2/28/23
Live trial blog: Murdaugh Murder Trial - Feb. 28
Tuesday
Today's trial session is now beginning. The State will call reply witnesses to counter the Defense's case.
Dick Harpootlian for the defense says he's been informed by the State's prosecutors they now have seven reply witnesses.
Yesterday we were told four to five, last week we were told two.
Harpootlian is complaining about some of the witnesses. Specifically Dr. Ellen Riemer as the State's forensic pathologist to counter what the Defense expert testified. Creighton Waters for the State says his focus in reply will be addressing specific issues raised by the Defense, and they'll move expeditiously.
Harpootlian argues these are minute details the state wants to raise. Time is running ridiculously long. Harpootlian accuses State of beating a dead horse. Urges Judge Newman to rein them in.
Harpootlian mentions that if the State raises new evidence, the Defense should have a chance to rebuttal itself. Judge Newman says the State can't retry the case. He says, however, sur-replies by the Defense are almost unheard of.
As he's done so many times, Judge Newman rules he will not place any limiting restrictions on the State in advance, but will hear arguments and objections as they arise, then rule accordingly.
Ronnie Crosby, Hampton trial attorney and former law partner of Murdaugh’s, is questioned by prosecutor Creighton Waters during the Alex Murdaugh trial at the Colleton County Courthouse in Walterboro, Tuesday, March. 28, 2023. Andrew J. Whitaker/The Post and Courier/Pool
State's first reply witness: Ronnie Crosby
First witness for the State in reply is Ronnie Crosby, Alex Murdaugh's former law partner and friend. Close with Paul.
Creighton Waters asks Crosby about riding around with Paul at times, and riding around on his own property looking for feral hogs. Crosby says it's rare you'd ride around without a rifle so you can kill hogs because they're such a nuisance, day or night. It's vital to keep their population in check.
During Crosby's testimony about the hogs and rifles, Dick Harpootlian was apoplectic. He objected repeatedly due to relevance.
Harpootlian said he wasn't aware Crosby was an expert in hog hunting. Crosby, who says he's killed hundreds of feral pigs, believes he is indeed an expert on the matter. Harpootlian sarcastically apologized. The court got a big laugh out of this exchange.
Crosby says he observed Alex Murdaugh had a very good relationship with the local law enforcement community, perhaps better than everybody in the law firm other than his own father.
Crosby says it was clear to him from Alex's statements to him that Alex checked Maggie and Paul's bodies before calling 911.
Crosby says Murdaugh specifically told him and others he didn't believe anybody on the boat at the time of the Feb. 2019 boat crash was involved in the murders.
Crosby is asked about his knowledge of Alex's relationship with Barrett Boulware. Harpootlian objects several times to hearsay, is overruled. Crosby says he was also friends with Boulware, and had conversations with Boulware about his failing health (Stage IV Colon Cancer) and helping him financially by buying land from him since his wife didn't have enough money to stay with him during treatments in Jacksonville at the Mayo Clinic.
Crosby says he recalls talking to Alex about the situation with Boulware, and saying it looked like he would die. Crosby says Murdaugh praised him for helping out Barrett financially. Later, Crosby learned Murdaugh stole a $75,000 insurance check from their mutual good friend Barrett Boulware.
Waters submits a photo of SLED agent David Williams, who was the "David" SLED agent Murdaugh referred to in his explanation of why he was paranoid about SLED. Williams was the lead SLED agent on the case against Murdaugh's friend Greg Alexander.
Williams is an older, white-haired man. David Owen, the lead agent on Murdaugh's case, is a middle-aged bald man. Waters argued he introduced the photo to let the jury decide how credible Murdaugh was in his story about why he was upset.
Crosby testifies in his experience, Alex Murdaugh was very "theatrical" and could become very emotional in trials.
Dick Harpootlian in cross exam for the Defense.
Crosby concedes he can't testify to whether or not Alex and his sons normally rode around the Moselle property with a rifle as a normal course.
