The Murdaugh Murders: Alex Murdaugh Sues Becky Hill

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_01] I'm Anya, and today we're going to talk about a rather unusual wrinkle in the Murdaugh Murders case. Content warning, this episode contains discussion of murder.

[00:00:11] [SPEAKER_01] Okay, so this is a bit of an unusual situation all around. I'm sure many of you who have been following this, you know, pretty high profile case are aware that Alex Murdaugh, a previously convicted murderer who was convicted of murdering his wife, Margaret or Maggie, and his son, Paul, on June 7th, 2021 at the family's hunting lodge in South Carolina,

[00:00:38] [SPEAKER_01] his conviction was overturned by the South Carolina Supreme Court. The reason it was overturned was that the South Carolina Supreme Court upon, you know, weighing both sides of the case, felt that the possibility of a court clerk named Becky Hill having an impact on the original trial jury by basically coming around and making statements about Alex Murdaugh,

[00:01:04] [SPEAKER_01] they felt like the possibility of that depriving Murdoch of a fair trial was too high to let it stand. So already, I mean, this is pretty weird, right?

[00:01:15] [SPEAKER_02] It is.

[00:01:15] [SPEAKER_01] You don't normally have this, right? But, you know, that happened. But now it's getting even weirder. So let's just think about this. It's 2026. We're recording this on May 26th. I think it's going to come out next week.

[00:01:30] [SPEAKER_01] He was convicted March 2nd, 2023, and the murders were June 7th, 2021. So this is already like a very long saga. But now we're adding to it because one thing that came out after this news of the overturned conviction broke was that Murdoch is now suing Becky Hill.

[00:01:52] [SPEAKER_01] So we got our hands on the his filing in the lawsuit and we're going to talk about this. It has more. I mean, here's the thing. It has some more details about what Murdoch's team is claiming happened with Hill and what they're saying was unfair. I do think it is important when we're reading something like this that we acknowledge that, OK, it's from one side. Right, Kevin? Right.

[00:02:18] [SPEAKER_01] And not necessarily just sort of interpret things through one side's viewpoint, but we can certainly talk about it and sort of talk about the implications, talk about what's said to have happened, at least from one side, and talk about why this ultimately did have an impact on how the South Carolina Supreme Court viewed things.

[00:02:40] [SPEAKER_01] And there's also just a lot of bizarre details about what went on. So we'll be covering the Murdoch murders case in depth going forward as, you know, presumably there are new developments, you know, if there's a new trial, whatnot. But, and I say if because, you know, plea deals can always happen. Not saying that would happen here. I'm just, you know, you never you never know with anything.

[00:03:04] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, I think that's what we're going to talk about today. I will also note that for anyone who is interested, we have two premium sort of subscription services. Now we have Patreon and Apple. Both are like five dollars a month and you get a whole bunch of bonus stuff. You get ad free episodes. You get early episodes like I'm dropping these things at midnight some nights and you're just getting them like weeks earlier ahead of everyone else. That's kind of fun. And extra episodes.

[00:03:33] [SPEAKER_01] Yes. The thing that we're rolling out now is extra episodes. So there's a number of live broadcasts we do off of Patreon. Both Apple and Patreon are now getting those. And we also plan to unroll sort of a premium only weekly offering that will be fun. And you just be getting a lot of extra content. And if that's something you enjoy or if you want to get rid of the ads or whatever, we're going to be expanding that quite a lot.

[00:03:58] [SPEAKER_01] And you can do it on Apple or Patreon at this point. And, you know, also looking into what other options we can add if that's feasible. But anyways, just something that you can consider if you're enjoying the show, but, you know, you want to kind of get some of that extra stuff. But I'll stop yapping and we'll get to the music. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:04:19] [SPEAKER_00] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:04:31] [SPEAKER_01] And this is The Murdoch Murders. Alec Murdoch sues Becky Hill.

