WALTERBORO, S.C. — The double murder trial of Alex Murdaugh continues Tuesday with more testimony about from a pathologist about the deaths of the two victims in the case.
Dr. Ellen Riemer, a pathologist at Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) who conducted the autopsies of Paul and Maggie, was still on the stand. Defense attorney Dick Harpootlian is expected to cross examine Riemer.
During Monday's testimony, she gave graphic descriptions of the conditions of the bodies of the victim following the shooting. At one point, Judge Clifton Newman stopped the proceedings to give everyone a brief break, including Murdaugh, who was crying uncontrollably during some of the descriptions.
Murdaugh is accused of shooting to death his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul, at their sprawling estate in Colleton County on June 7, 2021. Prosecutors say he acted alone, while the defense says the state rushed to judgment and didn't consider other suspects.
You can find trial updates here every day. Live streaming coverage can be on wltx.com, on the WLTX+ streaming app on Amazon Fire and Roku TV, and on the News19 WLTX YouTube page.
Tuesday Alex Murdaugh trial updates
Dr. Ellen Riemer, MUSC pathologist
CROSS EXAMINATION by Dick Harpootlian
Harpootlian said he is learning about the impact of a shotgun and automatic rifle on the human body. Let me understand Maggie -- were you shown photographs of the back of her calf taken at the scene? No. I was not shown photographs.
In your autopsy report, did you mention there is a bruise on the back of her leg? Riemer: I don’t recall. (looks at notes) I don’t see in my report where I remarked of a bruise on her left leg.
Was there a bruise on the right leg? I didn’t make any comment about that. I did not observe that at autopsy
If this were mud? It could have fallen off.
You were not asked to opine about bruising? No. I was not asked about that, nor shown that photo.
Were the shots consistent with someone circling her? I said she was shot at some point from behind her and at one point from above her. She may have been moving, the shooter may have been moving, I cannot know.
We know the shooter was moving because some wounds had stippling? She had stippling on some wounds, usually that means the shooter was no more than 3 feet away
She may have been turning and shooter was moving head on? From Riemer’s perspective, that may be a reasonable explanation. She could be moving after initial shots and shooter may still be stationary.
The wounds without stippling, the barrel of the gun would be 3 feet away? At least 3 feet.
Did anyone ask you to look at the discharge pattern of shells from the Blackout? No
It is your conjecture, based on wounds? Yes. Autopsy is based on what the body reveals, not what the scene may show.
The first shot would have been buckshot to the chest? Yes
The second shot executed him? He would have fallen to the ground
First goes into chest and he was turned diagonally to the shooter? Possibly not. The shot came at an angle, across, Paul’s body may have been perpendicular, but shooter may have shot perpendicular
Some of the pellets in his arm show his arm was at his side? Yes. The reason is because there is bruising around wound and there is corresponding bruising around the exit wounds
Pellets go through the arm? Yes
Corresponding entrance wound? Pellets go into inside of arm
Either shooter is to his right shooting across? Yes. Closer than 3 feet? Yes. The shooter could have been to his right or Paul may have turned his body
Would there have been immediate bleeding? Yes
If footprints found in the building, would he have stepped in own blood? Yes
Entrance wound for first would is slightly front to back, left to right and come out right under left his arm, passing through his left arm.
Have you seen photos of area -- It is a small room and the gap between feed bags and the wall is 3 feet and there is some buckshot that goes through window? Consistent with findings? Yes
Anything about exterior of this shot? Is there beveling? When there is a gunshot wound that goes across the body, Riemer says she can tell entrance/exit on the way the bone bevels due to the passage of the shot. Bevel in on entrance, bevel out on exit.
Since first shot didn’t hit bone, was there beveling? No
Second shot -- More than 3 feet away – hits left shoulder? Riemer thinks Paul’s head was tilted slightly toward the left. His face was spared from damage, so head was slightly turned, and the shot went through the shoulder, chin and exited back of head.