Very heated exchange between Crosby and Dick Harpootlian as Harpootlian suggests Crosby is testifying against Murdaugh because Crosby is bitter and angry about Murdaugh stealing money. I'll go back and type out a verbatim on that.
Crosby concedes it's not unusual for people to not recall facts clearly from traumatic events, only to change the testimony later based on records and others testimony, like Alex's testimony with the 911 call and touching Maggie and Paul's bodies.
Now to the full exchange between Crosby and Harpootlian:
Harpootlian: Let me ask you this question. Maybe this gets to the meat of the matter here. Have you had to come out of pocket to pay back the money he stole.
Crosby: Yes, and if you --
Harpootlian: How much? Don't tell me you don't know.
Crosby: Well, we're still counting, Mr. Harpootlian.
Harpootlian: How much have you paid so far?
Crosby: We've had to borrow millions to pay back his misdeeds.
Harpootlian: No, how much have you had to come out of pocket?
Crosby: Well, when you borrow it, you've got to pay it back, and I couldn't tell you exactly how much has been paid back as we sit here today, but yes. And if you're implying that I would come in here and somehow shade truth in any way because of that, that's -- I would take high offense with that, Mr. Harpootlian.
Harpootlian [shouting]: I'm not concerned about your high offense. Are you angry at him for stealing your money?
Crosby: I have no feeling one way or the other.
Harpootlian: You don't have any feeling about Alex Murdaugh betraying you and stealing your money? You're -- I admire you. I don't know that I could look beyond that.
Creighton Waters objects to the comment, Judge Newman sustains, instructs jury to disregard.
Harpootlian: You are not angry at Alex Murdaugh?
Crosby [irritated]: I have had anger with him. Extreme anger, Mr. Harpootlian, because of what he did to my law firm, my partners, my clients, his clients, our clients, what he did to his family, what he did to so many people. [Raising voice] Yes, I experienced a lot of anger, but you can't walk around with anger. You have to find a way to deal with it and move forward, and I have done that. And if you suggest -- you're dead wrong if you think I've come in here and told this jury something because of money when we're talking about two people who were brutally murdered, then you're headed in the wrong direction.
Harpootlian: Do you think he did it?
Crosby: I don't have an opinion. I don't have the benefit of the materials you have.
Harpootlian: Well let me ask you this. You're angry with him. He stole millions of dollars from your firm. Your firm's not even called the Murdaugh firm anymore, right?
Crosby [still plainly irritated]: It is not. I don't admit that I'm angry right now. I told you I've gotten away from that. I don't have any feelings because you can't walk around with anger. I have been very, very angry about it because of what he's done, and he did it in a very callous way -- a very deceitful way.
Harpootlian: And you carry no -- I'm sorry, maybe I just saw some anger there. Were you angry just a moment ago.
Crosby: No, you keep trying to push a question and don't want to accept my answer, which is what it is.
Harpootlian: That you're zen? That you're nirvanaed? You're whatever?
[Creighton Waters objects]
Crosby [softening now]: Mr. Harpootlian, I came to the scene of these murders to support my partner. I was there. I saw things that haven't even been talked about in this courtroom. I was there. I loved Paul very much. I thought I knew who Alex was. I did not -- and it's hard to -- you might not understand, but it's just -- it's hard to walk around with -- with anger and hard to even walk around with it when it's with somebody you didn't know and didn't understand. So you might not be that way, but I've got to function. I've got a family. I've got to move on with my life.
Crosby says he was not aware Murdaugh went to rehab in 2017 and was never aware of Alex Murdaugh's drug addiction.
Crosby says he would've tried to help Murdaugh if he'd known about his drug problem.
Crosby doesn't know about any other attorneys in his firm or any others who were as theatrical as Murdaugh.
Harpootlian: Even though it's cost your firm and cost millions of dollars to you, you've forgiven him? You bare him no ill will?
Crosby: I didn't say I forgave him.
Harpootlian: You're just not angry about it anymore?