[00:05:22] [SPEAKER_01] To start out with. So we're going to basically go through this document and really sort of pick it apart and look at it. But I'm going to just tell you, and I'd be curious, your initial reaction, Kevin, what was your reaction to hearing the news that this Becky Hill, former court clerk. First of all, that her actions led to this conviction being overturned.

[00:05:51] [SPEAKER_01] But then tell me about what was your reaction then when she got sued by Murdoch?

[00:05:56] [SPEAKER_00] I wasn't too surprised. Obviously, in our legal systems, if you feel your rights have been violated, you file a suit. And also one thing to remember, and obviously this is something you and I saw a lot of in the Delphi suit. It's not the Delphi suit. When I say the Delphi suit, of course, I mean the Delphi murder case. We see people using the legal system to get messages out to the public.

[00:06:23] [SPEAKER_00] And filing a suit against someone and spelling out all these allegations, this is a good way to get information out to the public. To try to inflame anger and passions. To try to travel and direct public opinion the way you want it to be directed. And that's over and above whatever legitimate purpose the suit might have.

[00:06:45] [SPEAKER_01] I think that is a really important point. And I think that's something we all have to keep in mind at all times in any case. That doesn't mean we're saying, oh, this is illegitimate or whatever. It's just more of like lawsuits, legal filings are a means of communication. Usually to a judge. Sometimes to the public. And when it's the public, as members of the public, as people in the media,

[00:07:09] [SPEAKER_01] I think it really behooves us to try to be cognizant of that so that we're not easily manipulated and led like lemmings off a cliff. So my reaction was a little bit more snarky than yours. Perhaps unsurprising to our audience. When I was just like, oh, man. Like this, I mean, when I see this just as a person, like it's just like, oh, man, like everyone worked so hard on this trial.

[00:07:36] [SPEAKER_01] Everyone went through this whole saga. And now one person's actions are basically undoing all of that. And how unfair is that? Unfortunately, it is how our system works. So I certainly respect the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court. I personally kind of feel like they had no choice. But, you know, others disagree. That's OK. It's OK to disagree. But I did feel like, yeah, I understand why they did that. But man, that stinks.

[00:08:02] [SPEAKER_01] And it's really terrible that basically one person can just derail the whole thing. But then when I saw when I saw that this guy was suing her, it's like. I don't know, shouldn't he should be sending her a friggin edible arrangement. He should be like sending her a fruit basket, flowers. Or, you know, her bad actions have basically given him a second shot at this whole thing.

[00:08:24] [SPEAKER_00] Another bite of the apple.

[00:08:24] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah. Right. I mean, I get why he's suing her, but I'm also like, OK, like had she not done that, he would be squared away in my view.

[00:08:34] [SPEAKER_00] Well, keep in mind the public position of his defense team is that she influenced the jury against him. And so they want that their position is, for all we know, maybe he would have been acquitted if not for this woman.

[00:08:52] [SPEAKER_01] I understand that that's their position.

[00:08:55] [SPEAKER_00] So that's why they're not sending her roses and bouquets.

[00:08:58] [SPEAKER_01] I really don't think that's accurate, though. I mean, I think there's even some indications. And I mean, I think even the South Carolina Supreme Court, which their order, which I, you know, found pretty much well reasoned and certainly is, I think, more of a new certainly a more neutral party than what we're going to be getting today. But I mean, there's no real smoking gun as far as like we convicted because this random clerk told us to like.

[00:09:27] [SPEAKER_01] But I do agree that her actions were egregious. And even if it didn't necessarily it, the it casts a shadow over the verdict. That's unacceptable. Even if I personally don't see anything saying like, yeah, we we went that way because of her. To me, also, it's a very strong case against this guy. I mean, I just it's like kind of a I don't know. It's pretty clear cut in my view. And I'm just being honest about that.

