COLLETON COUNTY, S.C. (WCBD) – Alex Murdaugh was on the stand Friday for a second full day of testimony, hoping to convince the jury that he is not a family annihilator.
Murdaugh is accused of killing his wife Margaret and youngest son Paul at their family property in June of 2021.
WATCH: ALEX MURDAUGH MURDER TRIAL: DAY 24 RECAP
Get caught up on the Alex Murdaugh investigations
The majority of the day was cross-examination by state prosecution Creighton Waters, who took aim at Murdaugh’s credibility any chance he got.
Waters consistently pointed out that Murdaugh has lied to everyone, including the people he loves, for decades. Waters asked Murdaugh why the jury should believe him when he says he didn’t kill Maggie and Paul, especially since he lied about being at the scene just minutes before Maggie and Paul are believed to have been murdered.
Murdaugh admitted to stealing money to fund an opioid addiction and lying to cover it up but remained adamant he could never hurt his wife and son. He believes whoever killed Maggie and Paul did it because of rumors and misrepresentations of Paul brought about by the boat case.
Murdaugh’s defense didn’t spend much time in redirect, but worked damage control to paint Murdaugh as a grieving father struggling with opioid addiction.
Defense expects to call four witnesses Monday and hopefully rest their case by mid-afternoon.
ALEX MURDAUGH MURDER TRIAL LIVE BLOG:
12:01 p.m. – Timothy Palmbach is called to the stand.
Palmbach is an expert in crime scene reconstruction and analysis, with special focuses on blood stain analysis and shooting reconstruction.
He reviewed autopsy reports, crime scene photographs, and more for this case. Palmbach said that immediately after reading the reports, he was concerned by Dr. Riemer’s conclusion that the wound on the back of Paul’s head was an exit wound. He said based on his experience, it was clearly a contact entrance wound. He suggested to defense that they hire a forensic pathologist.
Palmbach agrees with previous testimony that the first shot to hit Paul was into his chest. He says the shooter was definitely outside of the door, but exactly where is dependent on a lot of factors. Both shell casings were found in the feed room, so Palmbach assumes that the barrel was inside the room at least. Palmbach says he thinks the gun used was a semi-automatic.
Griffin asks if Palmbach saw evidence Paul tried to defend himself. Palmbach says no, he thinks Paul was startled by the shot and did not have the opportunity. He also saw no evidence of defensive action.
Palmbach says that in his personal experience, you never see the type of destruction that occurred with Paul unless there is a contact wound from a high-energy source weapon. Griffin asks about the biological matter at the top of the door. Palmbach says that is completely consistent with the shot being to the top/back of Paul’s head. He says the spatter often comes back out of the entrance wound.
Griffin asks where the shooter would’ve been for the shot to the head. Palmbach says that the shot was a contact shot, but the exact distance depends on the length of the barrel of the gun. The shooter would’ve been closer to Paul than he first shot, though, Palmbach says.
Palmbach says that the shooter would’ve been covered in blood, biological matter, pieces of the skull, and likely some of the pellets. He says all of that would’ve followed the pathway of the barrel. The shooter probably would’ve been injured in some way from the pellets, even if just superficially.
Griffin asks about Dr. Riemer and Dr. Kinsey’s analysis of the shot. Palmbach says he does not think Dr. Riemer’s assumption was correct, and Dr. Kinsey based his reconstruction on that, so he was not correct either. Palmbach says that none of the evidence is consistent with an upward trajectory as Dr. Kinsey believed, and all is consistent with a downward contact shot.
11:49 a.m. – Prosecution begins cross-examination.
Prosecution asks if it is the pathologist’s job to determine the time of death. Eisenstat says the coroner usually goes to the scene and collects the information, but forensic pathologists must determine if the information fits.
Prosection asks if Eisenstat performed an autopsy on Maggie or Paul. He says he did not.
The state points out that Eisenstat has made over $10,000 in this case. They ask why he did not write a report on his findings. He says he was not asked to, and the report would’ve been the same as his testimony.
Prosecution asks if Eisenstat said that whoever shot Maggie was taller than her. Eisenstat says no. He said that Maggie was likely bent over and the shooter was at an elevated position.
The state asks if Paul was shot in the back of the head, why did the pellets not spread out. Eisenstat says that the pellets stayed together through the head and then began to spread out.
In Dr. Riemer’s report, she did note that there was soot or stippling for certain injuries, but not for the top of the head injury.
Prosecution asks if Paul’s face was “blown off.” Eisenstat says no.
Prosecution shows a picture of Paul’s brain and asks if it looks macerated or splattered everywhere. Eisenstat says no, but it has been ejected from the head and you can tell it suffered a traumatic injury.
In court, Alex Murdaugh has his eyes closed and appears to be shaking.
Prosecution shows bloodspatter on the top of the door, which Eisenstat says is consistent with blowback. Prosecution asks about crime scene photos showing containers on a shelf with bloodspatter.
Prosecution asks what Eisensta determined as the manner of death for Maggie and Paul. He says homicide.
11:32 a.m. – Court resumes. Eisenstat sketches out some characteristics of contact wounds. They then review images of Paul’s wounds. Eisenstat says that the wound to the shoulder is not indicative of the pellets moving up, but instead going down. He says he does not believe it is a graze wound.