Riemer identifies photos of x-rays taken during Paul’s autopsy. His left arm shows dots – shotgun pellets. Harpootlian counts 20 pellets along his upper left shoulder. Riemer: Significant number of pellets in left neck area and into the brain. The purpose of x-ray is to show the type of ammunition in the body. Riemer took some of the pellets out, not all. She kept birdshot, believes the buckshot was gathered together. She does not identify shot as it all looks similar to Riemer.
Riemer identifies the second image, showing Paul’s teeth. Projectiles were going behind teeth, his teeth were not fractured. The exit wound was right top of head, toward back.
Harpootlian asks, if you extended the path of the pellets, did you see an exit wound? Yes, a blown out wound
The skull exploded? There is a piece of skull missing. No beveling because so much fragmentation of the bone
Harpootlian asks to show the path of the second shotgun blast. Riemer: went through the left shoulder to the chin and head from about three feet away.
The shooter was 3 feet away, the gun …. Riemer cannot say how the gun was held, there’s so much bending and twisting possible in the neck and head
From autopsy photos, the head is gone? Riemer: the shot went through the back of his head.
Familiar with this book? It’s a highly respected book on gunshot wounds
On page 228 in book, can you identify the page? Yes
On that page, it shows a sequence of a shotgun blast. First, it’s fired; second, a large gas cloud is responsible for wound; third is contact information with pellets preceding the gas. Riemer: No this book is showing a contact wound. This case is not a contact wound.
If this contact shotgun wound to head is devastating, the skull extensively fractured from pellets and gas. Are there 2 factors – charge of shot entering and the gas – that cause damage. Does the gas expand into the skull causing it to shatter? Riemer I would agree with that
If shotgun muzzle 3-4 feet away, would gas have entered body? Don’t know if gas would cause such destruction, a shotgun blast to the head does a lot of damage. There is still a lot of energy entering the wound. The book is talking about a contact wound and that is not what happened in this case. This is a mechanism based on experimental data. I have not performed experimental data. These are depictions of gunshot wounds to the head.
It’s your position there’s a lot of energy that hits Paul’s shoulder, neck, head and then his head explodes? Yes
A number of authorities have shown methods of heads exploding? Many are suicide? Yes
Any like shoulder, neck, head injuries? Yes. But there is no evidence of a contact wound in this case. Riemer said the fracturing of the skull could have pushed the brain out of the head.
Paul’s brain was at his feet? Yes, except for brain stem
The skull was almost destroyed at the exit wound? Yes
The State did not show you crime scene photos? Correct. I did not look at them.
Riemer is asked – at the shoulder, how big of a spread is it, 2 inches, 3 inches, 5 inches? Riemer said she didn’t measure the spread of the pellets
It was a very big wound in the shoulder? A typical gunshot wound, yes
Riemer identifies her autopsy photos. If you look at the photo, you see entrance wound and this other wound is larger? Yes
The wound starts out same size as shell and continues to expand with distance? Yes. One entrance wound is larger because the entrance wound to the shoulder is not straight on perpendicular but at a tangent angle that creates an oblong hole. The damage to the chin is more straight on, at a different angle.
No pellets in face? Not in front
As the shot continues on, evidence shows it expanded further? When the skull is involved, there is so much destruction.
Is it a possibility there are two exit wounds? I do not believe this wound is consistent with there being two shots
What if there was a contact wound to the head? The brain would not have exited the skull but would have been demolished
The gas enters first, expands skull and brain pops out, did you find pellets in brain? The brain would not have popped out like it did from a contact wound to the head
Photo of Paul at scene, Riemer never seen before.
Asked to center on his head, Harpootlian asks, do you see a semicircle defect on the head? Riemer said it has a semicircle pattern
Any beveling? Beveling is not reliable when there is so much destruction to head. If you are asking if that could be a contact wound to the head, Riemer responds, you would expect to see soot and there is no burning, no soot on the skull.
