Opening Statements

MR. WATERS: On the evening of June 7, 2021, at the defendant's property off Moselle Road in Colleton County, his son, Paul Murdaugh, was standing in a small feed room in some kennels they have on the property. About 8:50 p.m., the defendant over there, Alex Murdaugh, took a 12 gauge shotgun and shot him in the shoulder, in the chest and the shoulder with buckshot, and the evidence is going show it was a million to one shot he could have survived that, but after that, another shot went up under his head and did catastrophic damage to his brain and to his head. The evidence is going to show that Paul collapsed right outside that feed room. And just moments later, just moments later, he picked up a 300 Blackout, which is a type of ammunition but an AR style rifle -- and the evidence is going to show that the family had multiple weapons throughout the property -- picked up that 300 Blackout rifle and opened fire on his wife, Maggie, just a feet away near some sheds that used to be a hangar.

Pow, pow, two shots in the abdomen and in the leg and took her down, and after that there were additional shots, including two shots to the head that, again, did catastrophic damage and killed her instantly. The evidence is going to show that neither Paul nor Maggie have any defensive wounds, neither one of them had any defensive wounds, as if they didn't see a threat coming from their attacker. And the evidence is also going to show that both Maggie and Paul were shot at extremely close range. The evidence is going to show what is called stippling. It's almost like a tattoo. That when you get shot very close to a weapon, it leaves marks that the forensic pathologist can see. They were shot at a close range and they did not have defensive wounds.

And the evidence is going to show that the defendant, Alex Murdaugh over there, told anyone who would listen that he was never at those kennels, but the evidence is also going to show from these things that every one of us, most of us, carry around in our pocket: that he was there, and he was there just minutes before with Maggie and Paul, just minutes before their cell phones go silent forever and ever. Despite what he told people, I was never at those kennels, the cell phones are going to show otherwise. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Creighton Waters. I'm with the Attorneys General's Office and I'll be the lead prosecutor. I introduced myself. With me is David Fernandez, Savannah Goude, John Meadors, Don Zelenka, John Conrad, and Johnny James. A lot of lawyers. This is a big case; it's a very complicated case, and that's why there's so many people working on it. Sitting back in the row we have David Owen, who's the lead investigator.

We have Lieutenant Charles Ghent, who's one of agents. Lieutenant -- or excuse me, Special Agent Ryan Kelly, and Special Agent Peter Rudofski, some of the agents that worked on the case, as well as Investigator Isaac Salito, who has worked on the case as well. They're some of the witnesses that you will hear from as we go through this case. The judge talked to you a little bit about him being the judge of the law, and he gives you the law, and I'm going to talk a little bit about some of the legal concepts before I turn back to those facts. Just remember, though, he's the judge of the law, so you take what he says, but I'm going to explain to you some of the legal issues from my perspective before we talk a little bit more about the evidence in the case. And the first thing is right before we went to lunch, y'all all took an oath. Everybody in this courtroom who's got involvement in this case takes an oath.

You know, attorneys take an oath to become an attorney, take an another oath to become a prosecutor; the judge takes another oath to become a judge. Witnesses take oath on the stands. Law enforcement takes oaths to become law enforcement, but y'all took an oath as well, and the reason why is that y'all have the most important job in this courtroom. Every one of you raised your hand and said that you would well and truly try this case, and it's the most important job here because, like the judge said, he's the judge of the law, but y'all are the judge of the facts. Y'all are going to listen to what comes from that witness stand and judge those facts, but you also have to be mindful of that oath. That oath requires you to do that hard job, to make that decision, to call the strike when you see it. It's the same oath. It's just as important as any other oath. This might be the most important in this courtroom. The judge mentioned reasonable doubt, and he's exactly right.

It's the State's burden to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a cornerstone of our country and I wouldn't have it any other way. It's a burden we welcome; it's what we want. It's a system that has been well tested and true, and we take that burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And I want to remind everyone that the emphasis is on reasonable, okay? It's not any doubt. It is reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is often defined -- again, listen to the judge how he defines it, but reasonable doubt is a doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act, to hesitate to act. And when you hear the evidence coming from this stand about this particular case, I submit to you you won't hesitate to act. Again, remember the emphasis is on reasonable, and reasonable doubt. The judge mentioned the charges, and there are four of them.

The first indictment accuses Alex Murdaugh, to which he's pled not guilty, but it accuses him of murdering Maggie Murdaugh. The second indictment accuses him of murdering Paul Murdaugh. The third indictment accuses him of possessing a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, that being the murder of Maggie Murdaugh. And the last one accuses of him possessing a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, and that being the murder of Paul Murdaugh. And what does that mean? What is murder? Well, the judge, again, is going to instruct you, but it is the unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought. And what is malice? Malice is a mental state. That's ultimately going to be for y'all to determine as to what was going through Alex Murdaugh's mind when created -- when he committed these crimes. What is malice? Malice has often been defined as the intentional doing a wrongful act without just cause or excuse.

