|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
Just hours after the South Carolina supreme court unanimously – and emphatically – overturned Alex Murdaugh‘s murder convictions, attorney general Alan Wilson and state grand jury chief Creighton Waters defended the prosecution team’s handling of the case and made it abundantly clear they intend to retry Murdaugh for the July 2021 murders of his wife and son.
They indicated that retrial would come sooner rather than later, too.
Standing before reporters in the grand jury room in Columbia, S.C., Wilson noted that the state’s highest court had placed the blame for the reversals squarely on former Colleton County clerk of court Rebecca “Becky” Hill for improperly influencing jurors during the six-week murder trial in early 2023.
But he also noted he fundamentally disagreed with the court’s conclusion that Hill’s conduct warranted reversal.
“While we strongly disagree with the supreme court, we respect this decision, because that’s how the process is supposed to be played out,” Wilson said.
***
Wilson reiterated the position his office has maintained for months — that Hill’s conduct, while “inappropriate,” ultimately amounted to harmless error that did not prejudice Murdaugh’s constitutional right to a fair trial.
“The supreme court obviously disagreed in its conclusion,” Wilson said.
Even so, Wilson confirmed his office intends to move forward aggressively with a retrial – although he laid out the options available on appeal.
“As of right now, the state has fifteen days to ask the state supreme court to reconsider its decision,” Wilson noted. “We have ninety days to appeal to the US Supreme Court.”
“However, it is currently my intention to seek a speedy retrial in the case against Alec Murdaugh,” he noted.
In fact, according to Wilson, prosecutors hope to retry the case before the end of the calendar year.
***
‘THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA DID ITS JOB’
***
Throughout the press conference, Wilson repeatedly defended the work of the prosecutors, investigators and law enforcement agencies involved in the original prosecution.
“The supreme court even said that in its order that the state of South Carolina did its job right,” Wilson said.
Instead, Wilson argued the justices “place this squarely on the shoulders of the former Colleton county clerk of court.”
Wilson also pushed back sharply on political criticism emerging in the aftermath of the ruling — particularly from his rivals in South Carolina’s gubernatorial race.
“People who have never actually been a prosecutor, been in law enforcement, stepped foot in the court of law, held the hand of a victim as they got a jury sentence read … they can take all the political haymakers they want,” Wilson said. “But at the end of the day, people were murdered.”
Wilson repeatedly framed the retrial decision as a matter of justice for Maggie Murdaugh and Paul Murdaugh’s surviving family members.
“When victims are murdered … their family members who they left behind have a right for those who want to seek justice to see justice meted out,” Wilson said.
Wilson also emphasized that Murdaugh remains imprisoned regardless of the reversal because of his state and federal financial crime convictions.
“Alex Murdaugh will not be getting out of prison for several decades,” he said.
***
RELATED | ‘FINGERS ON THE SCALES OF JUSTICE’
***
‘YOU DUST YOURSELF OFF’
One of the most closely watched moments of the press conference came when reporters asked Waters about the supreme court’s criticism of the scope of financial crimes evidence introduced during the original trial.
Prosecutors were allowed to introduce significant evidence tied to Murdaugh’s financial crimes as part of their theory of motive, noting that a “gathering storm” of fear over being exposed as a thief led him to savagely slay his wife and younger son.
In Wednesday’s opinion, the justices unanimously concluded prosecutors were permitted to go “far too long and far too deep” into aspects of Murdaugh’s financial misconduct that were not sufficiently probative of motive.
Waters defended the strategy, arguing prosecutors had fully disclosed their theory of the case before trial and successfully persuaded judge Clifton Newman to admit the evidence.
“We filed multiple pre trial briefs,” Waters said. “We laid out our theory of the case. We put all that evidence on the table, and ultimately, Judge Newman heard it all and agreed that it was permissible.”
Waters acknowledged the supreme court provided prosecutors with “some guidance” about the extent of the evidence that should be admitted in a retrial. But he also suggested the criticism reflected normal appellate review rather than prosecutorial misconduct.
***
***
“You don’t hit a home run if you’re afraid to strike out,” Waters said. “And so as a prosecutor, you have to deal with double jeopardy.”
Waters repeatedly emphasized that the supreme court still agreed the financial crimes evidence was legally admissible in some form.
“The Supreme Court multiple times in the order said that this was viable evidence of motive,” Waters noted.
Waters also addressed the awkward position prosecutors found themselves in during the appeal process — defending the verdict while simultaneously confronting the allegations against Hill.
“We thought that Justice Toal got it right,” Waters said, referring to the January 2024 evidentiary hearing where former chief justice Jean Toal denied Murdaugh’s motion for a new trial. “Ultimately there was no effect on this verdict after six weeks of trial and all the evidence that was presented.”
