Alex Murdaugh murder trial live updates January 30

WALTERBORO, S.C. — The double murder trial of Alex Murdaugh continues Monday with a continued focus by the prosecution on evidence collection on the night of the killing.

Murdaugh is accused of killing his wife, Maggie, and adult son, Paul, at the family’s Colleton County estate in South Carolina in June of 2021. Murdaugh’s attorneys maintain their clients innocence and say investigators rushed to judgment. 

Defense attorney Dick Harpootilian’s cross examination of SLED Agent Melinda Worley begins the Monday, Jan. 30, session.

On Friday, Worley took the stand Friday afternoon to answer questions about SLED’s methodology of collecting evidence at the Moselle crime scene on June 7, 2021. Worley also was called on to assist the prosecution entering hundreds of pieces of evidence into court.

Earlier on Friday, Collecton County Sheriff’s Office detective Laura Rutland was on the stand. She testified she was the one to obtain the search warrant for the Murdaughs’ Moselle property and was named the liaison to South Carolina Law Enforcement Division’s lead investigator David Owen when it was determined SLED would be in charge of the murder case rather than CCSO. Rutland was present when Owen conducted his first official interview with Alex Murdaugh the night of the murders of Paul and Maggie Murdaugh. It was her testimony that Alex Murdaugh appeared clean and unbloody even after he allegedly touched both the bodies of his wife and son, and she noted certain aspects of his interview that seemed odd to her.

Murdaugh is charged with the June 2021 killings of his wife, Maggie Murdaugh, and his adult son, Paul Murdaugh, at their Moselle property at the Hampton and Colleton County line. Prosecutors and law enforcement say Paul was killed by two shotgun blasts, Maggie was shot five times with a 300 Blackout rifle. The defense maintains their client is innocent and say law enforcement rushed to judgment in pointing the finger at Alex Murdaugh.

After three days, the jury was finally seated in the case Wednesday, Jan. 25. The 12 member panel consists of eight women and four men, with six alternates as standbys. Both sides presented openings statements before the end of Wednesday, so prosecution witness testimony took up much of Thursday.

You can find updates throughout the day on this article. Live streaming coverage can be found here as well, on the WLTX+ streaming app on Amazon Fire and Roku TV, and on the News19 WLTX YouTube page.

• Murdaugh was a prominent attorney whose family has a long history in the legal community
• He’s also facing other charges that he embezzled millions from his law firm and stole money from clients
• Investigation into this crime led to other probes into mysterious deaths associated with Murdaugh family
• Trial is expected to last around three weeks

Defense attorney Dick Harpootilian began his cross examination of SLED Agent Melinda Worley. She is currently a senior criminalist, spending most of her time in the labs. At the time of the murder, she was a special agent that responded to crime scenes.

Worley testified she got the call to report to the scene at 1030 p.m. June 7 in Columbia and arrived at Moselle 12:07 a.m. June 8.

Worley says the Colleton County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) was to secure the scene, not collect evidence, and that CCSO did mark evidence that was found at the scene.

Harpootlian brings up a bloody footprint that was not Paul’s or Alex’s and questioned whether law enforcement may have contaminated the crime scene. He asked if by walking around in the dark, CCSO officers may have disturbed evidence such as location of spent ammunition. Worley says CCSO was probably trying to preserve evidence by marking what they saw and could not determine with certainty where the footprint came from.

He asks Worley to identify her final crime scene diagram she created. 

Worley had done a crude mark up of location of buildings, bodies, spent shells, and other evidence, after she walked the crime scene, but that initial diagram was not to scale. She took measurements of the location of each piece of evidence to make a more defined and to-scale diagram later. She testified she used a corner of the feed building as a reference point for all measurements.

Harpootlian asks if Worley measured the dog kennel in relation to a certain reference point. Worley says she doesn’t believe so. 

Harpootlian shows Worley a photo of the crime scene showing the dog kennel (small animal cages, doghouse and door to the feed room) and asks if she did measurements from the animal cages to the feed room. She says not directly from the cage to the door. She says her measurements were taken initially the night of the murder and additional measurements were taken on June 16.

To her knowledge, no other measurements were taken from the cages to the door of the kennel.

Harpootlian asks Worley if FARO, a scanning device that recreates a 3-D image of the crime scene, was used on June 16 when SLED returned to the crime scene. He said the State had not entered this evidence.

Harpootlian says FARO created a drone-like video of the scene and presents the video as evidence. This portion of the FARO video shown to the court is of the doghouse and the inside of the workshop.

Harpootlian stops the video at several points during the presentation to show: where the bullet that went through the quail cage and continued through the wall and into some dog bedding; where the bullet comes into the kennel and enters the dog bed; the location of the dog beds inside the kennel; a chicken coop outside the kennel; and a structure about 100-150 feet away from the kennel that houses farm equipment.