It is the intent to inflict an injury under circumstances that the law would presume an evil intent, an evil intent. And when you look at the circumstances of the crime, when you look at what led up to this crime, the evidence is going to show that there was malice aforethought. Aforethought, what does that mean? It means it has to exist at the moment you commit that crime. It doesn't have to be planned; it doesn't have to be planned for any long period of time. It just has to exist a split second before the crime was committed. But when you see this crime and you hear all of the circumstances, the evidence is going to show that aforethought existed for awhile. It existed for awhile in the mind of Alex Murdaugh. You're also going to hear about circumstantial evidence, and a lot of times people hear, oh, it's just a circumstantial case, but the law says otherwise. The law says that circumstantial evidence is just as good as direct evidence.

And what is the difference between the two? Direct evidence is supposedly about the storm out here, from what I'm told. Direct evidence is if it's sunny outside, and a witness goes outside and it's sunny and they come in here and they get on that witness stand and because they saw it raining, they sit on the stand and say I was just outside and I saw it raining. I saw it raining. That's direct evidence. They actually saw it raining. But to give you an example of what circumstantial evidence is, is if the witness goes into a room, a room where all of the curtains are drawn, and when they go into that room it's sunny outside and everything is dry, and while they're in that room they see it darken behind the shades, they hear thunder, they hear the wind blowing, they hear the sound of rain drops on the roof, and then they open up the door and it's not raining but everything is wet.

There's puddles in the driveway, there's puddles in the street, there's puddles in the yard, there's limbs down all over the ground, and then they come in here and say yeah, it was raining. Didn't actually see it raining, but those circumstances are beyond any reasonable doubt that it was actually raining. Now, I guess it's possible that somebody could have been standing outside of their window and beating a drum to sound like thunder, and blowing a fan to make it sound like it was the wind, and somehow got another water to coat the entire neighborhood, but that's not a reasonable doubt. Does everybody understand that distinction? That's not a reasonable doubt. Another thing, and this is crucial to what you're going to do in this particular case, is determine credibility, or the believability of witnesses. So, it will be your job to look at the evidence, the exhibits in the case, but also the witnesses and decide if it's truthful, if you believe it, if you can rely on it.

And the judge is going to instruct you that you can believe one witness against many or many witnesses against one. You can believe all of the witness's testimony or part of a witness's testimony. It's up to you first, individually, and then as a product of your deliberations, and what you're required to do there is to just rely on that good old fashioned common sense. Does it all fit together? Is it corroborated? Does it fit with what you would expect? Does it fit with what you would expect how real people would act? Does it seem real, or does something seem a little off, or does something seem a little off? You're going to see video statements of Alex Murdaugh. You're going to see a body-worn camera of him at the scene when law enforcement arrives and hear what he says, and hear what he says about that night.

You're going to hear three recorded statements on video that he gave with law enforcement, and you're going to hear how things progressed about what he says, and what he says he did that night. Watch those closely. Watch his expressions. Listen to what he's saying. Listen to what he's not saying. Use that common sense. Does this seem right or does something seem a little off? Does something seem a little off about this? I mentioned that Maggie was killed with a 300 Blackout rifle, an AR style rifle but chambered in 300 Blackout ammunition. And you're going to hear evidence that back in Christmas of 2016, Alex Murdaugh over there bought two 300 Blackout AR style rifles, and that not long after that, one of them went missing from Paul's truck. And time went by, and in April of 2018 Alex Murdaugh replaced that rifle and bought another one. Three total Blackout rifles that they had: one of them went missing years ago and a replacement was bought.

You're going to hear evidence that Paul and his friend were using that replacement gun. They were standing right outside the side door to the gun room of the house, and they were sighting it in, firing down into a field, and the cases were ejecting. The cases are the empty shell from a bullet, and they were ejecting out into the flower bed right there, and there's a range across the street and they shot it there, and there was cases ejected there as well. And they were shooting that third replacement gun just weeks prior to the murders, prior to June 7, 2021, when Maggie and Paul were murdered. And you're going to hear forensic evidence that the cases that were found in that flower bed and the cases that were found across the street at that range were ejected out of the same weapon that fired all of cases that were around Maggie's dead body that killed her. It was a family weapon that killed Maggie Murdaugh.