Crosby: I said I have no feelings. I said I had to work on that, Mr. Harpootlian. When you go through what we've gone through -- not only losing people we loved in a double homicide, seeing the aftermath and then learning that someone you worked with for more than 20 years had been stealing throughout a period of time and deceiving us -- there's a lot of emotion there. And yes, it was bad in the fall of 2021 and I have found a way to have no feelings. It's not forgiveness. It's just I don't have any feelings.
Harpootlian: You're not angry here today? You're not angry at all?
Crosby: I'm not angry. If I raised my voice, it's only because of the implication you were trying to make out of it.
Harpootlian: The implication you might not want to help him in front of this jury today because -- let me finish -- because he destroyed your firm, he stole million of dollars you've had to pay back, he deceived you? All that's away, and is not influencing your testimony here today at all? If you'd answer that -- yes of no -- then you can explain.
Crosby: All those things happened, and it does not influence my testimony. I take the oath that I just took very seriously, and if you've got any indication that anything I said was inaccurate, then I'll be glad to address it with you.
Harpootlian: Well, the jury can judge that, thank you.
Creighton Waters in redirect. Crosby says Murdaugh looked at him in the eye and lied to him repeatedly. Waters asks if Murdaugh feigned emotion to juries. Harpootlian objected, sustained.
Waters asks Crosby to explain why he was so aggravated with Harpootlian's line of questioning. He says Harpootlian was trying to impugn his integrity, and that's something he takes very seriously. He believes he enjoys a reputation in the legal community as someone who has integrity.
Waters asks Crosby if he'd take a .22 pistol to look for hogs. He would not. He asks if Paul's favorite rifle was a .300 Blackout. Crosby says he always knew Paul to carry one. Waters rests.
Harpootlian in re-cross asks if Crosby knows if the .300BLK in evidence was Paul's favorite. He's unsure. No more questions.
Next witness: Ellen Riemer
Dr. Ellen Riemer, expert forensic pathologist, is back on the stand. She conducted Paul and Maggie's autopsies.
Riemer says skin tags (triangular patterns in skin from tears by bullets) are not necessarily reliable to tell you directionality of a wound, especially going through soft tissue.
Riemer says the wound Eisenstat said was going the opposite direction of her conclusion (downward through Maggie's head, through breast as opposed to upward through breast into head) is refuted by the simple fact that bullet wound entrance hole was found in Maggie's skull and brain proving it could only have been an entrance wound from below not above, which Eisenstat apparently overlooked in her autopsy report.
Murdaugh says she thinks the skin tag evidence on Maggie's breast is very non-specific and proves he has quite an imagination, but his analysis is wrong when you take into account the full wound track.
Riemer addresses Eisenstat and Palmbach saying Paul's massive head wound was an entrance wound from a contact shotgun wound. Riemer says the damage -- as horrible as it was -- would've been so much worse than anyone can imagine. Paul's entire head would've been blown off. He wouldn't have a face left. The blast wouldn't have just blown a hole in his head, it would've exploded his skull and face. The injuries are not at all consistent with a contact wound.
Riemer says there was no evidence of soot or stippling on Paul's head when she did the autopsy, she looked.
Riemer says Eisenstat's determination the wound on Paul's shoulder was coming from the other side than what she said is because he misinterpreted the head wound as the initial entrance wound and didn't take into account Paul's body angle and his own angle.
The logical conclusion if the pellets were coming from the opposite direction, the pellets would have continued through Paul's shoulder and arm. They didn't. That's because it was an entrance wound, not the continuation of an exit wound as Eisenstat said.
Harpootlian in cross exam. Riemer notes she wishes she'd taken more photos of the autopsy. Harpootlian agrees.
Harpootlian makes an issue about Riemer not producing her initial notes from the autopsy. She says they are notes, nothing more. It was her work product from while she was conducting the autopsy, and not a conclusion. She was never asked to produce her notes, but she did produce her final report.