Did you shave Paul’s head during the autopsy? No because she believes it was an exit wound and shaving is not done on exit wounds.
You decided it was an exit wound without looking for stippling? Yes. I looked for stippling, took photographs of the top of the head. Someone can disagree with me, but doesn’t change the truth.
Your notes do not mention stippling or soot. Riemer responds: If there was stippling or soot, I would have documented it
But you didn’t look? The vast majority of damage is a contact wound to the head.
Riemer explains: I do think you are extending the author’s statements. He is explaining contact wounds to the brain would have caused fragmentation of the brain, not ejection. I don’t believe the fractures of Paul’s skull is consistent with a contact wound. In this case, the brain was left intact, no path of pellets went through the brain, there is fractured skull and bone.
In her experience, Riemer said, a contact wound would cause damage to the brain, but there would be more damage to the skull. Riemer explains the wound pattern difference between an entrance and exit wound.
In first wound there is a pattern of pellets. Yes
In the second, there is a pattern of pellets. Riemer: The pellets are exiting the shoulder, tearing the skin before entering under the chin and going into the head/skull.
If the shoulder is the entrance, the wound is larger than what is the chin. Riemer: it is larger because it is going at a different angle.
REDIRECT
When you’re asked to perform an autopsy are you told what to do? Riemer says she observes the body and relies on the body and lets the body tell her what happened. Not crime scene photos.
She explains the difference between soot and stippling – stippling is gunpowder on the skin from within 2-3 feet; soot is burning marks on the skin from gunpowder, usually within inches of contact; stippling without evidence of soot means the shooter was at least 3 feet away.
Was there stippling on Paul? yes
Was there soot on Paul? No. On his head? No
Asked about paths of shot? Riemer based on experience, that is my opinion.
Asked about a book and that dealt w a contact wound? Riemer said she was not going to disagree with a book, but the book was referencing a contact wound and there was no contact wound on Paul.
The book was about using a shotgun to commit suicide? Yes
And you concluded the manner of death? Riemer concluded the manner of death to be a homicide, death at hands of another
Any indication of a suicide? No
The head wound and possibility of a contact wound? It was not a contact wound because there was no soot.
Damage to top of head not consistent with shot coming from the top of head? No
Find any wadding in head cavity? Don’t think there was wadding
Shoulder had gaping wound and squenched up in photo of crime scene? Yes
Was the wound to the shoulder straight in? it was tangential
With the shoulder wound, it was an entrance and pellets consistent? Yes
RE-CROSS
You didn’t see crime scene photos? Correct
Do you look at crime scene photos to help your opinion? No. I do not look at crime scene photo but rely on the body and the examination.
Did you have a conversation with SLED agent Owen about bruising on Maggie’s calf? It was possible it was dirt from the shoe. I didn’t see that.
Devin Patrick Newell
Newell is senior technical expert in advance driver systems at General Motors (GM). Modern GM vehicles collects and uploads data to GM servers such as diagnostic codes, battery performance, what the vehicle would be doing, GPS location, speed, etc.
In March 2022, a search warrant was sent by SLED to GM for the Suburban belonging to Alex Murdaugh. Last Friday, Feb. 10, GM had information available that was requested in the search warrant not provided to law enforcement until last Friday.
Newell identifies CD containing information requested by search warrant. Including information collected over three days vehicle diagnostic, GPS and battery usage.
CROSS
You were not part of this when search warrant issues? Yes. GM legal staff reached out and told him GM has information related to search warrant
Aware of reverse engineering by FBI to obtain info? I had not been involved and have no knowledge
The time stamps in this data? When GLS data is collects, time stamp information is included
Information uploaded to server at GM? Correct
Roger Dale Davis
Davis was born and raised in Hampton County and works in construction. He worked at farm at Moselle.