Still, Waters acknowledged the supreme court ultimately “hung its hat” on Hill’s conduct.
“That’s part of the process,” he said. “You dust yourself off, you get back up, you take a fresh look at it, and then you go do your job, and that’s what we plan to do.”
***
RELATED | ALEX MURDAUGH’S MURDER CONVICTIONS STRUCK DOWN
***
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Although Wilson indicated his “current intention” is to retry Murdaugh, prosecutors are still evaluating whether to seek reconsideration from the South Carolina supreme court – or potentially pursue an appeal to the U.S. supreme court.
At the same time, prosecutors appear to be preparing as though a retrial is inevitable.
Wilson indicated he expects the case to remain in Colleton County despite Hill’s misconduct because “the clerk of court has been convicted of misconduct, (and) is no longer the clerk of court.”
As for timing, prosecutors appear eager to move quickly.
“Our hope is to get this case retried by the end of the year,” Wilson said.
Whether that timeline proves realistic remains unclear.
But after Wednesday’s historic ruling, South Carolina’s most infamous criminal prosecution appears headed toward another nationally watched courtroom battle.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
SOUND OFF…
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
8 comments
Pooty Poot and Jimbo were on TV this morning, when pushed about “the real murderer” and wh”s paying them they just shucked and jived. Hope they enjoy their last 15 minutes of fame.
They still haven’t found the real murder like they said they intended too initially. Hmmm
A big untouchable trust fund from lawsuits dad & grand-dad litigated vs. the Railroad. Dick & Jim don’t live off of fresh air & sunshine.
Lol
RULE 4.5: THREATENING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal or professional disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
Comment
This Rule is not included in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The language of this Rule is based upon DR 7 105 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
South Carolina’s attorney general, while he sits and regardless of what decisions he makes to seek rehearing vel non or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court vel non, has some sacred and IMMEDIATE duties related to the Murdaugh and other matters: (1) Prevent or suppress prejudicial pre-re-trial publicity; and (2) uphold the Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers in South Carolina, and basically everywhere else in the U.S.
But the rumor mill, prejudicial publicity, and crazy ideas, start again; yet should be promptly pruned this time.
Some media outlets had reported, and now without evidence reassert, that Maggie was looking for a divorce lawyer.
Media, mainstream or alternative, has grown careless, inaccurate, and/or downright malicious in false reporting.
But some law suits, difficult as they are, succeed in punishing such conduct or deterring it ab initio.
Case in point: Buster’s law suit against Michael Dewitt, Netflix et. al., is still proceeding against the defendants who did not settle.
And I am still hoping the wonderful Dr. Erin Presnell who did Stephen Smith’s first autopsy (100% confirmed by the second autopsy) sues: (1) that idiot Thomas Moore, who had pompously to gone harass her to change her diagnosis; (2) that unscrupulous paid-propagandist-masquerading-as-journalist Valerie Bauerlein, who wrote in her book that Dr. Presenell was fired after she did Stephen Smith’s autopsy when, in fact, Dr. Presnell had been PROMOTED, not fired; and (3) that washed-up self-important has-been Katie Couric, who said in her interview with Sanctimonious Sandy Smith (“SSS”) that Dr. Presnell should not be still practicing because it sounds as if “she’s not very competent.”
Perhaps Dr. Presnell is too involved in her professional work to waste time on a good law suit; or perhaps SLED’s refusal to release the results of the second autopsy which 100% confirmed Dr. Presnell’s work is one more of Malicious Mandy Matney’s (“MMM”) machinations to run the statute-of-limitations clock on Dr. Presnell’s potential law suit(s) for defamation per se.
I do not know. But I do know (being NOT a lawyer but better than most) that the statute of limitations for defamation runs from the date of the last publication; and these shows keep getting re-run.
Back to the FALSE reports that Maggie “drove to Charleston looking for a divorce attorney,” did Maggie take a metal detector and scan Charleston’s side walks for a lost “divorce attorney”? Or stand in the Four-Corners-of-the-Law holding a sign saying, “Lost and looking for a divorce attorney?” Or what?
In this day and age, one doesn’t drive somewhere looking for an attorney. One finds one on the internet or by word of mouth and phones the attorney’s office to make an appointment.
NOT ONLY IS THERE ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH CONTACT BETWEEN MAGGIE AND A DIVORCE ATTORNEY, Blanca was yesterday on Ann Emmerson’s “Criminally Obsessed” show re-affirming what Maggie’s sister and close friends already said: Alex and Maggie’s marriage was as strong as ever and they cared for each other very much.