There's an aggravated back and forth between Harpootlian and Riemer over contact shotgun wounds and gas expansion. Harpootlian is showing her photos from a textbook showing a shotgun blast. Dick tries to say that the wound created by the shotgun blast in the textbook has qualities consistent with a contact wound, but the shotgun is not in contact with the test subject.
Riemer says the there's not the evidence on Paul's shoulder and the side of the face to support gas expansion with a shotgun blast being not contact per se but very close. She'd expect to see more damage.
Riemer says she regrets not taking more photos or X-rays of Paul's body or brain, but says she didn't need to do so to reach her conclusion about wound path and cause of death.
Riemer says if Paul's head wound had been from a contact shotgun blast, his skull would've shattered. It was badly damaged, but it wasn't shattered.
Riemer asked to explain how some shot pellets wound up way down in Paul's body, below the shoulder into the rib cage. Riemer says she imagines it was a billiard ball effect. She didn't trace every single pellet to try to determine its path, because the totality of the pellets showed the true path.
Harpootlian asks why Riemer didn't shave Paul's head to make doubly sure it was an exit wound. She says again, she did look at the head wound, didn't see evidence of soot or stippling, and based on totality of evidence (and lack of total skull destruction) determined it was an exit wound.
Riemer is asked why, if the shot was expanding down into the shoulder and neck, there are no pellet holes in Paul's cheek above the primary wound from expansion. Riemer says there likely was shell wadding associated with the shot which would've constricted the shot that didn't enter Paul's shoulder preventing the spread.
In brief redirect, Riemer says she's conducted over 5,500 autopsies. Based on her knowledge, experience and observations, she comes to her conclusions. She's confident the shot to Paul would've destroyed his face and skull had it been a contact wound.
Now on the stand, TC Smalls, sheriff of Hampton County.
Smalls retired in December. He is a lifelong Hampton resident. Known Alex for years.
Smalls says he never talked to Murdaugh about installing blue lights in his personal vehicle as Murdaugh claimed on the stand last week. Smalls says nobody in his 39 years ever asked Smalls anything like that. He also says Murdaugh never said to him anything about threats related to the boat crash case.
Cross exam with Jim Griffin. Smalls says he's not aware of his former captain Anthony Russell giving Alex Murdaugh permission to run blue lights in his personal vehicle. Smalls reiterates he was unaware of Murdaugh at any time having blue lights in his vehicle.
In brief redirect, Smalls restates he only retired in December 2022.
Sgt. Paul McManigal with the Charleston County Sheriff's Office is back again to testify about his role extracting and redacting phone communications from Alex Murdaugh's cell phone. He's being qualified as an expert witness in cell phone forensics for this testimony.
John Conrad is doing direct exam for the State.
Conrad asks about the testimony from last week from Defense expert Micah Sturgis saying Maggie's phone having the "raise to wake" feature, suggesting the screen would've come on if the phone were thrown or jostled violently.
McManigal tested a phone nearly identical to Maggie's over the weekend. Results varied, but generally based on his repeated testing over the weekend, the phone screen doesn't turn on when picked up and thrown like a frisbee. He did note the screen sometimes would turn on when shaking it, but if you pick it up aggressively the screen won't always come on. If you pick it up gently, the screen will usually come on.
Phil Barber in cross exam for the defense notes how McManigal didn't record himself conducting the experiment and didn't generate a report. He's just giving an anecdotal report from memory.
Unable to find any white papers on the subject.
McManigal is not an engineer. Not an expert. Has no more knowledge on the issue of how the phone works than people on the street. He knows more about the functions of a phone generally, but that they use accelerometers.
Barber moved to have McManigal's testimony stricken because he's admitted he's not an expert in phone engineering and how the raise to wake feature works. Overruled.
In redirect, Conrad points out how the defense expert picked up the phone gently in demonstrating for the court. Conrad says the defense expert also wasn't an engineer. Conrad asks McManigal if one needs to be an engineer to see when a phone screen is on or off. He testified you do not.