Harpootlian asks why the brain was not shredded by the pellets. Eisenstat says that the pressure of the shot likely blew the brain out before the pellets had the chance to shred it. He said that the brain likely did sustain traumatic damage, but there were no autopsy photos of it taken. Riemer did note that the brain arrived in a separate bag, and Eisenstat saw scene photos of the brain.
Harpootlian asks if the muzzle/barrel of the gun would’ve been covered in bloodspatter and biological material. Eisenstat says absolutely.
11:12 a.m. – The jury is sent to the jury room for a break.
9:48 a.m. – The jury is brought in.
Dr. Jonathan Eisenstat, a forensic pathologist, is called to the stand.
Harpootlian says that the exhibits and discussion during his testimony will be extremely graphic. Most of the evidence will be under seal and members of the family have been given permission to leave during testimony.
Eisenstat explains his qualifications and is accepted by the court as an expert in his field.
Harpootlian says he wants to get to it before prosecution does and asks Eisenstat if he is being paid by the defense. Eisenstat says he is and that it is normal in his line of work.
Harpootlian asks if and how the coroner should check the body temperature when they arrive on scene. Eisenstat says yes, the body and the ambient temperature in the area should be checked and compared.
Eisenstat says a thermometer should be placed in the room near the body to measure the temperature of the air. To measure the temperature of the body, a rectal temperature should be taken for the most accurate reading.
Harpootlian asks if sticking hands under the victim’s armpits, as Colleton County Coroner Richard Harvey said he did, is an accurate method of determining body temperature. Eisenstat says no.
Harpootlian presents Dr. Ellen Riemer’s findings. She is the MUSC pathologist who conducted the autopsies and previously testified. Riemer reviewed those along with autopsy photos and some scene photos to come to his conclusions.
Eisenstat reviews Dr. Riemer’s sketch of Maggie’s wounds. He says they are all rifle wounds.
Eisenstat identifies an entrance wound on the left thigh with stippling, meaning the end of the gun was around one to three feet away. He agrees with Riemer’s findings.
They move on to the wounds to the torso, wrist, and head. Eisenstat agrees with Riemer’s findings on those wounds as well.
The wound under Maggie’s left breast is where Eisenstat and Riemer differ. He looks at tears in the skin where the bullet grazed to determine from which direction the bullet came. He believes that the wound came from the front in a downward direction, just like the wound to the top of her head. He says the shots could’ve been fired in succession. Riemer previously testified that one came from the front in a downward direction and one came from behind in an upward direction, as if the shooter circled her.
They move on to discuss Paul.
Eisenstat agrees with Riemer on the chest wound to Paul. It went in through the chest and exited under the armpit, and was shot at a range of one to three feet.
The head wound is where they differ. Eisenstat believes the head wound is a contact wound to the top/back of the head, which caused extreme pressure in the skull, then sent pellets down into the left shoulder.
Riemer identified an opposite path; she believed that the shot grazed the shoulder then went in through his jaw area and exited through the back of the head.
Eisenstat says that since the top of Paul’s head was not shaved he can’t determine the exact point of entry, but he is absolutely sure that the shot was a contact shot. Had they shaved the head, Eisenstat says that they likely would’ve seen soot, which is characteristic of contact wounds.
Eisenstat says that if the shot followed Riemer’s path, there would not have been as much damage to the top of Paul’s head. He says that there was no stippling on the shoulder, so the shooter would’ve been at least three to four feet away, then the shot would’ve entered the jaw and gone up into the head. Eisenstat does not believe that there would have been enough energy left to cause that kind of damage to the top of Paul’s head.
The X-rays also indicate to Eisenstat that the shot came from behind. He says that the pellets from the shotgun show a downward direction all the way to the first rib. The X-ray also shows the severity of the fractures to the skull. He says that there is no skull in one area, which is likely where the gun was pressed. He says there are fractures all the way around the rest of the skull, which is textbook for a contact wound to the top of the head. Eisenstat says that there were probably pellets in the brain, but they did not X-ray the brain.
Harpootlian asks if the person holding the gun would’ve been covered in bloodspatter. Eisenstat says yes.
9:39 a.m. – Court is in session. Judge Clifton Newman reminds everyone in the courtroom that decorum must be maintained at all times. He says no one should cheer, jeer, or react in any way to anything that happens.
Defense attorney Dick Harpootlian says that defense expects to call their final witnesses and rest Monday. Prosecution plans to call three to four witnesses and rest Tuesday.
Harpootlian says he believes the jury should visit Moselle and suggests asking the jury if they want to. Prosecution says they object to that proposal because the scene has changed since the murders, particularly because trees have grown.
Harpootlian says he would be fine with limiting the viewing to the kennels and feed room.
Judge Newman says that he will not ask the jury to decide whether they want to view it, but upon request of defense or prosecution, will arrange a viewing.
Harpootlian says that there have been several people trespassing to get selfies in front of the feed room and asks for some sort of security during the viewing. Judge Newman says that the scene will be secured.
9:00 a.m. – Alex Murdaugh arrives at the Colleton County Courthouse.
—
STAY CONNECTED: Receive news alerts from this trial and watch it on the go with the NEWS 2 APP (download it here). You can also subscribe to daily emails for the latest news on this trial.