that, but in his statements with what he told his law partners that he went in great detail over about his activities that night, including lying to them about ever going to the kennels, he was very clear that he got out of the car and went and checked Paul and Maggie.

One time he said to see if they were breathing, another time to say he checked the pulse. And you've seen the horrific injuries they suffered. 19 seconds. Is that enough time for a surprised human being to come across that scene and process what they are seeing? Get out of the car, go over there, check both of those bodies, and then call 911. He's changed the story now, yet again because he's confronted with this evidence. The reason why it's so quick, the reason why it's so quick is because he knew exactly what scene he was going to find. 19 seconds. During that 911 call, and you could hear it on the 911 call, he leaves for the residence from 10:11 to 10:14, and you can see the map points on there, and those are the speeds on the Suburban on those trips. It took just under a minute doing 35 and 30 miles an hour. Think about that when you go back to his story about a casual trip down to the kennels in the golf cart and you look at his times that he's trying to convince you of.

10:17, he gets off the 911 call. He calls Randy; he calls Randy again. He calls John Marvin. And then we see at 10:20 and 8 seconds, Paul's phone reflect that auto lock thing. That could be, as you heard from the testimony, it not recognizing a face. And this is interesting because we'll see over the next few slides, he spends a whole lot of time trying to call Rogan Gibson. He told you, oh, well he's a good boy that lives down the street. They live close by. He's calling Rogan before he calls many of his family, before he calls Buster. He's calling Rogan multiple times. And those texts would have come in on Paul's phone. What's he so concerned about? He said he turned Paul over and his cell phone popped out. This is a sealed exhibit. Popped out? Manufacturing an alibi, concerned about the evidence. Worried about what Rogan may have known or may have heard. I put it down. Can I have this back, please?

MR. WATERS: There 10:24, Imessages: Call me. 10:25. 10:29. 10:25, the first deputy is on scene. 10:29, calling Randy. 10:30, Rogan again. And then finally at 10:34 is when Paul's phone powers off. Opportunity. Motive, means, and opportunity. Guilty conscience. I've already kind of talked about these so I'm not going to belabor the point, but you heard from Blanca Simpson. Blanca Simpson said he was wearing like a polo shirt when he left. He was wearing this shirt in the -- Vinny Vines. She recognized both of those. He, of course, turned over the t-shirt that he was wearing when law enforcement arrived. And then you heard Blanca say he later tried to convince her that he was wearing a Vinny Vines shirt. Three shirts in one day, and a fourth one he tried to get Blanca to say. And you heard her testimony: she felt very uncomfortable by that. Multiple changes of shoes in the day. He wouldn't be wearing those shoes if he were out riding the property.

I've already mentioned the text from Maggie that Alex wants me to come home, but he can't even be clear about that point because that doesn't fit with his narrative. Marian Proctor says the same thing, but he can't admit that because that doesn't fit with his narrative. She was surprised that Maggie didn't go along to Almeda. And then she said Alex made an interesting comment, one of many, some of which came from that stand that we'll talk about in a little bit: whoever did this thought about it for a really long time. Why would he say that? Because he told you that it was just random vigilantes from the boat case, of which there is no evidence whatsoever that you've seen in this record. Trials depend on evidence. There has to be evidence to make a decision. And his claims, trying to manufacture something about the boat case, there's been no evidence whatsoever of any specific other individual.

There has to be evidence to consider, not just mere allegations that have no basis in any sort of evidence. Whoever did this thought about it for a really long time. I think if you think about the defendant's statements and some of the things he says, a lot of times he says things in context but he means them in another when he says things like I hurt the ones I loved the most. We talked about Shelley. After Randolph's funeral he shows up early. She might have said Wednesday, but there was other information that Randolph's funeral was on Monday, but anyway, shows up with something blue. Shows up early. Wants to come in. Goes and moves the vehicles. And then there's that rain coat, huge rain coat. She calls it a tarp, but it's a huge rain coat. And it's got a ton of GSR on the inside, and it's found in the closet upstairs. State's 411. He was a busy guy at Almeda as we just saw. He was moving around, kept hitting off of his Suburban.

And then, of course, as you heard, he was with family for the next few days. After the funeral, he's back. And it was weird enough and interesting enough that Shelley said something about it. I'm also saying that in her experience, it was unusual for him to come that late. Then we have the defendant and his many statements. Went through a lot with the defendant, who told you that the reason why he was telling this you this new story was because he was paranoid because he had a bag of pills in his pocket. Because he had a distrust of SLED because Dave Owen asked him about his relationship with Maggie. And his law partners told him that he should have an attorney present, which one is here, one of his law partners sitting in the back.