Alex asked him to clean kennels for him on weekends, about four years ago. He did it in morning (around 7 am) and evening (3:30-4) takes about 45 minutes. Feeds dogs and chickens and wash pens out, roll hose up and go home.
Dogs have beds in pens. Davis would stick beds atop box to spray water to clean and put them back down on ground.
In four years, got to know property well and the Murdaughs.
Experience with Maggie? So laid back, talk with you like a normal person. Would let Davis know if she was taking a dog to the beach, like to spend time with the dogs. If it was hot, M would ask him to put dogs in the icehouse.
Experience with Paul? Wild and crazy but that kid would work. Liked to work
Experience with Alex? Alex always very particular. He wanted the dog buckets washed out if there was something in the water. Not easy to get a hold of, always in court or something about business
Davis testified he usually only saw Maggie and Paul. Paul would be in his truck, white F-150; Maggie normally drove Range Rover until she had her black Mercedes.
Which dogs were there? Bubba, Grady, Maggie and three others. One chocolate lab belonged to Rogan Gibson
The three family dogs would stay in the kennels, Bubba was rambunctious. Maggie would let the dogs roam the house
Maggie would load them in her vehicle to take them with her.
Davis identifies photos of the kennel at Moselle and a diagram of the kennel.
Davis said he put the hose away by stretching it out toward the shed/dog feed room then turn the valve off to release pressure and wind hose so it wouldn’t kink. The photo of the kennel shows a kinked hose and Davis says someone used the hose after he did and didn’t roll the hose up correctly.
Was he aware of June 7? Got a phone call on June 8 from SLED because Maggie and Paul were murdered. He asked to feed the dogs because they were barking and was allowed to do so. Davis had worked Monday, June 7. He got to Moselle around 7 a.m. and fed the dogs and chickens and washed the pens out. Nothing unusual or out of place. He repeated sequence again around 4 p.m., he remembers leaving around 4:30. No one was there, nothing out was of place. The dogs were in kennels that day. Davis marks out where the dogs were: kennel 1 had Grady; kennel 2 had Bubba; kennel 3 had Maggie; no dog in 4; kennel 5 had Rogan Gibson’s dog; working dogs were in the rest of the bays when Davis left for the day.
Davis identifies photos with the kennels with the feed room at the very end. Davis said water would collect under the hose and under one of the pens. Davis recognizes puddles in the photos. He said water never puddled near the feed room because the sun usually dried it out and not in front of Grady and Bubba.
Davis says there’s too much water in the photo near Bubba and Maggie’s kennels.
Davis said there were no assigned kennel for the dogs, but they were placed by Maggie’s request/habit.
Davis is asked if he is familiar with firearms and which ones Paul preferred> Paul had a 300 Blackout with a scope and a camouflage shotgun when he hunted.
Davis said guns were left at the kennels in a golf cart or side-by-side or in a truck during hunting season. Davis knew Alex carried a pistol in his vehicle. Never saw a gun in the feed room.
Davis identified Paul, Maggie and Alex’s voices on Paul’s video taken at the kennel the night of June 7.
Davis points out dog beds atop kennels not put down.
CROSS EXAMINATION by Griffin
How long did you work at Moselle? About four years.
You never saw guns in feed room, but you saw guns in side-by-side and golf cart? Yes
Left in unlocked vehicles? Yes
No season for hog hunting and some of the dogs were used for hunting? Yes. You can use a gun hog hunting.
Griffin pulls up the video and asks if the dog in the video is Cash, Rogan’s dog. Davis says yes
Cash would have been in kennel 5, up from the hose? That’s right
Davis sees hose on the ground and water around it in the video. Someone had taken it down.
Davis asked if Alex was particular about the hose. Davis said no, Davis was particular. Was Paul? No.
Water not did accumulate around Grady and Bubba’s spots because the sun would dry it out? If you weren’t particular, the door jamb would begin to rot so you had to be particular.
