Dick Harpootlian

Dick Harpootlian opened for the defense by denying that Alex Murdaugh killed Maggie and Paul and framing the State's case as circumstantial and too dependent on an investigation that focused on Alex early. He previewed disputes over the phone-and-vehicle timeline, the absence of detected human blood on seized clothing, the missing firearms, wound evidence, and a possible two-shooter scenario. He emphasized the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt.

Across the State's case, Harpootlian's cross-examinations tested how the scene and electronic evidence were preserved. First responders and investigators faced questions about unrecorded tire and footwear impressions, movement through the scene, limited documentation, and the absence of specialized searches or visible blood in the Moselle house. His questioning of phone and carrier witnesses separated custody from forensic analysis, highlighted uncertainty about a recovered phone's precise location and power-state handling, and established limits on rural tower-location and fingerprint evidence.

On motive and family-context evidence, Harpootlian sought to narrow testimony tied to financial misconduct and objected to Maggie's reported anxiety about a civil lawsuit. The court found that account responsive to the defense's portrayal of the family, overruled the objection, and denied a mistrial. His questioning elicited that Tony Satterfield had not threatened Alex with exposure before June 8, while Blanca Turrubiate-Simpson described affection between Alex and Maggie, reported no visible blood in the bathroom, and qualified her clothing identifications. When the court later allowed a limited presentation concerning the roadside shooting, the defense preserved its objection.

Forensic mechanics became another central line of examination. Harpootlian questioned Ellen Riemer about crime-scene inputs, autopsy documentation, photographs, X-rays, pellet counts, and an alternative contact-wound theory for Paul. Riemer acknowledged several limits but maintained her shoulder-to-head trajectory and noncontact conclusion. Harpootlian also tested Kenneth Kinsey's reconstruction through firing-distance and shooter-position questions, then developed competing defense opinions through Mike Sutton's trajectory analysis, Kenneth Zercie's criticism of scene processing, and Jonathan Eisenstat's forensic-pathology testimony.

During rebuttal, Harpootlian challenged whether Ronnie Crosby's anger and financial losses affected his testimony; Crosby rejected that suggestion, and the court instructed the jury to disregard one argumentative remark. Harpootlian again tested Riemer's documentation and physical reasoning, while she maintained her conclusions. He secured a jury view of Moselle and persuaded the court to require a tailored State rebuttal.