He asks if Worley knows how FARO compiles the image. Worley says investigators take physical measurements, and use a 360-degree camera and lasers to produce video images for documentation. She did not render the final FARO video.

Harpootlian is questioning the chain of evidence the video has gone through. Worley does know recall who ordered the FARO, she testifies she was told to gather the measurements.

Harpootlian says the video only came into SLED’s custody about three months ago.

He asks Worley to identify more photos. 

She says they are photos taken of the doghouse on June 16. Some of the photos were taken to determine the angle of the bullet entering the doghouse.

Again, Harpootlian asks Worley if she took measurements of the quail cages. He refers to a photo of one of the diagrams she created of the quail cage. Defects are noted sides of cage. Worley said a flight path rod was placed in the cage from the entrance to the exit to determine the path of the bullet that caused the defects.

He asks how the flight path was determined as to the exterior wall.

Worley said the angle of the shot was 41 degrees from the flat surface of the wall. Worley said a protractor was used to determine the angle in the small cage area, and the same process was used in the doghouse. The angle there, Worley says, was approximately 84 degrees.

Harpootlian asks if Worley can show the jury the angles of the bullets on her sketch, using a protractor. She uses an enlarged diagram presented by Harpootlian to draw out the angles of the bullets.

Harpootlian asks Worley, if you look at the photographs and the diagram and the location of the feed door, the trajectory of both shots would have come from away from the buildings?

He says one of the shots from the AR-Blackout would have come from away from the feed door. The trajectory of the AR shows the shots from that gun were further away. Does this lead her to believe there were two shooters? Was there a possibility of two shooters based on the measurements she took? 

One explaination, Worley says, is the movement of one shooter. 

Harpootlian says a reasonable explanation would be there are two shooters, using two guns, and the AR is being fired from a second position.

Worley says the AR could have been shot from any point along the trajectory.

Harpootlian asks again about the angle of the trajectory in the doghouse. She says 84 degrees. Harpootlian asks, not 90?

He presents her early diagrams of the scene and points out a notation. Worley reads off “80-something degrees.”

He asks what does the notation “96 degrees” mean? Worley says her notes say 84.

Harpootlian asks if the shots came to the right of the feed room?  Worley says yes.

He turns to the footprints in and around the feed room. Worley said she was able to attribute them to Paul’s shoes.

She explains an L-scale is placed near the shoe, the camera setting is set to “raw” to digitally document the shoe (or other evidence).

Harpootlian says there should have been good lighting, a scale placed next to the shoe and photos taken straight on and above. He asks her if that had been done the first night. She says there was no indication of foot prints in the room at the time.

He asks about a possible footprint impression on the back of Maggie’s calf.

He suggests the process used that night was not proper and there may have been evidence excluded from the scene.

He asks if Worley about another one of the crime scene photos.

In the photo, Paul is facing backwards away from where he was shot. 

Worley said Paul was stepping back after he was initially shot, leaving footprints in the building. 

Harpootlian said the shotgun blast to the chest didn’t kill him but the second shot to the head splattered his brains across the ceiling and door and part of the brain was at his foot.

Worley testifies SLED did not ask her how Paul was turned around the way he was. He was near the door when shot the second time.

A second footprint was eventually determined to be from a law enforcement officer, Harpootlian said. Is that standard procedure, he asks Worley, and does she know of any more evidence that may have been destroyed by law enforcement? She answers she does not know. Harpootlian responds, you’re right, we don’t know.

Worley says she accounted for the footprints found in the feed room.

Another photo is presented showing Maggie’s body. 

Read Related Also: Greta Thunberg is carried away for a second time in three days as activists clash with riot cops

Harpootlian asks to zoom in on the back of her leg where some sort of pattern is present. He asks if Worley had seen this photo. She testifies this is not the photo she used in her footwear identification. Harpootlian asks Worley to point out the pattern on Maggie’s leg. She says there is a distinct pattern in the print on the leg. 

Harpootlian says there is no scale on the photo to show approximate size of the print and asks if this went against standard procedure. By calling into question SLED’s evidence gathering that night, Harpootlian said no one treated the impression as one being made by footwear, so no standard procedure was used to document the possible footprints at the scene of the murder.

Harpootlian turns to collection and tests of Alex Murdaugh’s clothing. Worley testifies she saw the clothing was taken, laid out flat and photographed on a diagram to show scale before the chemical test was applied, and the clothing photographed again after the chemical test took effect. The clothing shows “creasing here and there,” says Harpootlian, and is not completely clean.

