Jury comes back in. Grubbs, the cell phone data guy, takes the stand for cross-examination. Except that defense attorney Phillip Barber doesn't bother to cross-examine him. So now we're moving on to the next witness.
I believe that decision speaks to the defense's estimation of the value (or lack thereof) Grubbs' testimony provided to the state's case. The state’s 59th witness is Kenneth Kinsey, an Orangeburg County sheriff’s deputy and crime scene expert.
Kinsey is also a professor at Claflin College.
It sounds like Kinsey was brought into the case at the end of 2022. He reviewed crime scene reports and photos and traveled out to Moselle to take measurements for a crime scene reconstruction.
Waters is displaying photos of the feed room where Paul Murdaugh was shot. Kinsey explains that blood and bloody footprints lead toward the door after the first shot, which hit Paul in the chest at an angle and wasn’t fatal.
Waters: Were Paul’s arms raised before the first shotgun blast? “I see no possible way,” Kinsey said. Waters trying to establish that Paul was killed unexpectedly or by someone he knew.
Kinsey: Paul wasn’t facing the feed room door when he was first shot. More likely he was perpendicular to the door. The wound was oblong, not round. Kinsey estimates the shotgun itself was somewhere inside the door because the shot shell was found inside the door.
Kinsey: Paul’s height was listed with the DMV as 5-foot-6, but the pathologist said he was 5-foot-9. He said he split the difference in his own analysis.
This green cone illustrates the trajectory of the second shotgun blast that killed Paul, Kinsey testifies. Dramatic upward angle
Kinsey testifies he used biological matter found at the scene, including brain and blood matter found high on the walls and door, to estimate the trajectory. He said the second shot was fired from outside the feed room, to the right of the doorway.
Kinsey: Paul was moving toward the doorway after the first shot. When he was shot, his body fell forward outside of it.
Waters: Any way Paul’s injury came from the top of his head in a contact fashion? (As Harpootlian tried to establish earlier this week with Dr. Riemer) Kinsey: No way. Because then the biological material wouldnt have been sprayed onto the top of the door.
Waters asks Kinsey if there is any forensic value in collecting every single one of the 150-156 pellets that come in a birdshot shotgun round. Kinsey says no. As long as you get enough of them for a sample for the forensic examiner to weigh.
Note: Earlier in this trial, defense attorney Jim Griffin pointed out that investigators didn’t collect some 30 pellets from the feed room. Kinsey: “There is no forensic value as long as you have enough to determine what type of shot or what type of shell and the weight of it.”
Kinsey on Paul after the first shot: Based on blood evidence, “he’s moving real slow to the door.” The first shot hurt him badly and affected him.
In the courtroom, Murdaugh bends over. Appears to be crying.
Kinsey uses Waters as a prop to explain the angle at which Paul was shot the second time.
Kinsey's testimony about how Paul and Maggie were shot, as well the order of the wounds and which were fatal vs. nonfatal, very closely tracks with what MUSC forensic pathologist Dr. Ellen Riemer testified earlier this week.
The shots at Maggie were fired from a military-style rifle “in very quick succession” from about 4-5 feet away, Kinsey says. He says he can tell from the similar angle from which the shots were fired.
Via the
@wltx feed, prosecutor Creighton Waters gets onto his hands and knees (bottom-right of the screen) to show how Maggie might have been positioned when the first fatal shot was fired at her. Kinsey uses a stick to demonstrate the shooter’s position.
Waters now asks about the impression found on the back of Maggie’s calf. He shows Kinsey a photo of it. Kinsey testifies he did an analysis of that impression. Murdaugh’s attorneys have been asking about this for weeks now.
Kinsey is explaining how he does footwear and tire tread analysis. He comes off as extremely smart and experienced. He is also a good communicator. We haven't gotten to the reveal yet.
Waters: Is it your expert opinion that that mark on the back of Maggie’s leg is a tire tread impression and nothing else? Kinsey: “That is a tire tread impression. That is my opinion.” So, someone ran over Maggie with the ATV?
Kinsey says the impression on Maggie's calf is consistent with the ATV tire tread. Waters wonders if it is consistent with Maggie backing up into the ATV. How did it get there? "I saw no evidence that she was run over," Kinsey says.
Waters asks if the angle of the shots that killed Maggie is consistent with the shooter coming from the feed room. Kinsey: “It certainly could be.”
Waters asks about how Paul’s phone came to be lying on his back-right pocket. Kinsey: “There is no way Paul could have retrieved that phone from his pocket and placed it on the back of his pants.” Someone else did that after his death.
Waters: Was there forensic value in investigators searching and swabbing the Moselle house that night? Kinsey: Not really because the family left DNA everywhere.
Waters' final question: “Did you see any evidence or anything that would reflect a struggle between Paul and the shooter?” Kinsey: “I did not.” No defensive wounds on Paul or Maggie.
Defense attorney Dick Harpootlian rises for cross-examination.
Edited to include one additional tweet.