And you're going to hear evidence that of those three Blackouts that Alex Murdaugh purchased, when law enforcement arrives at the scene on June 7th of 2021, he can only account for one of them. He can only account for one of them, and that replacement gun is nowhere to be found. You're also going to hear evidence that the type of ammunition, the exact brand, the exact model of ammunition that was used to kill Maggie, S&B 300 Blackout ammunition and 147 grain bullets, that exact ammunition, boxes -- empty boxes of that ammunition is found all over the property. The very same brand and model of the ammunition that was used to kill her is found at multiple locations throughout the property. And you're also going to hear evidence of the same thing about the shotgun shells that killed Paul, that Federal double-ought buckshot unfired rounds were found on the property as well as Winchester Number Two Turkey Loads, the two rounds in the shotgun that killed Paul.

Family weapon, same ammunition, it's on the property. You're also going to hear evidence that about a week after the murders -- Mr. Alex Murdaugh's father had died, Mr. Randolph, and about a week after the murders, he shows up early in the morning at his parents' home where his mother is still -- is in late stage Alzheimer's at Almeda in Hampton. It's uncharacteristic for him to show up early, uncharacteristic for him to show up at all like that, and he comes in and he's carrying something in a blue tarp, and he takes it upstairs. And eventually law enforcement finds out about that, and they go upstairs and they find -- upstairs they find a wadded up, very large raincoat in a blue color that looked like a tarp, and you're going to hear evidence that it was coated with gunshot residue on the inside, on the inside. You're going to hear other evidence of gunshot residue. You're going to hear that there was gunshot residue on Alex at the scene.

You're going to hear evidence that there was gunshot residue on the seatbelt of the car he was driving. You're going to hear evidence that when law enforcement got to the scene, he had gone and gotten a shotgun, Paul's shotgun, and that Maggie's DNA was on that shotgun. You're going to hear other evidence from DNA gunshot residue firearms examiners -- there's going to be a lot of forensic evidence in this case, and I'm not going to get into every single bit of it right now, but I will say that a key piece of evidence that you're going to hear in the case is the cell phone evidence: Alex's cell phone, Maggie's cell phone, Paul's cell phone. You know, this is all amazing technology that most of us carry around in our pockets.

It really allows us to do a lot of things and get a lot done, but this cell phone keeps track of who we're talking to, who we're calling, who we're texting, whenever we access apps, and every time you do that, there's a record kept in this phone unless it's deleted somehow. And if you're are using certain apps, you can get GPS information where you were when you did that. This was stored on these phones. You're going to hear evidence about that. You're going to hear evidence that when you make a call and it pings off a cell tower, that location information can be gathered from that as well. And so it allows an investigation to take this and piece together what someone was doing on a particular day, and not only what they were doing, but who they were interacting with and how they were interacting with them. This is going to be crucial evidence for you to consider.

You're going to hear that particularly Alex and Paul, but also Maggie, were prolific cell phone users, to the point where Paul's friends had a nickname for him about his cell phone usage. Before I talk more about that, there's three family properties I need to talk about. Okay, the first one I've mentioned is Moselle, Moselle in Colleton County. It's called Moselle. It's off of Moselle Road but everyone refers to it as Moselle, and that property is a large -- it's a lot of acres. There's a main house on it and there's a driveway that goes to that main house, but it used to be an airstrip, and there's an airstrip that goes down, and then down the way just less than a third of a mile away, just a 3 minute walk, 4 minute walk, a 45 second drive is the kennels and the shed that used to be the hangar where the Paul be Maggie were murdered. So, the main house is just less than a third of a mile away.

You can see the kennels from the main house, and you can see the main house from the kennels. The family also had a house in Edisto at the beach. And the evidence is going to show that that is where Maggie preferred to stay, particularly in the summer months. She liked the beach. She was not a hunter. She didn't want to be at Moselle; she didn't want to be at the lodge where it was hot and buggy. She liked being in Edisto. And then you're also -- I've already mentioned the house in Almeda, which is where -- his parents' home on June 7th of 2021. You're going to hear evidence that his father went into the hospital and the prognosis was not good, and, in fact, he died a few days later. And his mother is in late stage Alzheimer's and at that time house being cared for by a caretaker, and you're going to hear from the caretaker.

MR. WATERS: Thank you, Your Honor. We were talking about the three family properties. Moselle, which has the main house and the kennels/sheds. The main house was a driveway, but the kennels also have a driveway, and the evidence is going to show that that was actually -- is commonly used as the main driveway. In fact, the mailbox is by the kennel driveway, driving right past those kennels where Paul and Maggie were murdered. I told you that you're going to hear evidence that Maggie did not like being in Moselle as much as she liked Edisto, the beach house, but that on June 7, 2021, she came back to Moselle. And the evidence is going to show that she arrived about 8:15, and the evidence is going to show that -- from the cell phones that Paul was there at the house, at the main house, and Alex Murdaugh himself says that they ate dinner. And the autopsy is going to reflect both Paul and Maggie having similar stomach contents, indicating that they recently shared a meal together.