MR. WATERS: Paul. First blast to the chest, stippling, arms down, not fatal for a buckshot blast to the chest. This is where there was some dispute from the defense experts. The second injury went into the left shoulder into the cheek with an exit wound on the top of the head, instantly fatal, and terminal collapse. Dr. Riemer has done 5,500 autopsies. She does an independent autopsy. She actually physically examined the victim. And she was very clear that it could not have happened from the top without destroying Paul's face. And I can show the image again. I'm reluctant to because I know y'all have seen it enough, so I'll rely on y'all to recall that his face was intact. I'll rely on y'all to recall -- and this is sealed -- all the evidence up top here at the top of the door. I'll rely on y'all to recall Kenny Kinsey's testimony that buckshot don't reverse course, that kinetics energy, it's going in one direction.

I'll rely on y'all to recall all of the biological matter that you see at the top of this door. I'll rely on y'all to recall looking at State's 339, which is the wadding from the shot that killed Paul because, if you recall, the wadding from the chest shot was found still in his chest right here. This is the wadding on the ground from the shot to his head. And if -- one of the things you recall from Dr. Riemer's testimony in looking at Paul's face was the abrasions around that cheek wound that came from the wadding as it entered there. You heard from Dr. Riemer that the reason for the shape on the shoulder was because it went along the shoulder and opened up that area there. It still was focused, and then expanding as it entered in here. But she also testified that if it was here, that force would not have left his face intact. Manner of death: homicide. Then you heard from Dr. Kenny Kinsey. What we described earlier, Paul was first shot in the feed room.

Largely agrees with her. Arms were not up. He believes the shot was a little closer, and the lack of stippling could be chalked up to the black t-shirt. But also agrees, as she does, no defensive wounds. Looking at the blood spatter locations there, and he testified in great detail and testified yesterday, there was no high velocity blood spatter on the ground at the entrance to the feed room, which would be necessary for the shot to have occurred in the manner in which the defense suggested. The spatter travels upward in an upward directory -- in an upward direction, and you can see that on the door. He spoke to the void area, and then he spoke of the blood on the ground that was around where Paul drops, and that it's low speed spatter. He talked about the dents in the feed room door, the pellet lodged in the doorframe upper. It's only possible if it's traveling through Paul's head. Not possible if it's from a ricochet as the defense suggested.

And steel is much less malleable than lead. What else did he say? Dr. Kinsey said that he -- I think three dozen times that he's observed contact wounds to the head with a shotgun, including one that happened in front of him, actually observed it. And he also said that any sort of contact wound like that would have destroyed the head and destroyed the face, and he was clear about that, and he's actually seen it. And I think what you see with the defense experts is they're coming to you with absolutes to try to make you consider that there's the possibility that a crime scene can definitively establish whether there's one or two shooters, or whether or not they're of a certain height, and that's just not how it works, and you heard that from Dr. Kinsey. That's not how it works. That's not how to worked in this scene. It's a red herring, ladies and gentlemen; it's a red herring. You've seen the testimony from Kenny Kinsey, who returned to talk about these issues.

You saw the demonstration over there in the doorway. Does that seem realistic to you, or is Kenny Kinsey's explanation consistent with the evidence, consistent with his experience? Consistent with Dr. Riemer's 5,500 autopsies, who actually observed the victims? Consistent with the blood spatter? The lack of high velocity on the floor but the existence of high velocity on the top and the low velocity blood spatter on the floor? What's consistent with the evidence? Maggie. Again, no defensive wounds. The first two shots to her abdomen and her leg on a parallel path and likely in close succession. Stippling close range. The mark on the back of her leg. Running to her baby, didn't see it coming. Bends over maybe on her hands and knees in pain. You saw me demonstrate that with both Dr. Riemer and Kenny Kinsey, and that's when she suffers that third rifle injury. And you heard their expert come in and say, no, it had to be going this way instead of this way.

Going up with that graze, hitting her breast, and into her head here. And Dr. Riemer actually performed the autopsy physically. She looked at the hole; she described the hole. She talked about the injury coming up into the head, and she showed you that. And she took issue with this idea that you can look at skin tags and that sort of thing and come to any conclusion about directionality. But what she told you is I looked at this wound. I saw the hole as it went up into the brain. This was an entrance wound up into the head. Instantly fatal, internal collapse. The wrist wound could have been an extraneous wound, or it could be associated with this. Third rifle injury, and then, of course, the fourth rifle injury to the back of the head that had the canyon effect. It would have been instantly fatal except for the fact that this one, there has to be some clearance for that third shot to come up. Again, manner of death is homicide. So, what did Dr. Kinsey say?