You were meticulous about not letting water puddle around feed room to keep the door from rotting? Yes
Paul not as meticulous? Yes
The hose is out 8:44 p.m. in June, so no sun to burn water off? No
Sometimes dogs knock over water to cause runoff? Yes
What does lovey-dovey mean to you? Maggie and Alex loved each other. Never seen any one of them argue. Alex and Paul liked to hunt and drink beer together. Didn’t see Buster as much but never saw anything odd.
One time a hunting dog got hung up and badly injured? He didn’t survive
Alex couldn’t shoot the dog, asked you to do it? Yes
Night of June 7, you got off work at 4:30 and went home? Yes, Davis testifies he went home and stayed inside the house.
Hear gunshots? No, I did not
Paul like to hunt with 300 Blackout. When’s the last time you saw it? He had it in his truck, but it was about 5 or 6 months before.
Bubba was a stubborn dog? Just rambunctious
Bubba listened to you? Somewhat. To Alex? Somewhat
In the feed room, medicine
Maggie would walk, ride bike or golfcart to let the dogs out.
REDIRECT
What happened to the rooster? One of the dogs got him
Did Alex do some hunting? Some
As far as you knew he was a hunter? Yes
Concrete had a slope in the kennels? Yes
Issues caused by water draining? When they did the feed room, they didn’t seal the bottom plate so water would get under the wood and cause rot
If Maggie was at kennel, would she have put the dog beds on ground? Yes
What time in bed? Routine, showers around 4:30-5 p.m. and in recliner the rest of the day.
Same routine on June 7? Yes
When you were at Moselle that day were there any firearms? Did not see any
Carson Burney, SCAGO
Burney is a forensic accountant in State Grand Jury Division with the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office and is a certified fraud examiner. He does tracing of funds and compiles financial records for AG’s office.
Burney says there are different ways of tracing money – he used the first-in, first-out method to trace Alex Murdaugh’s funds. If u have $10 in account, you take $10 from grandma and put it in your acct, you now have comingling of funds.
In this case, Burney looked into $792K (Ferris funds) deposited into Alex’s Bank of America account March 10, March 23, April 20, 2021, split into $192K, $375K and $225K. Money was exhausted out of the account by May 25, 2021.
Alex also had two fake Forge accounts in addition to the above account and a credit card; in addition, there was an account at Palmetto State Bank.
Was there a pattern to the transfer of funds? Checks deposited in the fake Forge account were transferred out as cash to his personal account, occasionally in a cashier’s check on the fake Forge account. Occasionally, a check would be written from Alex’s personal BofA account to the PSB account.
For the Ferris fund, a $350K wire transfer from PSB and a John E Parker $250K mobile check (indicated as a loan) deposited into Alex’s account and then to a wire transfer to Wilson Law Group. Parker is a former PMPED partner.
Date on mobile is July 10, 2021, same day as wire transfer to Wilson.
On June 7, 2021, Burney testifies, Alex did not have the $792K to return to Wilson. He did not have $500K to give to Satterfield’s sons; did not have $10M to meet Tinsley’s demands. He was not able to fulfill those conditions.
CROSS EXAMINATION by Jim Griffin
You did an analysis of various bank accounts – money in and money out? Specifically, for the stolen funds, any accounts at Palmetto State Bank and Bank of America.
You limited you investigation to the $792K of the Ferris Fee? Yes
Analysis of Alex’s liabilities versus assets? For June 7, he looked at Alex’s balances available that day
Did the analysis include 401K or retirement accounts? No, because of taxes and fees associated with those accounts if they were accessed.
Did the analysis include real estate owned? No, because he could not determine equity available for that date.
Red Beard and Zero United only had new statement of charged off. Didn’t look to see value of Red Beard or Zero U
Did you know Alex had equity partnership in the property that contained the PMPED building? Burney testified he was looking only at liquid assets and if he could pay his debts on that day.