In re-cross, Barber has McManigal acknowledge he didn't conduct an actual scientific experiment to develop his findings and statistics he threw out for the consistency of the phone screen turning on or not.
Now back on the stand for the State is Mark Ball, Alex's former law partner and friend.
Ball says he never heard Alex express distrust in SLED, and generally had a good relationship with law enforcement.
Ball wasn't aware of Murdaugh having blue lights in his company vehicle.
Ball notes feral pigs come out in the day or night. He shot five two weeks ago.
Never knew Alex to talk much about shooting pistols.
Discussed with Alex the purchase of the .300BLK rifles before Alex bought them. Knew Paul carried one around in his vehicles.
Ball says he had a number of conversations with Alex the night of and after the murders. His recollection Alex told him he went up to Maggie and Paul's bodies in that order, and the next time he expressed it in the opposite order, but Ball understood he had gone to the bodies first then called 911.
Ball says it's "obvious" Murdaugh was able to lie to him for years. He thought he knew the defendant well but clearly didn't.
Ball says Alex told him he wasn't at the kennels.
Jim Griffin in cross exam. Ball agrees he hasn't spoken to Murdaugh since a couple days after Murdaugh was fired. Griffin points out Murdaugh has been in jail for most of that time, hasn't really had the chance to talk to Ball.
Ball knew Alex disputed the felony boating under the influence charges against Paul. Griffin asks if Ball would concede Alex distrusted SLED because of that. Ball says Alex never expressed anything like that about SLED specifically, just that they thought the case against Paul was defensible and they planned to fight it.
Griffin wasn't aware of any distrust of SLED over the Greg Alexander case, just knew that Alex and his father were close with Greg Alexander.
Ball believes Murdaugh had a good relationship with the Colleton County Sheriff's Office.
Griffin asks if Ball knew Paul put a lot of hunting pressure on wild pigs on the Moselle property. Ball isn't sure, but knows Paul generally hunted hogs a lot.
Ball notes the hogs are primarily in the swamp, but they can be everywhere. Hogs don't necessarily stay in the swamp in the summer. Says hogs are a "scourge" and "T-total nuisance." Ball notes he carries a gun with him at nearly all times due to hogs.
Ball is aware Paul had a .300 Blackout he used a lot.
Ball says he believes Alex is an emotional person. Has seen him get emotional, including after losing Maggie and Paul.
Ball says he recalls hearing law enforcement released a statement the morning of June 8 saying there was no threat to the public. It concerned Ball greatly. He was later given the explanation there were no credible threats of anybody being in harm's way. He was still so concerned they locked the law firm's doors for months afterward, continue to do so.
Court in recess until 2:15. State has one more witness, possibly two. Judge discussing email he received, he's having counsel look at it.
They'll talk about the email on the other side of lunch. Jury view of the Moselle property will come after the State rests.
Before the jury departs, the Defense moves again to have McManigal's testimony stricken as scientific. Denied by Judge Newman. He was clear it wasn't a scientific opinion, just an experiment.
Dick Harpootlian moves to be able to conduct surreply with the state's forensic expert to counter the new evidence / testimony offered today by Riemer. Judge Newman says he's not inclined to accept it.
Back from lunch. The State recalls forensic expert Dr. Ken Kinsey to testify. He will be questioned by Attorney General Alan Wilso
Next witness: Kenneth Kinsey
We're resuming trial now. Dr. Ken Kinsey has been recalled to the witness stand for the State. He'll be examined by none other than S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson.
Kinsey says he's of the opinion Sutton was well intentioned but his testing methods were flawed.
Kinsey notes the cardboard on the end of the quail pen is warped.
Kinsey recalls how there were two potential angles of impact on the bullet hole in the quail pen noted by the crime scene analyst. He's confident about SLED Agent Melinda Worley's conclusion about the direction of the bullet at the entry point, but he has zero confidence in the angle of the approach of the bullet.