Worley said after spraying the shirt, the clothing was placed on a grid to show the location of any stains found on the clothing. The chemical would have shown locations of presumptive blood or bleach or rust on clothing.

The tests, Harpootlian said, showed presumptive evidence of blood and then further testing showed the stains were not human blood. Worley said she was unaware of further testing done on Alex Murdaugh’s clothing and did not see the test results.

Harpootlian says he needs to check Worley on something, because her initial measurements say one thing and her official notes say another.

Prosecutor Savanna Goude asks why did Worley prepare the diagrams? Worley said they were done for reconstructive purposes.

Her diagrams were not to scale, but were an approximation as to where things were in relation to one another.

Goude asks if there was stippling present on Maggie’s body, and what it meant. Worley said there was, meaning she was shot at close range.

Goude asks if a person shooting could move around and if a single shooter could have used two guns. Worley says it is possible.

Goude asks if there were a lot of bloody footprints in the feed room. Worley says yes.

Goude asks if the bloody footprints were Paul’s and Worley says yes. Closer to the physical door was a partial print consistent with Paul’s shoes. Goude asks if any other prints found there could have been after SLED moved Paul’s body and the crime scene was documented? Worley said yes.

Goude asks about the mud on the back of Maggie’s leg and if it was a footprint? Worley said she did not see the photo.

Goude asks where was Maggie’s body in relation to the ATV on the night of the murder? Worley said her body was toward the right of the ATV near the kennels

Worley said she saw biologic matter on the ATV and the ATV’s tire the night of the murder.

Harpootlian asks if the biologic matter was collected for testing for blood. Worley says no samples were taken from the ATV

Harpootlian asks if samples of the water surrounding Paul’s body. Worley said no

Harpootlian asks if the photos of the footwear were adequate to determine who made footprints at the scene? Worley said she could approximate the tread identification through the size of the nearby spent ammunition.

Worley says she processes but does not do crime scene reconstruction. She testifies she was never approached about a crime scene reconstruction at SLED or the State Attorney General’s Office.

The State then calls SLED Senior Special Agent Jeff Croft. Prosecutor John Meadors is handling this witness’ testimony.

Croft testifies he joined SLED in investigative services in 2012, working financial cases and violent crime in the Lowcountry Region. He was called to the scene the morning of June 8 and rerouted to the field office in Walterboro for instructions.

Croft testifies his first interview was with Rogan Gibson, a friend of the Murdaugh family, on whether he had phone communication with Paul, Alex, and Maggie on June 7, the night of the murders. Croft said Gibson told him he had communicated with the Murdaughs that night and voluntarily handed over his cell phone for evidence.

Croft testifies he took screen shots from Gibson’s phone, showing incoming an call from Paul at 8:40 p.m. June 7, 2021, approximately 4 minutes in length. Another screen shot shows an incoming call from Paul at 8:44 p.m. to Rogan Gibson. A third screen shot shows a text between Gibson and Paul, reflecting a text from Gibson at 8:49 p.m., asking about a dog. A fourth screen shot from Gibson to Paul at 9:58 p.m. saying, “yo.”

Croft testifies a log of outgoing calls from Rogan Gibson to Paul 9:10 pm, 9:29 p.m., 9:42 p.m. and 9:57 p.m. and at 10:08 p.m. that went unanswered.

Rogan Gibson texted Maggie at 9:34 p.m. asking her to get Paul to call him.

A series of missed calls from Rogan Gibson to Alex Murdaugh are recorded at 10:21 p.m. and 10:24p.m. and 10:25 and 10:30 p.m.

Croft testifies swabs were taken from Gibson to get a DNA baseline for comparison to any evidence at the scene, and a chain of custody of Rogan Gibson’s DNA sample was entered into custody.

After the interview with Gibson, Croft testifies he updated senior SLED investigator David Owen at the scene and began collecting firearms from the residential house at Moselle.

Croft said he knew firearms and his role was to collect and possibly test firearms that might have been used in the murders of Paul and Maggie, and to identify any firearm capable of using ammunition consistent with 300 Blackout.

Croft identifies two recordings of his body cam footage showing his entry to the Moselle residence. He testifies in one of the recordings, he noticed 300 Blackout shell casings outside the door to the gun room and in flowerbeds outside the room that needed to be marked and collected for evidence.

The footage is played for the court with the audio off (due to future witnesses being present in the courtroom) and Croft supplies a “play-by-play” of footage from Moselle. 

Croft testifies 300 Blackout casings were found outside the residence. He describes the footage of him being introduced and shaking hands with three of Alex Murdaugh’s former law partners who are present at the scene. Croft is then shown standing in front of the gun cabinet as SLED special agent Katie McCallister explains what they are looking for and why they are there. 