[00:09:57] [SPEAKER_01] I don't see a reason to hide the ball from you all. Again, I don't really have any sort of personal investment in his guilt. So if people feel like, OK, well, here are some points on the other side on you. I'm very open minded to hearing that. But just my the reading I've done so far, revisiting the original trial, I feel like the state did a very good job and it was a strong case. But what's been your perception as you go back?

[00:10:19] [SPEAKER_00] That's generally been my perception. I'll admit I haven't really done the deepest of dives on this case, but that is my perception. It's a strong case.

[00:10:28] [SPEAKER_01] All right. So without further ado, let's get into this lawsuit. So it starts out by noting that essentially Murdoch, whose real name is Richard Alexander Murdoch, but it goes by Alex. He is bringing this is a, quote, civil rights action against Rebecca or Becky Hill. And she was the clerk of court for Colleton County in South Carolina. Colleton County was where the trial took place.

[00:10:55] [SPEAKER_01] And they, you know, the conviction was overturned May 13th this year. And this is a this is how they define the parties. They introduce Hill as somebody who was the clerk of court for the circuit court of Colleton County from November 2020 when she was elected. A very elections have consequences, South Carolina until March 25th, 2024.

[00:11:23] [SPEAKER_01] And and then Murdoch is listed as a former attorney who was charged with murdering Maggie and Paul, his wife and son. And the jury trial in his case lasted six weeks and he was convicted March 2nd, 2023. And now those that conviction has been vacated. Murdoch is represented by lawyers who appear at the bottom of the filing names like Philip D. Barber, Andrew R. Hand, Margaret N.

[00:11:53] [SPEAKER_01] Fox, and then most notably notably Richard A. Harpootlian and James M. Griffin. So Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin were the two lawyers who I think primarily represented Murdoch at trial. So they are also doing this case for him. And here's where they break it all down. So I'm going to kind of read out some of the main bullet points. Quote, this is a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

[00:12:22] [SPEAKER_01] 1983 against defendant Becky Hill, former clerk of court for Carlton County, South Carolina, for the deliberate and egregious deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional right to a fair trial before an impartial jury. Guaranteed by the sixth and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution. No right touches more the heart of fairness in a trial than the right to an impartial jury. That right was stolen from Alex Murdaugh by Becky Hill.

[00:12:49] [SPEAKER_01] On March 7th, 2023, following a six-week trial in Carlton County, South Carolina, Mr. Murdoch was convicted of the murders of his wife, Margaret Maggie Murdoch, and his son, Paul Murdoch. He was sentenced to two consecutive life turns. He maintained his innocence then. He maintains his innocence now. Neither Mr. Murdoch nor his counsel knew at the time of the trial that Ms. Hill, the elected clerk of court for Carlton County, the officer of the court charged as the primary caretaker of the jury,

[00:13:16] [SPEAKER_01] had secretly and deliberately inserted herself into the jury's deliberative process for personal financial gain. As the Supreme Court of South Carolina has now held, Ms. Hill placed her fingers on the scales of justice. Acting under color of state law and abusing the power and authority of her elected office, Ms. Hill made repeated improper extrajudicial communications to jurors,

[00:13:40] [SPEAKER_01] in which she urged them to not be fooled, confused, thrown off, or convinced by Murdoch and his defense. In so doing, Ms. Hill became a character witness on behalf of the state, encouraging the jurors to question Murdoch's credibility and essentially implored the jurors to find him guilty, the ultimate issue in the case. Ms. Hill's motive was her self-serving desire for personal profit.

[00:14:05] [SPEAKER_01] She wanted to write a book about the most high-profile trial in South Carolina history so she could buy a lake house. And, as the South Carolina Supreme Court found, she believed a guilty verdict would be the best way to sell books. She was, in the words of former Chief Justice Toll, attracted by the siren call of celebrity and allowed her desire for the public attention of the moment to overcome her duty to her oath of office. End quote.

[00:14:30] [SPEAKER_00] The siren call of celebrity. Yes.

[00:14:33] [SPEAKER_01] True crime celebrity ain't real celebrity, guys.