Again, he took issue with an expert coming in and trying to tell you that he can determine the location or the height of the shooter in this manner. He told you that cardboard, that cannot be relied upon. And while he did agree with the angle on the dog house, he showed you how changing the aspect of the shooter can easily fit with Alex. And that it's too far and way out over the skis to try to assert that you can determine from such information that the shooter had to be 5-2. That's not what you can do. Dr. Kinsey is a crime scene analyst. How many crime scenes did he say he had done? Hundreds of homicides, thousands of pieces of evidence. Real world stuff, that's what he comes and talks about. You simply can't make those determinations in a real world environment, come in here and try to tell you that from that sort of thing the shooter had to be a particular height. You just can't do it. You can't do it. I submit to you that Dr. Kinsey knows what he's talking about, and Dr.

Kinsey has the years of experience in real world applications of crime scenes to make those judgments. And I also submit to you that Dr. Kinsey isn't going to get out over his skis and try to make assertions to you in absolutes. The guy with the two 5-2 people refused to even concede the possibility of variables, but Dr. Kinsey knows that that's how reality works, and he's not going to get out over his skis and try to tell you something that simply cannot be supported by the evidence. And that's what the defense expert did. The shooter can usually be 6-4 or taller and fill out of those bullet trajectories. Of course, one thing that the defense expert didn't consider, and wouldn't even consider, is all of his little gray people, they're holding guns down like this. No consideration of kneeling, of sitting, of being in any sort of different position, but the reality is these are fluid.

Maggie is running to her baby, she is moving, and when she gets hit, it's most likely when she hits her leg against that Polaris. There's biological evidence on that Polaris, and she comes forward and collapses as Alex is moving around her firing. They had that expert come in yesterday -- I kind of mentioned it but I'll mention it again, who came in either yesterday or the day before -- even I've lost track of time at this point -- but tried to get out over his skis again and testify to you that it had to be two shooters because there were two guns, and why would you not just use the Blackout. Is that opinion helpful or make sense, knowing what you know about this case? And knowing what you know about the firearms of this particular house? And knowing what you know about Alex Murdaugh as you look at the rest of this evidence and what he's trying to manufacture to confuse these issues? Kenny Kinsey told you that it's just as likely that it could be one shooter, and -- I'm sorry, where is the big board -- and although this is not to scale, you have the feed room right here, the Polaris is right here, and the cases. While they can't be relied upon as specific location, and they still are -- can be illustrating general area, and they're all in that area moving from here to here. GSR on the defendant. Hand on the seatbelt.

MR. WATERS: GSR and the defendant's hands and seatbelt. Maggie's DNA on that Super Black Eagle. DNA on the Suburban steering wheel. No DNA or blood identified on the floorboards. I'm showing y'all State's 7. That's the how you doing comment when the second officer walks up. How you doing? State's 5, also from the body cam. It's very dark out there, and you can see how well lit it can be when the lights are on. 22, 93, 47. I'm almost done. I want to talk finally a little bit more about the defendant's story to you that he told on Thursday, and we've already talked about it. Just a couple of more things. I asked him when he went down there -- those dogs are clearly out on the kennel video. I asked him if the dogs were alerting on anybody nearby or in the woods as dogs do, and he said no. He said that the dogs were not doing that. You heard about the fact that he changed clothes, and you also heard testimony that his clothes smelled fresh and like laundry.

Again, manufacturing this scene. You heard from his law partners that he was not -- and also from Marian that he was not overly concerned with figuring out what happened, or any threats to Buster. And, in fact, you heard in the telephone interview after the side of the road they specifically asked him. Are there any threats to Buster? And he said no. Why is there no threat to Buster? Because he was the threat to Maggie and Paul. He knows there's no vigilante out there. That's why he was never concerned about it. That's why he called Rogan first the night of. He knows the only threat is him. I asked him if he could remember lying to all of those close to him, the people that he trusted, that he stole from, and he couldn't detail one single conversation. He couldn't remember his last conversation at the kennels. To use his own words, when you hear what he has to say when he was asked after the kennel video and his new story what he did, he said I got out of there.