As to Mark Tinsley’s law suit, and setting aside the question of who, if anyone, was actually piloting the boat at the moment of the crash, Paul’s drunkenness that night was due to alcohol sold by Parker’s and other stores, NOT supplied by Alex OR Maggie.
True, parents should not give their under-age children alcohol; but Mark Tinsley’s law suit would have failed on the essential question of the lack of foreseeable linkage between Paul having a beer with his parents at a party a year earlier and the boat crash.
It would also have failed on the contributory negligence of the parents of the other five young people on that boat for letting their offspring go on a night boat ride with a known under-age drinker.
Mark Tinsley’s law suit would have failed at many points. It succeeded only in the same way that The Godfather-I movie depicts Khartum-the-horse’s severed head in the bed of the rich and powerful movie director succeeding in giving a singer a coveted come-back role.
A prize horse severed head in your bed or your wife and younger son found shot to death in your kennels make you “not refuse” the offer you adamantly refused previously.
That is why I am crusading against civil plaintiffs’ or defendants’ lawyers participating in criminal proceedings, genuine or malicious, to gain unfair advantage in civil litigation, which is unethical and forbidden by the Rules of Professional Conduct, if only anyone would enforce them!
RULE 4.5: THREATENING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal or professional disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
Comment
This Rule is not included in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The language of this Rule is based upon DR 7 105 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
South Carolina’s attorney general, while he sits and regardless of what decisions he makes to seek rehearing vel non or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court vel non, has some sacred and IMMEDIATE duties related to the Murdaugh and other matters: (1) Prevent or suppress prejudicial pre-re-trial publicity; and (2) uphold the Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers in South Carolina, and basically everywhere else in the U.S.
But the rumor mill, prejudicial publicity, and crazy ideas, start again; yet should be promptly pruned this time.
Some media outlets had reported, and now without evidence reassert, that Maggie was looking for a divorce lawyer.
Media, mainstream or alternative, has grown careless, inaccurate, and/or downright malicious in false reporting.
But some law suits, difficult as they are, succeed in punishing such conduct or deterring it ab initio.
Case in point: Buster’s law suit against Michael Dewitt, Netflix et. al., is still proceeding against the defendants who did not settle.
And I am still hoping the wonderful Dr. Erin Presnell who did Stephen Smith’s first autopsy (100% confirmed by the second autopsy) sues: (1) that idiot Thomas Moore, who had pompously to gone harass her to change her diagnosis; (2) that unscrupulous paid-propagandist-masquerading-as-journalist Valerie Bauerlein, who wrote in her book that Dr. Presenell was fired after she did Stephen Smith’s autopsy when, in fact, Dr. Presnell had been PROMOTED, not fired; and (3) that washed-up self-important has-been Katie Couric, who said in her interview with Sanctimonious Sandy Smith (“SSS”) that Dr. Presnell should not be still practicing because it sounds as if “she’s not very competent.”
Perhaps Dr. Presnell is too involved in her professional work to waste time on a good law suit; or perhaps SLED’s refusal to release the results of the second autopsy which 100% confirmed Dr. Presnell’s work is one more of Malicious Mandy Matney’s (“MMM”) machinations to run the statute-of-limitations clock on Dr. Presnell’s potential law suit(s) for defamation per se.
I do not know. But I do know (being NOT a lawyer but better than most) that the statute of limitations for defamation runs from the date of the last publication; and these shows keep getting re-run.
Back to the FALSE reports that Maggie “drove to Charleston looking for a divorce attorney,” did Maggie take a metal detector and scan Charleston’s side walks for a lost “divorce attorney”? Or stand in the Four-Corners-of-the-Law holding a sign saying, “Lost and looking for a divorce attorney?” Or what?
In this day and age, one doesn’t drive somewhere looking for an attorney. One finds one on the internet or by word of mouth and phones the attorney’s office to make an appointment.
NOT ONLY IS THERE ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH CONTACT BETWEEN MAGGIE AND A DIVORCE ATTORNEY, Blanca was yesterday on Ann Emmerson’s “Criminally Obsessed” show re-affirming what Maggie’s sister and close friends already said: Alex and Maggie’s marriage was as strong as ever and they cared for each other very much.
As to Mark Tinsley’s law suit, and setting aside the question of who, if anyone, was actually piloting the boat at the moment of the crash, Paul’s drunkenness that night was due to alcohol sold by Parker’s and other stores, NOT supplied by Alex OR Maggie.
True, parents should not give their under-age children alcohol; but Mark Tinsley’s law suit would have failed on the essential question of the lack of foreseeable linkage between Paul having a beer with his parents at a party a year earlier and the boat crash.
It would also have failed on the contributory negligence of the parents of the other five young people on that boat for letting their offspring go on a night boat ride with a known under-age drinker.
