Watch a live feed of the Alex Murdaugh murder trial above. Follow reporter Riley Benson @realrileybenson on Twitter for updates from Walterboro. Tune in to News 2 at 4:00 p.m., 5:00 p.m., and 6:00 p.m. for full coverage. Scroll down for live blog.
COLLETON COUNTY, S.C. (WCBD) – Witness testimony is set to resume Monday as week two of the Alex Murdaugh murder trial gets underway.
Murdaugh is accused of killing his wife Margaret and youngest son Paul at their family property in June of 2021.
ALEX MURDAUGH MURDER TRIAL: DAY 5 RECAP
Get caught up on the Alex Murdaugh investigations
Nine witnesses took the stand during the first week of testimony. The ninth witness, SLED crime scene expert Melinda Worley, is expected to be back on the stand Monday morning for cross-examination.
Court is set to begin at 9:30 a.m.
ALEX MURDAUGH MURDER TRIAL LIVE BLOG:
11:48 a.m. – SLED Senior special agent Jeff Croft is called to the stand. The state presents evidence that appears to show Paul called Rogan Gibson at 8:40 p.m. and the call lasted four minutes. Paul again called Gibson at 8:44 p.m.
Gibson sent Paul a text at 8:49 p.m., apparently asking Paul to take a picture of an animal so they could send it to a vet. Paul does not respond. Gibson calls Paul several times over the next hour with no answer.
At 9:58 p.m., Gibson texts Paul “yo.” No response. He calls again at 10:08 p.m. No answer.
Gibson texts Maggie at 9:34 p.m. asking her to tell Paul to call him. She does not respond.
Alex Murdaugh calls Gibson at 10:21 p.m., 10:24 p.m., 10:25, and 10:30 p.m. Gibson did not answer.
Croft and another SLED agent interviewed Gibson and took a DNA swab from him.
Croft also assisted with securing firearms from the Murdaugh home. Part of that included searching for possible murder weapons.
Prosecutors introduce Croft’s body camera footage from the night of the murders. There is no audio, so they narrate it for the audience.
Croft says that Ronnie Crosby and Mark Ball, former partners of Murdaugh at PMPED, were at the scene when he arrived. John Marvin Murdaugh was also there. Attorney Chris Wilson was there as well.
Croft presents the 300 blackout rifle that he secured from Murdaugh’s home to the jury.
11:46 a.m. – The jury sent Judge Newman a note.
They asked him to inform the audience that each juror’s identity is to remain anonymous. They also asked that a cart in front of the large TV be moved.
11:30 a.m. – The jury is sent to the jury room for a 10-minute recess.
11:15 a.m. – Prosecutors ask Worley follow-up questions about why she prepared diagrams. She said it was for reconstructive purposes, but that reconstruction wasn’t really done in this case.
They go on to ask about the bloody footprints in the feed room. They ask if it was possible that the footprints were made after SLED took photos and moved Paul’s body. Worley says it’s possible. Regarding other footprints in the room, Worley said she was not made aware of them until about a week later.
Prosecutors bring up the ATV parked near Maggie’s body as a possible explanation for the prints on her calf. They point out what appears to be blood or some biological matter on the tire. Defense objects, asking if it was tested and confirmed to be human biological matter. Worley says it was not tested. Defense says it could have been deer blood, considering they hunt using those ATVs.
Defense asks about how Worley used Paul’s shoes to analyze the footprints. She says they used crime scene markers to gauge scale. Harpootlian asks if that’s the best way to do things. Worley says no.
10:16 a.m. – The jury has returned. Several pieces of evidence are admitted without objection. Cross-examination resumes.
Harpootlian has Worley explain her process of tracking projectiles using the bullet holes around the property. She explains that they place rods in what appear to be the entrance holes to show the trajectory, then measure using protractors. They did this for holes in the windows of the feed room, in kennels, and in another small animal cage.
Harpootlian asks Worley to draw the trajectory of some of the projectiles so the jury can see the process. Based on the calculations Worley makes, Harpootlian indicates that two of the shots they tracked had trajectories that did not come from the feed room. Worley says she can’t say where the shots came from, but the trajectory indicates the shots were fired from some distance away from the feed room.
Harpootlian asks if based on the trajectories, there is a possibility of two shooters. Worley says the trajectory indicates movement of the shooter. Harpootlian says movement is one explanation, and two shooters is another explanation. Worley is reluctant to agree, but says it is one explanation. Harpootlian says two shooters, two guns, is an explanation.
Harpootlian offers a theory that one was a lookout, they were there to kill Paul, and Maggie surprised them.
Harpootlian returns to questioning Worley about the bloody footprints found in the feed room. He asks about the process for comparing the footprint to Paul’s shoes.
Harpootlian asks about something on Maggie’s calf that could have been a footwear impression. Worley says she couldn’t tell. Harpootlian points out that they didn’t take photographs or work to preserve that evidence to further investigate.
“So the procedures followed were not the recommended procedures by your agency or any agency,” Harpootlian says.
He asks if they examined why Paul’s body was found facing away from the direction he appeared to be facing when he was shot. Worley indicates it appears Paul was walking as blood was dripping.
He moves back to the bloody footprint that belonged to a law enforcement officer. He asks if that was preservation of the scene, if that was protocol, and if they should have been walking through the scene. He then asks if we know what other evidence may have been destroyed. Worley answers no to all.
Harpootlian shows a photo of the mark on Maggie’s leg, which Worley agrees has a distinct pattern, but says she couldn’t attribute it to any type of footwear. He asks if the investigation of that mark followed procedure. Worley said she did not know about the mark at the time of the scene, but that she was present for the taking of the photograph. Harpootlian asks if they had taken a photograph with a scale, would she have been able to further investigate? She says no.
Harpootilan asks if that night, any footwear impressions were photographed following protocol, Worley says no.
Harpootlian moves on to asking about the processing of Murdaugh’s clothes he was wearing the night of the murders. She explains they photographed the clothing with and without scale, sprayed it with a chemical that is supposed to react with blood, then took photos of the shirt and the labeled presumptive blood stains.
Harpootlian asks if the shirt looks like it just came back from the laundry, noting smudges and stains. Worley agrees it does not look completely clean. On Friday, prosecutors and another witness suggested Murdaugh looked like he had changed into freshly-cleaned clothes.
Defense rests.
10:06 a.m. – The jury is sent to the jury room for a break. Prosecution and defense are asked to review exhibits and decide what they agree to admit and what they do not agree to admit.
9:36 a.m. – Court gaveled into session and defense began cross-examining SLED crime scene expert Melinda Worley, who testified for hours Friday.
Defense attorney Dick Harpootlian asks Worley what first responders with the Colleton County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) was supposed to do. He asked if they were supposed to process the scene or secure the scene. She said secure the scene.
Harpootlian points out that Worley discovered one of the bloody footprints in the feed room was caused not by the perpetrator or Paul, but by someone responding to the scene. Harpootlian asks if people are supposed to walk through the crime scene, Worley says it’s best to have as few people as possible disturbing the scene.
Harpootlian introduces into evidence a crime scene diagram sketched by Worley.
The sketch is not to scale, so he has Worley explain the sketch to the jury.
Harpootlian has Worley explain how investigators used a Faro Scanner, which is a laser scanning device that takes images of the crime scene and creates a 3D rendering. Harpootlian likens it to drone video but makes sure the jury knows that the evidence being presented was created by the Faro Scanner. Worley goes through the evidence identifying structures on the property.
—
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.