Murdaugh Attorneys Demand Evidence From Alleged Crime Scene Coverup

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

by JENN WOOD

***

Attorneys for Alex Murdaugh are asking a South Carolina judge to compel prosecutors to disclose evidence from an investigation into the alleged disposal of the weapons used to kill his wife and younger son — including witness statements, investigative records and state grand jury testimony.

The motion, filed Wednesday (September 30, 2026), cites FITSNews’ recent reporting on an alleged crime scene coverup involving Lowcountry law enforcement officials. It argues the information could challenge the state’s account of what happened at Moselle on the evening of June 7, 2021.

It also asks prosecutors to answer a consequential question before Murdaugh’s second murder trial: Does the state intend to argue that anyone else participated in the killings — or helped transport, conceal or dispose of the weapons and clothing afterward?

The next hearing is scheduled for October 16, 2026, before S.C. circuit court judge Debra McCaslin. Murdaugh’s attorneys have asked her to take up the new motion at that status conference.

Murdaugh’s retrial is scheduled to begin April 5, 2027, in Sumter County. His 2023 convictions for murdering his wife, 52-year-old Maggie Murdaugh and their younger son, 22-year-old Paul Murdaugh, were reversed by the S.C. supreme court in May following findings that former Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca “Becky” Hill improperly interfered with the jury.

Neither murder weapon has been recovered.

***

A COVERUP PROBE ENTERS THE COURTROOM

As FITSNews reported September 25, investigators with the S.C. Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and prosecutors affiliated with the state grand jury have been examining allegations that others helped dispose of evidence following the double homicide.

Multiple sources familiar with those inquiries told this outlet witnesses had described seeing the murder weapons in the possession of Yemassee police chief Greg Alexander immediately after the killings. Sources also described testimony concerning Alexander allegedly discussing a role in the coverup and implicating another Lowcountry law enforcement leader.

Alexander’s attorney, Joe McCulloch, previously called the allegations “absurd” when contacted by FITSNews.

“They need to stop chasing fictional rabbits and start preparing for trial,” McCulloch told this outlet.

The new motion incorporates that reporting and a subsequent Post and Courier account describing an allegation provided to SLED after Murdaugh’s first trial.

According to the defense’s description of that report, a Lowcountry official told investigators Alexander spoke of arriving early at the murder scene and providing Murdaugh a change of clothes. The official also reportedly believed weapons and clothing were temporarily stored at a police station.

Murdaugh’s attorneys say they have received no statement, interview report or other investigative record documenting that account.

“If the reports are accurate, the State has held, since 2023, a witness statement that a police officer handled the murder weapons and the clothing Defendant Murdaugh was said to have worn, and it has never disclosed that statement to the defense,” the motion states.

The filing identifies former Varnville municipal judge Sheryl McKinney as the person the defense believes provided the account. That identification is expressly based on “information and belief.”

Attorneys also seek interview records involving Alexander, McKinney, Stacy Loadholt and any Yemassee officer questioned about the weapons, clothing or events surrounding the murders.

The allegations remain disputed. The motion seeks access to the underlying evidence; it does not establish that any officer removed or concealed the weapons.

***

RELATED | Alleged Crime Scene Coverup Focus of Grand Jury Probe

***

A SUBPOENA — AND A CANCELED APPEARANCE

The defense attached a state grand jury subpoena issued to Alexander on August 31, 2026, at the request of lead Murdaugh prosecutor Creighton Waters.

According to the filing, the subpoena directed Alexander to appear in Columbia to testify September 15–17.

The defense contrasts that document with Waters’ statements at the August 14 pretrial hearing, when he told McCaslin prosecutors were continually reviewing discovery and were “not aware of any discovery issues at this time.”

The subpoena was issued seventeen days later.

The motion also alleges Alexander’s anticipated testimony was canceled after McCulloch notified Waters he represented the police chief. According to the defense, Waters conveyed through the state grand jury clerk that Alexander would no longer be called.

Murdaugh’s attorneys use that sequence to question whether prosecutors are employing the grand jury to develop evidence for the retrial outside the defense’s view.

Beyond the subpoena, attorneys want the state to disclose when investigators first received information about anyone handling or concealing the weapons or clothing, who supplied it, which agents received it and what investigative steps followed.

They also want information bearing on the credibility of the witnesses — including prior statements, potential criminal or disciplinary exposure, and any promises, immunity or benefits offered or sought.

The motion highlights McKinney’s prior judicial disciplinary history and notes Murdaugh represented her in that proceeding, arguing both are relevant to evaluating her account.

***

THE FIGHT OVER SECRECY AND THE STATE’S THEORY

The defense frames its request as a disclosure obligation under Brady and Giglio, arguing the material could support Murdaugh’s defense or undermine witnesses and conclusions presented by the state.

Its argument draws a distinction between the account reportedly provided to SLED in 2023 and testimony subsequently obtained through the state grand jury.

The earlier statement, attorneys contend, is an ordinary investigative record that does not become protected grand jury material simply because prosecutors later investigate the same subject through that body.

For the grand jury testimony itself, the defense seeks court-authorized disclosure.

South Carolina law generally protects state grand jury proceedings, but permits court-directed disclosure for specified purposes, including compliance with constitutional or other legal requirements. The statute also allows the court to set the conditions governing disclosure.

Murdaugh’s attorneys argue those provisions allow McCaslin to order production of testimony and exhibits concerning the weapons, clothing, movements to and from Moselle, payments between Murdaugh and witnesses, and statements attributed to him.

The request concerns access to evidence before trial. Whether particular statements or records could ultimately be presented to the retrial jury would require a separate determination.

The defense also wants prosecutors to identify anyone they intend to contend participated in the murders or helped dispose of evidence.

“If the State intends to change its theory at retrial, the defense is entitled to know it and to prepare for it,” the motion states.

The potential significance runs in both directions. Corroborated evidence that another person removed the weapons could give prosecutors an explanation for their disappearance while remaining consistent with an allegation that Murdaugh committed the murders.

For the defense, the same evidence could provide grounds to challenge the state’s reconstruction of the night, investigate another person’s movements or question the integrity of the crime scene.

***

RELATED | SANCTIONS BATTLE, INDICTMENT DISMISSAL FIGHT

***

ANOTHER DISPUTE AHEAD OF OCTOBER 16

Wednesday’s filing adds to a growing series of evidence disputes ahead of the retrial.

As FITSNews reported September 18, Murdaugh’s attorneys have sought additional DNA and ballistics evidence, along with the underlying data from a three-dimensional scan of Moselle.

A September 28 motion separately requested the extraction files behind forensic cellphone reports, which attorneys say they need to independently examine the digital timeline presented during the first trial.

Those requests accompany the defense’s broader challenges to the investigation, including allegations involving disputed blood-spatter evidence and testimony used to obtain the murder indictments — issues FITSNews examined earlier this month.

The latest motion asks McCaslin to preserve the newly sought records and allow the defense to supplement its pending dismissal and sanctions arguments after reviewing them.

With the retrial approaching, attorneys argue disclosure during testimony would leave them attempting to investigate an alleged law enforcement coverup in the middle of a murder trial.

“The defense should not have to learn the State’s evidence from the press,” the motion concludes.

The October 16 status conference is the next scheduled opportunity for the parties to address those demands before McCaslin. The defense has specifically requested consideration of this motion that day; whether the court hears or resolves every issue raised remains to be determined.

***

THE MOTION TO COMPEL…

***

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.