You didn’t take into account his ability to raise capital from PSB? Burney said he knew after the fact Alex could take out loans at the bank.
Did you know Alex had never been turned down for a loan at PSB, and he’d paid almost $4M in interest back? Are you telling the jury the financial freight train was headed to the ravine that day? Burney testified, on June 7, 2921, Alex needed to borrow money from partners or the bank.
The $792K analysis, a large percent of $4 went to associates and rest to pay credit card bills? Yes
Approximately how much of the $792K went to Curtis Eddie Smith? About $500K
REDIRECT
You were looking at liquid assets on June 7? Yes
Do you own a home? Yes
So, you know the process of buying real estate? Yes, It takes months from listing to closing.
Did you get money before closing? I got it at closing
If Alex sold property, would he get money then or would it take time? I would assume it would take some time to close.
Did you find evidence that Alex paid more than $4M in loans? Burney: I was looking where the money went. Some money went to loan payments at PSB.
Did that represent where the stolen money was disposed? Yes
Marian Proctor
Proctor is Maggie’s older sister, Paul’s aunt. She and Maggie were five years apart, were close after both married and had children. Talked almost every day, described Maggie as a sweet spirit who loved her family, her boys were her world. Maggie was a girl’s girl but hunted and fished and loved going to the islands and a big Carolina fan.
Proctor said Maggie spent a lot of time with her and her girls. She was focused on taking care of the boys, mostly a stay-at-home mom.
Paul was a sweet, sweet boy, misrepresented in the media. He had a kind side to him.
Maggie was not involved in family finances. They had a comfortable life, not lavish, she was happy. Money was never an issue for her, that she knew about. Maggie never balanced a checkbook. Organization was not her best skill.
Mr. Randolph was married to Miss Libby. Libby has Alzheimer’s and wasn’t too bad at first but has been declining for years and no longer recognizes her family. Must be helped for everything. Mr Randolph was sick, had things wrong with him. Leading up to his death, there wasn’t good news about his health.
Alex and Maggie had a house in Hampton and a beach house in Edisto. Moselle was their most recent property, a hunting and plantation set-up. Moselle was not Maggie’s favorite place to be, she preferred Edisto
Proctor is familiar with the boat crash. After the crash, did the family feel negative backlash from the community? Proctor testifies that Maggie felt the Hampton community turned against her and Paul was being mistreated. It was stressful on the family.
Proctor said Maggie began looking for a new place to live. Proctor said Maggie and Alex had sold the Hampton house and Maggie was looking for a home in the Hilton Head area. Maggie called Proctor to look at the property and thought they’d make an offer. Alex said it wasn’t the time to do so with the boat case going on, so they didn’t make an offer on the house.
On June 7, Proctor said Maggie called her around 4pm and said Alex needed her to come home and wanted Paul there too, and Proctor said she should probably go to Moselle. Proctor was under the impression they were going to Almeda to visit Mr Randolph. Maggie was having maintenance work done in Edisto, but Proctor encouraged her to go to Moselle.
Later that night, Proctor said she and her husband were watching a movie at home and her husband got a text from Randy saying there had been a tragedy and to please call him back. That’s when she heard about the murders. Proctor and her husband went to tell Maggie’s and Proctor’s parents in Summerville.
Proctor testified they got to Summerville and both parents were there. Proctor said her mom went into shock, and it was just the worst. She and her husband stayed with her parents that night and went to Moselle the next day. Family came in from Kentucky and the Proctors were at Moselle almost every day, planning funeral arrangements.
She said she saw Alex at Moselle. They hugged and cried. Over the next days, Proctor said she didn’t talk to Alex a lot and the town was coming to see him and he was torn up. At one point she asked if Maggie had suffered, and Alex said she had not. And that Paul had not suffered. She said she asked Alex if he knew who did this – he told her he felt whoever had done it had thought about it for a long time. Proctor didn’t know what he meant by that.