Mark Tinsley’s law suit would have failed at many points. It succeeded only in the same way that The Godfather-I movie depicts Khartum-the-horse’s severed head in the bed of the rich and powerful movie director succeeding in giving a singer a coveted come-back role.
A prize horse severed head in your bed or your wife and younger son found shot to death in your kennels make you “not refuse” the offer you adamantly refused previously.
That is why I am crusading against civil plaintiffs’ or defendants’ lawyers participating in criminal proceedings, genuine or malicious, to gain unfair advantage in civil litigation, which is unethical and forbidden by the Rules of Professional Conduct, if only anyone would enforce them!
Having seen some of the dualling post-opinion interviews, I must reiterate my call for the defense team to bow out and let Alex represent himself.
Sadly, as committed to his client as Mr. Harpootlian is, he seems to have learned NOTHING from the now-reversed conviction where he and Jim Griffin ASSUMED the jury will discount Creighton Waters’ crazy theories on the time of death and on motive.
Even more sadly, cases are now won or lost, not in courtrooms but in public opinion; and seeing the majority of comments on the post-reversal stories, Creighton Waters is already winning the retrial.
For those deluded by, and extolling, Creighton Waters, listen carefully to what he he said in his presser after the opinion reversing the conviction but sparing HIM overt criticism.
You will understand that Creighton Waters ABANDONED the sacred prosecutorial duty to explore exculpatory evidence with the same zeal as inculpatory evidence.
He did NOT do that.
Indeed, he BRAGGED about doing THE OPPOSITE.
He said in so many words “aggressive” and “concern for double jeopardy.”
TRANSLATION: if you, as a prosecutor, obey your duty to include exculpatory evidence and the criminal defendant gets acquitted, the State cannot appeal because of double jeopardy. But if you as a prosecutor “aggressively” include irrelevant and prejudicial evidence, and it causes a wrongful conviction, the criminal defendant can appeal and if “the system works” he gets a new trial as just happened.
Right? NO, no, no! WRONG, wrong, wrong!
“The system” trusts the prosecutors to err on the side of caution, not on the side of conviction at any price.
Lives get destroyed because of wrongful convictions, even if later reversed.
The public confidence in the legal system gets rightly shaken. And most significantly, the REAL perpetrator gets to avoid accountability (for five years now and going) or forever.
If Alan Wilson were truly non-political about this, he should have announced a reopened neutral investigation and invited all with new information to contribute.?
So, Creighton Waters now vindictively brandishes the death penalty?
He’s in over his head.
Now that the Catholic Church has declared its opposition to the death penalty to be a core belief, Prancing Creighton Waters (“PCW”) cannot exclude jurors opposed to the death penalty if they are Catholic.
Instead of itching to execute the innocent, Alan Wilson should show some zeal in improving murder investigations.
To expiate for his Frankenstein creation, FITS should do a whole show or a whole story on the scientific failures of the investigation into Paul and Maggie’s shootings.
Here is more about ballistics which is augmented by this (link to video deleted for publishability).
It shows SLED, presumably in the early morning of 8 June 2021, supposedly collecting evidence from around and inside the house at Moselle.
Many mistakes appear in that short clip:
1. The spent bullets collected from around the exterior seven-step stoop are BASICALLY rubbed together by the evidence gatherer thus HOPELESSLY contaminating the subsequent tool-mark microscopic examination and analysis if such analysis were a science to begin with.
2. The evidence gatherers arrived without simple plastic or paper bags in which to put each bullet separately with an identification of the precise location it was found.
3. They then resort to a quick and dirty non-solution of putting a bullet in each finger of a “new glove” again without precise location identification and after the bullets had scarred each other from being basically rubbed together.
4. The exterior door handle is not dusted for fingerprints nor swabbed for DNA.
5. Once inside the house, no effort or attention is paid to any food or drink containers with residue or unconsumed content. That should be basic in any murder investigation even where the victims had been visibly shot: had they been poisoned or attempted to be poisoned before the shootings? Were they under the influence of anything they had consumed before being confronted by their shooter(s)? That may not necessarily have been the case here; but these are basics of any investigation started on a blank slate.
6. They are heard commenting to each other that the autopsies already started. They should have carefully looked for evidence of unconsummated or recently-consummated food and drink to supply to the autopsy performer.
Or course, many more mistakes appear even in that short clip.
Now that the Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury has been vindicated, it is essential to vindicate the DUE PROCESS right to a scientifically-sound investigation before charges are even brought against anyone.
Of course, many more mistakes appear even in that short clip.
Now that the Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury has been vindicated, it is essential to vindicate the DUE PROCESS right to a scientifically-sound investigation before charges are even brought against anyone.