He's got that photographic memory that can't remember what he was doing when he was his most active on that day. He didn't say if only I had been there. If only I had gone to the kennels. If only I could have stopped them. If only I had been there a little longer. He says I got out of there. What father would hold anything back if he were innocent? What father would care what happens to him after that? He claims he told you that he had cooperated with SLED, but he hadn't. There's nothing more important if someone is innocent than telling law enforcement when the last time the victims were alive. I just saw them. I saw them at 8:50. I saw them at 8:49. They're still out there. Go get them. He mentioned paranoia and tried to convince you that there was paranoia about some case ten years ago, and he confused David Owen with David Williams.

He got on the stand, ladies and gentlemen, and as he got confronted with things, as he was allowed to keep talking, he kept adding a new factor, and a new factor, and a new factor to justify why he's lying to you, why he had lied to law enforcement, and to justify why he's telling what he's telling you now. He kept adding them. He can remember those, ladies and gentlemen, he can remember a new one, he can remember this, and the problem with that is, is that there's no mistaking David Owen for David Williams. We showed you that picture of David Williams. This is a man who rides around with a badge in his windshield, who had blue lights installed on his private vehicle. And if you need any proof that he makes up lies and tries -- and is very convincing with them and makes them up on the fly, he kind of got caught flatfooted with the badge hanging out of his pocket. And he tried to assert to you that sometimes -- it was an accident that this badge is hanging out of his pocket.

How is that an accident? See how quickly he was able to lie? But more importantly, the blue lights. He sat there and told you three times, I think he said his name three times, that Sheriff Smalls, the former sheriff for Hampton County, gave him permission to put blue lights in a private vehicle for a part-time assistant solicitor, and blue lights in a private vehicle. He told you three times, effortlessly got up there, pivoted and lied to you because Sheriff Smalls came in here and of course not. That never happened. I've never heard of such a thing. This is a man who made his trade on lying. He lied about the most important fact in the case, and he sat there and effortlessly and easily pivoted to a new lie when confronted with something he wasn't prepared for. And the sheriff came in here and said, no, that never happened. Of course not. But he looked y'all in the eyes and told you. He looked you all in the eyes and told you that, as if what's your problem, Mr. Waters?

Sheriff Small said it was okay. He tries to tell you that he was paranoid about having a bag of pills in his pocket. The man who had blue lights in his car, and had a badge, rides around with a badge in his windshield. That's what he thinks of his power and prestige, and that's what he thinks of appropriate use of authority is to put it up there. That only serves him. It's only there to serve him. But he's tried to also tell you that he gets paranoid, and so he's tried to lie about the most important fact that he could offer law enforcement when his wife and son were brutally murdered because he had a bag of pills in his pocket, but yet in the same breath says, meh, I wasn't concerned about the law firm and that Faris stuff. Meh, I'm not concerned about the boat case. Why would he lie about that time unless he's manufacturing an alibi? And that's just why it took him only 19 seconds to call 911: because he knew what he was going to find out there.

This has all been constructed by him to try to confuse the situation. That lie that he told you to try to make it seem like he'd been trying to tell this, but he also admitted on the stand that -- as did his brother -- that his own brothers heard it for the first time last week, that his own attorney was repeating the story that he was napping the whole time and never went to the kennels on HBO in November just a couple of months ago. Why do people lie, ladies and gentlemen? Why do people lie? When it's really important, something like this, this brutal murder, most people are going to come clean about a bag of pills, but why do people lie? People lie because they knew they did something wrong. That's why he lied, ladies and gentlemen.

And just like always when confronted with new evidence that he no longer can deny, he backtracks, he pivots, and he tells a new story from that stand and looks you all in the eye, and then when new evidence comes up on cross, he backtracks, and he pivots, and he tells another new lie. And I'm sure if he could get up there again he'd be telling -- well, let me rephrase that. He's told -- he's said so many witnesses are lying on him, they're all lying on him, but the one thing we know is a constant is that he lied to them. Mark Tinsley is lying. Jeannie Seckinger is lying. Shelley Smith is lying. Blanca is lying. Everybody is lying on the master liar. You heard him answer the questions about whether or not he killed his wife and son. You heard me ask him if he was a family annihilator. When he answers those questions, did you see him do this? Did you see him do that on those videos, too, when he was asked questions where now we know he was lying?