Alex told Proctor/Maggie’s mother he had dinner with Maggie and Paul and took a nap and never went to the kennels on June 7.
The last conversation Proctor had with Alex, she says it stuck her odd that Maggie didn’t go to Almeda that night because Proctor thought that was the reason for Maggie being there that night.
Proctor said Alex would talk about the boat case after the murders and he was intent on clearing Paul’s name in the case. It was his number one goal. Proctor said her number one goal was to find out who killed Paul and Maggie. Proctor and her family were afraid for Alex and Buster after the murders. Alex didn’t seem to be afraid, Proctor said.
Did he talk about getting Buster back into law school after the murders? Yes
Maggie loved the dogs, if she was dieting, she’d walk or bike to the kennels. Maggie seemed to be fine with the automatic rifles that Paul had. It scared Proctor because, she says, she knows nothing about guns.
CROSS EXAMINATION by Griffin
Maggie was a social person, wasn’t she, and she and Alex had a special relationship? Yes
They did things together as a family? Yes
Including your parents in family events? Yes
Paul’s friends were part of your parents’ extended family? Yes
Your family would vacation with Alex and Maggie and Paul and Buster? Yes
Alex was close to your parents? Yes
Alex considered your father a best friend? He was very kind to my dad
You vacationed together? Yes
Maggie was a girl’s girl but was a mother to rambunctious sons? Yes
She never missed Paul’s and Buster’s sporting events and Alex was there? Yes. He was coaching
The weeks leading up to June 7, you had a family get together at Lake Keowee? Yes. The weekend before Memorial Day weekend.
Proctor identifies a photo she took showing Buster, Paul, Maggie and Alex at the gathering. Did you see Maggie again after the gathering? No. They were at Edisto and the next weekend Proctor was in the Upstate.
Maggie did things for Alex’ mom and dad and it wasn’t at the top of her list of things to do. Alex went to Almeda every day. Maggie cared for Mr. Randolph and tried to spoil him, made food for him. You know now on June 7, Mr Randolph was readmitted to the hospital in Savannah? And you thought Maggie was going to Almeda and thought it odd when she didn’t? Correct. When you found out Randolph was put in hospital now it doesn’t seem so odd does it? Probably not.
You and Bart (husband) got call from Randy on June 7 and you went in person to tell your parents and then went to Moselle the next day. Was Alex grieving? Yes
Buster was there? Yes
Maggie enjoyed being at Edisto over Moselle in the summer? Yes
Alex stayed because work in Hampton? Yes
Alex wanted Maggie to come back to Moselle to be with him? Yes
You didn’t think it was unusual? No
And you knew Paul was going to be there? Yes.
You encouraged Maggie to be with Alex because father in bad shape? Yes
Alex’s father died two days later. Two funerals – Maggie and Paul’s was on Saturday; Randolph’s was on Sunday; did Alex and Buster stay with our parents? Yes.
Alex stayed with your parents, at homes in Key West and Greenville? Yes
And with Randy at times? Yes
He was all over the place? He was
After the murders, Alex said he was intent on clearing Paul in boating accident and Maggie strongly believed Paul was not driving. Maggie was also on a mission, wasn’t she? Sort of
You’re not critical about Alex wanting to clear Paul’s name, are you? Proctor said she was not critical about that at all. She thought his priority should be Maggie and Paul. Alex never talked about finding the person who killed Maggie and Paul. It was just odd, and we were living in fear and didn’t know the motive behind the killings and thought it had something to do about boat case -- and thought that until September, when things started to change.
Did you know Alex started carrying a gun? He always had a gun
On his person, he started carrying a gun? He always had a gun in the car. Alex didn’t seem to be living in fear.
About the family dogs, Bubba was a handful, but Alex could control him? Yes
And Maggie liked to go to the kennels? She like to play with the dogs. Proctor did not know there was an electric fence at Moselle. Dogs stayed in a run at Edisto.
