Warning content is graphic:
That is all for Eisenstat. The defense's 13th witness is Tim Palmbach, a crime scene analyst from Connecticut.
Palmbach says he is an expert in blood spatter analysis. Oh boy.
Palmbach: The fatal shot to Paul was obviously consistent with a contact wound, but it was written up as an exit wound. So I told Murdaugh’s attorneys “this doesn’t look right.”
Griffin: How close would the shooter have been in relation to the shot on Paul’s head? Palmbach: This is a contact would. The shotgun barrel would have been in contact with Paul’s head.
Palmbach says the blast would have sprayed “a lot” of biological material onto the shooter at that close range. It would have covered their face/head/upper body and gotten into the shooter’s hair.
Palmbach: I don’t think it is at all possible that the second, fatal shotgun blast hit Paul from the angle Dr. Riemer and Kenneth Kinsey described in earlier testimony.
The jury is seeing a lot of graphic crime scene and autopsy images today.
Palmbach: There was blood spatter on the floor of the feed room, and that was from the exit wound under Paul’s chin/neck.
Both of the defense’s witnesses today believe Paul was shot directly in the back of the head during the second shotgun blast.
Palmbach says the shotgun blast that killed Paul had enough force to blast his blood, brains and bits of skull upward and toward the top of the feed room.
If I had to guess, I'd bet the defense is stressing this contact-wound theory because under that narrative, the shooter would have been covered in blood/brains, and AM was mostly clean when investigators arrived on scene that evening.
Palmbach on Maggie’s wounds: Maggie was facing the shooter during each of the shots. “She is moving, for sure. There is some degree of movement” from where the shooting most likely began. The shooter also moved toward Maggie, Palmbach testifies.
Griffin asks Palmbach if he thinks the carnage inflicted at Moselle was committed by one shooter or two. Palmbach: “My opinion is the totally of the evidence is more suggestive of a two-shooter scenario.”
Palmbach: “With Paul, I believe he was shot first. I believe he had no idea it was coming. He took the shot to the chest and very soon after, the one to the back of his head.”
Palmbach says one reason for the two-shooter theory is that the person who shot Paul would have been hit with a high-degree of force by pellet fragments, bone fragments and biological material. The shooter would have likely been stunned, “kind of out of it” for a short period.
Palmbach: They couldn’t have instantaneously suffered that, dropped the shotgun, picked up a rifle and “engaged in a meaningful assault.”
Palmbach also testifies it would have been impractical for the same shooter to carry two long guns. Palmbach testifies the person who shot Paul would have had at least one foot in the feed room. He testifies there was an opportunity for investigators to collect footprints.
Palmbach is helping the defense score points on their “investigators were inept” angle. He says investigators should have sprayed specific chemicals in the feed room to identify possible footsteps left behind by Paul’s killer. “Absolutely should have been done in this case.”
Prosecutor Savanna Goude starts her cross-examination with a sudden, playful dig. “Is it ‘doctor’ Palmbach?” “No.”