Rotation of projectile stabilizes it in its path, but could be destabilized and trajectory altered by impact along the flight path.
Kinsey using dowel in sample cardboard box.
Kinsey notes you can get a confident angle and other data from a bullet strike in fixed, solid object, but it's very difficult to get such data from soft materials like weathered cardboard.
Kinsey notes just the act of inserting a dowel rod into the cardboard and removing could alter or disturb or damage the cardboard, and could give you the false impression of an angle of entry, or "bullet wipe" Mike Sutton testified.
Kinsey says the bullet strike trajectory into the quail pen was right to left, but he has zero confidence in Sutton's determination that the bullet was on a 1-3 degree upward trajectory into the pen.
On the other hand, Kinsey says he has much higher confidence in the bullet strike angle recorded in the wooden dog house because of the material it's made of.
Kinsey now reviewing Sutton's 3D animation depiction of the shooting scene and shooters.
Kinsey notes defense expert came to the conclusion shooter would've been 5'2" - 5'4" by moving the simulated persons back and forth on the estimated lines of trajectory based on the location of the shell casings.
Kinsey explains he thinks Sutton's determination of the shooter's height is incorrect because he didn't consider "a bunch of variables."
"Variables do matter, there are a bunch you'd have to consider," Kinsey says.
He says Sutton's determination relies on a crime scene with very little movement going on. Second, you'd have to place high confidence the angle of impact in the hole in the quail pen. Third, you'd have to test fire the murder weapon with the same type of ammo, but even then the gun doesn't throw the cartridge case the same way, distance etc. every time.
Also noted there were cartridge cases to the left of where the animated shooter was located in Sutton's rendering. The rifle wouldn't throw the cartridges to the left.
Wilson says to assume the defense expert's angles are correct. Why does Kinsey think the theory about the shooter's height still wrong? Can a person be on a knee and be standing and still produce the same shot angle? Kinsey says yes. Kinsey says a 5'4" and 6'4" person could shoot the same angle by their body position. Kinsey gets down on a knee and demonstrates how the weapon could be orientated .
Kinsey says he absolutely believes the victims and suspect were moving around the crime scene. The shell casings are spread out over a broad area, the shell casings are moving along with the moving shooter as they're ejected, which adds a secondary element to their motion.
Kinsey notes Maggie's head was facing toward Paul's body at the feed room in its final resting place after she was shot.
Kinsey says Defense expert Mike Sutton's position shooter couldn't have been 6-foot-4 like Alex is a "flawed opinion," and notes he (Kinsey) even demonstrated how the shooter could be 7-foot-4 or 5-foot-4 and achieved the same shot angle.
Sutton testifies the flaw in Sutton's methodology in tracing the buckshot pellet from the tree back through the window an apparent muzzle height is flawed because shotgun pellets spread in all directions. He believes the pellet Sutton retrieved represents the top of the cone of the shot spread, but unless you know how the shooter was holding the weapon, or how tall he or she was, it's impossible to determine the shooter's height. Disagrees wholeheartedly with 5'2" - 5'4" shooter wholeheartedly, and unless many other variables are known, it's unscientific.
Because there are so many unknown variables in the situation, Kinsey says he doesn't believe the defense reliably say what height the shooter was.
Kinsey is asked about his crime scene experience with contact gunshot wounds. He says he's seen approximately three dozen, with two dozen being suicides. The other dozen were execution style. He says whether with a shotgun or large caliber handgun, the results are largely the same.
Kinsey says the results of contact shotgun wounds is you feel the forehead and facial features have gone away, to put it politely. "They've been shredded. From the teeth up, the person went away. It's just a mess."
Kinsey notes Paul's face and much of his head is still intact. It doesn't appear to him Paul Murdaugh suffered a contact gunshot wound based on his past experiences. Kinsey says generally it seems the facial features have either gone away or changed drastically. Eyes often will pop out. The facial bones will be free-floating. And you'd be able to see the pellet exits in the skin. Paul's wounds are "absolutely not" the result of a contact wound to the back of the head, Kinsey's opinion.