Did you ever go to Edisto? Yes
Paul and Buster’s friends were welcomed? Yes, Maggie loved having them around
Moselle was Paul’s passion? Yes
And Alex loved being there with Paul? Yes
In your own words, what was Alex’s relationship with Paul? Very good relationship. They loved the same things. I think the plan was for Paul to take over Moselle one day.
What was Alex’s relationship with Maggie? Good it wasn’t perfect, but Maggie was happy.
REDIRECT
Maggie called you on June 7, what did she say her purpose was? To go to be with Alex and go to Almeda.
What happened in September that changed your assessment of Alex? Proctor’s husband got a call from a friend saying they were sorry to hear Alex had been shot. They called Buster, and Buster said he had been shot. The Proctors then called Jim Griffin and Marian said Griffin said Alex had been shot in the head and been fired from the law firm for stealing. Proctor thought the family was being targeted.
Over the course of a few weeks, Proctor said info started coming out about what Alex had done financially and that changed her opinion about Alex. The roadside shooting was an event into itself.
Any other information come to light that changed your view of Alex? Did Maggie have a nickname for Paul? Little Detective. He was always looking to make sure Alex was behaving. There was a concern about Alex’s use of prescription pain pills. Maggie had expressed concerned about Alex’s pill usage and that concern continued up until Maggie and Paul’s murder.
Proctor said “Little Detective” meant if there were pills in the house Alex wasn’t supposed to be taking, Paul would find them and get rid of them.
What specifically changed idea of roadside shooting after initial concern? The story of what initially happened -- that Alex told -- was not true.
Bart Proctor
Proctor is Marian’s husband, Alex’s brother-in-law.
In the aftermath of Pail and Maggie’s murder were you privy to the conversations between your wife and Alex? Yes
Have you heard the kennel video? I have.
The video is played in court and Bart Proctor is asked to identify the voices he hears. Proctor says he hears the voices of Paul Murdaugh, Maggie Murdaugh, and Alex Murdaugh. He is 100% sure.
CROSS EXAMINATION by Griffin
Were you ever shown a blue raincoat by SLED agents? Yes
Was that blue raincoat shown to you and your wife? We were shown a picture of it.
Ever see Paul or Alex wear the blue raincoat? No
Check back for more updates as the day goes on
Monday Trial Recap
Monday began with two jurors being dismissed after being diagnosed with COVID-19. The two were replaced with two alternate jurors, leaving only three alternates remaining.
Testimony began with DNA evidence presented by SLED Agents Rachel Nguyen and Sara Zapata. Nguyen, a forensic serologist, conducted tests to obtain DNA samples from items collected at the Moselle crime scene on June 7, 2021 and Zapata is a forensic scientist who develops the DNA profiles from the samples. DNA analysis from Alex Murdaugh’s shirt and shorts collected from that day had mixed results, depending from which portion of the clothing was sampled, showing DNA from Paul, Maggie, and Alex; results from the blue raincoat provided no single DNA profile; the steering wheel of the GMS Suburban had a mix of Maggie and Alex.
Perhaps the most riveting testimony came from Dr. Ellen Riemer, a pathologist at Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) who conducted the autopsies of Paul and Maggie.
Riemer went into great detail as to the manner of death of the two victims, where they sustained their wounds, and what the gunfire did to their bodies.
Paul was shot twice with a shotgun – once to the chest, once to the head. Riemer said the first shot was not fatal – Paul was probably still standing after the first shot -- but the second “obliterated” the skull, sending Paul’s brain out of the back of his head.
The doctor said Maggie sustained five injuries from at least four shots from a semiautomatic rifle. The first three injuries – to the thigh, chest and wrist -- would have been painful but not fatal. The fourth and fifth injuries -- one traveling through the left breast through to the back and reentering the side of the face; the second entering the back of the head -- Riemer said either one would have killed Maggie. She also testified the ammunition fragmented after entering Maggie’s body doing significant damage.