Is that the most classic tell ever? I'll leave that to you to decide. One thing I will agree with him that he said up there, oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive. How appropriate coming from that man. This man is trying to sell you on an idea that he was at the kennels, that he jetted back, that he went inside so quickly, and quickly dosed off in the shortest nap in the history of the South, and then he got in his car just seconds after the supposed vigilantes. These vigilantes that apparently are 5-2, that knew somehow that Paul and Maggie would be both at Moselle on the evening of June 7th between 8:44 and 9:02. That also knew that they would be alone at this time. That they knew that Alex would not be at these kennels. And they also knew the property well enough to get to the kennels. They also assumed that they would find ammunition and guns there, so they didn't bring those.

And they traveled the same route as Alex after his short 20 second nap. And knew that he would be visiting his mother at Almeda during that time. Those are the circumstances that you would have to accept. The 5-2 vigilantes that arrived somehow in that tiny time period between 8:49 and 9:02, and that's giving him every bit benefit of the -- of the doubt as to the story he told you sprinkled with a bunch of new lies as well. But somehow they arrived during that time. The dogs never heard them or ran to them. Somebody put the dogs up put, put the dogs up in the wrong kennels. Somebody rolled up the hose. And these vigilantes were just lucky enough to find these family weapons there, which he's clear on the other side of it that he says were never there. He's so clear: oh, we never had the Blackout. We never rode around with the Blackout. No one knew who he was; no one knew who this man was. He had avoided accountability his whole life. He relied on his family name.

He had a powerful family. He carried a badge and used that authority. He lived a wealthy life. But now finally he was facing completely ruin. His father who he idolized, who I worked with on occasion, was dying. His son was facing charges for the boat case. He was facing a civil action that not only could potentially ruin him but expose the reality of what he'd been doing for years. He had an opioid addiction. The entire illusion of his life was about to be altered. He couldn't live for that. He's the kind of person for which shame is an extraordinary provocation. Shame is an extraordinary provocation. His ego couldn't stand that, and he became a family annihilator. I was thinking that the people who get the last word in this courtroom are y'all. And a lot of witnesses have testified over the last six weeks, but there's a couple that never get to testify that are important, and that's common sense and human nature. And there's two more that don't get to testify.

We couldn't bring you any eye witnesses because they were murdered, but common sense and human nature can speak on behalf of Maggie and Paul when you look at this in its totality. Common sense and human nature can speak for them, and they deserve a voice. Everything he did was meant to try to frustrate the forensics as lawyer and a prosecutor. The two guns and a manufactured alibi. And not taking his phone down to the scene. Deleting call logs. Making short phone calls. Bringing up the boat case. Moving Maggie's phone. Changing clothes. Looking at Paul's phone. Calling Rogan, or trying to call Rogan. One man controlled this crime scene initially, and that was Alex. But there were some things he couldn't control, and we brought those to you. Couple of things that the defendant said that I agree with. He said whoever did this had anger in his heart. Whoever did this planned it for a long time. That he hurt the ones who were closest to him.

It may be hard to fathom, ladies and gentlemen, but when you put all of those circumstances together and really understand who he was for the entirety of his life, and the pressures that he was facing from what he had been doing for so long, you can understand it. There was one mistake, though, he didn't expect, and this is why he was worried about Paul's phone. This is why he was trying to get in touch with Rogan, and it was that kennel video that came up late in the investigation. One of the things I asked him -- and we've talked about this. The last question I had to him and the first question I had to him was what is the most important part of your testimony here today? And he wouldn't even concede that, but he at least conceded that the most important thing was to look you in the eye and try to explain to you why, after his entire history, you should believe him when he says, okay, I was down at the kennels for one brief minute, but I had nothing to do with this.

We went through that long cross in which he identified all of these factors, from his partner saying having an attorney -- you need to have an attorney present, to his distrust of SLED, to Dave Owen asked him about his relationship. And I asked him at what point did you decide to lie? And he finally agreed, okay, it was in this interview. It was that moment in the June 8th interview; it was during that interview. And in his 911 call, ladies and gentlemen, at 10:06, when he was asked when he last saw them, he said an hour and a half, and then changed it to approximately 2 hours, consistent with what he would later say before any of those factors that he sat there and ran through with y'all is the reason for his decision even ever existed. And if that's not enough, ladies and gentlemen, you saw, and I played it for him, Daniel Greene's body cam where he was asked the same question, and he said that it was 1 and a half hours plus 45 minutes. And all of those factors that he identified to you as to why he supposedly lied, he was lying to you, ladies and gentlemen, when he made those up. He was lying to you when he made those up, just like he has lied to everyone close to him. And he's good at it. He's good at it.