Consent to search the property had been granted. 

Mark Ball and a SLED agent point to a 300 Blackout rifle in the cabinet. Croft walks to the gun cabinet to get a better picture of the firearm. Croft looks at the magazine on the firearm and it marked 223, capable of handling 300 Blackout ammunition. Croft explains the 300 Blackout ammunition is bigger and has more kinetic energy than 223 ammunition. The 223 does not have the “stopping power” of the 300 — the 300 ammunition has more impact than the 223.

Croft is looking for firearms capable of shooting 300 Blackouts and shooting 12-gauge shotgun shells. Croft found only one 300 Blackout rifle in the gun room.

The video continues and stopped at an image of a box of ammunition that Croft identifies — noting the weight of the ammunition inside as 147-grains (indicating the weight of the projectile, ammunition of the same caliber can have different weights) and S&B, 300 AAC Blackout.

Croft was to also collect 12-gauge shotguns found at the scene.

The video is fast forwarded again to a point showing John Marvin Murdaugh, Alex’s brother, in the gun room along with three attorneys who were part of Murdaugh’s firm, and Chris Wilson, another attorney who steps in for a moment.

Croft can be seen putting on latex gloves to secure the firearms in the gun room. He picks up an AR-15 chambered for 300 Blackout ammunition. Then he picks up the magazine he has taken from the gun containing 300 Blackout.

From the witness stand, Croft shows the court the 300 Blackout rifle secured at the scene and magazine and ammunition Croft removed from the gun. The headstamps on the ammunition in the gun room are the same as the headstamps on the ammunition used to kill Maggie Murdaugh. There is also a thermal scope on the gun that can be used to fire in the dark. The rifle is a semi-automatic, meaning each pull of the trigger shoots a bullet and ejects its casing from the gun upon firing.

Croft then identifies he is holding a 12-gauge Browning rifle on the video. The Browning was also collected for evidence.

Again, from the witness stand, Croft shows the court the 12-gauge Browning taken from the Moselle gun room.

Defense attorney Jim Griffin objects to entering the guns into evidence and is overruled by Judge Newman.

Croft testifies he is selecting shotguns on the basis of if the gun was chambered and if it is a 12-gauge. Croft says the 12-gauge shotgun he is holding in the video is a pump action, the breach is open and in the breach, a shotgun shell is ready to be chambered and ready to be fired.

Other 12-gauge shotguns are entered into evidence: a second 12-gauge pump-action with an unchambered open breach with turkey load shot; and a Benelli and its two 12-gauge shells that were in the gun when it was secured – one Winchester 12-gauge longbeard 3-inch #4, and a Federal 12-gauge 7-2 ½ ounce shell. Croft testifies he did not see any other 12-gauge shotguns in the rack at the time.

Croft says the other man in the video is attorney Mark Ball who is seen on the video pointing to a box on a shelf in the cabinet.

Croft testifies the remaining video shows Croft and other agents collecting spent and unfired ammunition from the scene.

Meadors asks Croft about a portion of the video that shows what might be a juice box container and the further collection of firearms and ammunition. At one point, attorney Chris Wilson is seen sitting on a couch in the residence.

Meadors fast forwards the video to Croft exits the building to talk to his supervisor Capt. Ryan Neal. After talking to Neal, Croft asks another SLED agent to assist in securing spent and weathered 300 Blackout ammunition from around the stoop of the gun room. The spent shell casings collected outside the gun room appeared to have been sitting in the weather for a while. Croft said they were tarnished, not shiny like the others taken from the scene. Inside the casings, there was dirt and grass.

From the video, Croft points out the collection of S&B 300 Blackout shell casings from the left side of the door leading outside from the gun room.

Croft is asked if he searched the shed or other area of the property. Croft said he returned later to search the trash near the shed. Another video of Croft’s body cam footage shows Croft near the shed, to the right are the dog kennels and a chicken coop. Under the shed is the ATV near to which Maggie’s body was found.

From the video, Croft identifies empty boxes of 12-gauge turkey load, 12-gaurge longbeard, and 12-gauge Browning ammunition; and a credit card statement from Gucci, with an item circled on it for $1,021.10. He notes there was nothing else of note found in that trash.

Meadors asks Croft if he recognizes a piece of evidence in the courtroom. He identifies the shell boxes and the credit card receipt he just described in the video that were collected from Moselle.

Croft testifies he and other agents did return to the property on June 13 to search for more firearms and ammunition to be tested for potential weapons used in the murders. They collected more 300 Blackout ammunition and a magazine.

At this time, Judge Newman breaks the court for lunch at 1:15 p.m. and Croft’s testimony will continue after the break.