About 8:30, like 15 minutes after they arrived, Paul's phone starts moving towards the kennels. You're going to hear evidence, again, that the defendant said he was never at those kennels, that he was napping after they ate, and he was at the main house and never went there. You're also going to hear evidence about how much Alex used his own cell phone, and it would be unusual for him to be anywhere without his cell phone. At 8:44 and 55 seconds, Paul recorded a video. He was down at the kennels because he'd been talking to a friend of his, and you're going to hear from this friend because his friend's dog was in the kennels and they thought there was something wrong with the tail, and Paul was recording a video of it to send to his friend. 8:44 and 55 seconds. And on that video, and you'll see that video, and you'll hear from witnesses that identify Paul's voice, Maggie's voice, and Alex's voice. He told anyone who would listen he was never there. At 8:44 and 55 there's a video.

The evidence will show that he was there; he was at the murder seen with the two victims. And more than that, over 3 minutes later, 8:49 and 1 second, Paul's phone locks forever. He never reads another text, he never sends another text, he doesn't answer calls. 3 minutes after that video has the defendant at the murder scene with the two victims, Paul's phone goes silent forever. And, in fact, another communication comes into -- the very friend that he was talking to, the dog, at 8:49:35 seconds, just 35 seconds later, and he doesn't answer it. He never answers another thing forever and ever. On top of that, Maggie's phone locks at 8:49 and 31 seconds, around that same time, and she never answers another text, never sends another text, never makes another phone call, never receives another phone call. 3 minutes, ladies and gentlemen, 3 minutes after a video shows he's at the scene with the victims and he told everybody he was never there. Never there.

Credibility, ladies and gentlemen, credibility. So what happens after that? Well, you'll hear evidence that Alex's phone was conspicuously didn't have a lot of activity from about 8:09 p.m. until 9:02 p.m. And if he was at the kennels, which the evidence will show, why is his phone not with him? Why is it not showing activity? But you'll hear that at 9:02, all the sudden his phone does start to pick up activity. At 9:02 he calls -- he starts moving. At 9:04 he calls Maggie's phone. Doesn't answer, of course. Doesn't answer. He calls his father, Randolph, who's in the hospital. Doesn't appear there's an answer there. He calls Maggie again at 9:06. Remember, he's just a third of a mile away. You can see it: at 9:06, she doesn't answer. At 9:06 he turns on his car, his Suburban, and he texts Maggie that he's going. Be right back. I'm going to check on Mom. And he doesn't drive down to the kennels, even though that's where the mailbox is. That's a common place to be.

Even though you can see it. He's called his wife two times and texted her and she hasn't responded. Why didn't he just drive down there and say hey, I'm heading -- you guys want to go? What's up? What's up? Right there, you can see it. He then drives to Almeda where his mom is suffering from Alzheimer's, and the caretaker is there, and he starts calling people. He's talking to people. It will be up to you to decide whether or not he's trying to manufacture an alibi. He comes -- he gets there to Almeda. You'll hear evidence about whether or not that was usual. You'll hear evidence about how he was acting when he got there. And he's only there for 20 minutes because he's back underway at 9:44. And he makes more phone calls on the way back, calling friends, calling people who will answer. It will be up to you to decide whether he's trying to create an alibi. And he gets back to Moselle at 10:01, and he calls 911 at 10:06. Listen to that 911 call.

Listen to what he says; listen to what explanations he may offer. You're going to hear that 911 call, but you're also going to see the body-worn camera of the officers who arrived at the scene, the video camera that they wear so that it records what they're doing. And you're going to see what he did to Maggie and Paul. It's going to be gruesome. There's no way around it. It's what he did. You're going to see crime scene photographs; you're going to see the traumatic injuries that were suffered. You're going to hear from a pathologist, a doctor, who will examine the injuries, and it's going to be gruesome. There's no other way around it. On that 911 call and on the body-worn cameras, pay attention to what he says. Look at how he's acting, but he says within a few minutes of each one of those, he says this is about the boat case. This is about the boat case.

And you're going to hear some of what was going on in Alex Murdaugh's life leading up to that day, stuff that happened that very day, stuff that was leading up, a perfect storm that was gathering, much like the storms that are coming outside today. Listen for that evidence. Listen to that gathering storm that all came to a head on June 7, 2021, the day the evidence will show he killed Maggie and Paul. This has been a long, exhaustive investigation, and it's going to be a fairly long trial because it's complicated. It's a journey. There's a lot of aspects to this case; there's a lot of factors to this case. But like a lot of things that are complicated and you start to put them all together and piece them together like a puzzle, all the sudden the picture emerges and it's really simple. It's really simple. Once we get to the end of that journey and you have a chance to the deliberate, the evidence is going to be such that you're going to reach the inescapable