Wilson has Kinsey demonstrate the Defense's theory of the fatal shot to Paul, which would've required the shooter to pass by Paul as he stumbled out of the feed room, go into the feed room themselves and then shoot Paul in the back of the head at an extreme downward angle, resulting the pellets then to bounce back upward with such velocity to dent the steel feed room door and embed in the wooden doorframe.
Kinsey says the defense expert's theory is "preposterous." With the shot pellets bouncing back upward into the door and door frame, "that doesn't happen," Kinsey says. He also notes there's pellet defects on the cement slab outside the feed room, the bottom of the door frame, the plywood wall, or the metal siding on the building to account for the defense's downward angle shot. There's also no high velocity blood spatter on the ground or bottom of the feed room like there is on the top of the door and door frame. He says what blood is on the bottom of feed room is medium velocity blood spatter from gravity bringing droplets of blood down, not high velocity, and there are studies to support it.
Kinsey says if someone is shooting downward, it's impossible the pellets could rebound back upward with enough force to embed in the door frame and dent the door. Physics don't work that way, unless the shooter was shooting the steel waterfowl load into another piece of steel to create a trampoline effect, but it still wouldn't come back up with such great force to embed in the door frame and dent the door.
Kinsey further notes that if the shot had come from behind Paul going downward, they would have ended up on the ground outside the feed room, not inside feed room.
Wilson now addressing the two-shooter theory. Brings up how the .300BLK shells found by the house and by Maggie's body had been loaded into and ejected by the same weapon.
Kinsey notes how private companies generally handle crime scene cleanup.
Kinsey says there's nothing to suggest the shooter couldn't have been 6-foot-4.
Kinsey says there's no way to include or exclude two shooters as being responsible.
Jim Griffin conducting cross exam for Defense.
Kinsey notes he is not a medical doctor, but has been trained in gunshot wound pathology.
Kinsey says he doesn't agree with Eisenstat's ruling Paul's fatal gunshot was a contact wound.
Kinsey says he is not faulting SLED agent Melinda Worley or criticizing Mike Sutton for their determinations regarding the angle and trajectory of the bullet in the quail pen.
Kinsey says carboard is unreliable to begin with and any determination of angle is unreliable because it cannot account for movement of the shooter or Maggie, nor can it account for the bullet possibly passing through Maggie.
Kinsey says he doesn't disagree with Sutton's determination of the direction of the shot into the quail pen, but he's very critical of Sutton's determination the shooter couldn't have been 6-foot-4, citing unnatural shot angles, etc when he clearly demonstrated how a shooter of any height could achieve the shot angles.
Back from recess. Kinsey says he went to Moselle and looked at the bullet hole entries himself, but didn't run tests on them. He also consulted with SLED Agent Melinda Worley and discussed her findings. Kinsey noted he's been paid for his work in the past, but stopped charging after 100 hours. Now being allowed to miss work in Orangeburg County as part of a mutual aid agreement between his sheriff's office and SLED.
Kinsey notes the blowback velocity of spatter would only be 8-10% of the initial shot force, and there's lots of literature to support that.
Kinsey is confident the blood spatter near the bottom of the feed room and low door frame is not "high velocity" spatter, he believes it's most likely low or medium velocity. Either Paul's brain fell and splashed blood up, or Paul's body falling caused splashing, or gravity of blood falling and splashing, or somebody stepping in a puddle and splashing up blood.
Griffin is rehashing SLED's initial failure to fully test for footwear impressions, etc. Kinsey says he can't say one way or the other if he agrees.
Kinsey says he does recall cases he's worked where victims' brains were "evacuated" from their skulls in gunshot wounds. Most often, there's not much left discernible as a brain. It's a "mess."
As the Murdaugh murder trial comes to a close, the jury could get a break from the courtroom this week to visit the Murdaugh family's former Moselle property.T
abcnews4.com