[00:14:36] [SPEAKER_00] And I think when you're filing a suit and you want to establish what someone did against you and you're able to quote from a Supreme Court opinion, you've got money in the bank. That's pretty good.

[00:14:51] [SPEAKER_01] Everything's expensive. Prices are high. So we like to look for affordability and high value when we're shopping for clothes. That's why we adore our sponsor, Quince.

[00:15:00] [SPEAKER_00] Quince is perfect for your summertime wardrobe refresh.

[00:15:04] [SPEAKER_01] Seriously, all their pieces are 50 to 80 percent less expensive than what you'd find at their competitors. They keep costs low by cutting out middlemen.

[00:15:14] [SPEAKER_00] Wreathable European linen shorts and shirts starting at only $34. Soft t-shirts that you love wearing. Lightweight cotton sweaters for the bonfire. Quince has got what you need.

[00:15:26] [SPEAKER_01] Here's what I just ordered for the summer. I bought their 100 percent European linen fit and flare midi dress in deep navy. It came in super fast and I love it. Honestly, most of the time I'm not daring enough for dresses without big sleeves to cover my arms. But this one I made an exception for. I absolutely love the way I look in this dress. I love the fit. It makes me feel super confident.

[00:15:50] [SPEAKER_01] Depending on how I style it, I feel like I could wear it on a fancy date night with Kevin or even just to a friend's summer barbecue. I adore the dark blue color and the A-line silhouette and the lightweight linen. It feels great. It fits great. And it's the perfect dress for summer. I have a feeling I'll be wearing it constantly.

[00:16:07] [SPEAKER_00] Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quince.com slash msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash msheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash msheet. This message is sponsored by Greenlight.

[00:16:31] [SPEAKER_01] Scammers are no joke. We've all gotten those sketchy emails and texts and calls. Sometimes it feels like we're all being bombarded by scammers. If you're like us, you've even had scammers try to get access to your relatives' confidential information.

[00:16:45] [SPEAKER_00] Families lost $12.5 billion to fraud last year. With Greenlight Family Shield, you can keep your family from becoming a statistic.

[00:16:54] [SPEAKER_01] This app protects your whole family from fraud and scams. I'm talking about your kids, your grandparents, your elderly parents. Greenlight Family Shield takes care of everything.

[00:17:05] [SPEAKER_00] Greenlight gives you up to a million dollars of identity theft coverage, financial account monitoring, and credit locking. They give you real-time alerts when fraud is detected.

[00:17:17] [SPEAKER_01] When it comes to scams, crime is up. It's rampant. We're living in a golden age of fraudsters. So fight back. Don't let these creeps steal your money, time, and peace of mind. Don't let them target your family. 6.5 million family members trust Greenlight to protect them.

[00:17:34] [SPEAKER_00] Greenlight Family Shield gives us complete peace of mind. We're able to use their dark web monitoring systems to ensure that our sensitive information does not end up on the web. We really appreciate getting their real-time alerts. It keeps us safe, and it puts the power back in our hands. We use Greenlight, and you should too.

[00:17:56] [SPEAKER_01] Scammers aren't waiting. Neither should you. Go to greenlight.com slash msheet right now to get started. That's greenlight.com slash msheet. Greenlight.com slash msheet.

[00:18:10] [SPEAKER_00] Because it's well known this is what happened. We've talked about it. We've all talked about it.

[00:18:16] [SPEAKER_01] I think some have disputed it, or they feel like the defense is exaggerating, or they feel like he'll behave badly, but it didn't have quite the impact that these folks are saying.

[00:18:27] [SPEAKER_00] Well, the thing is, it doesn't really matter what the impact is. It matters what happened, what she did.

[00:18:34] [SPEAKER_01] Others even say that they question if the jurors got it wrong, and she didn't say some of this stuff. So I am noting that there are two sides to this story. You know, just saying I'm not weighing in either way, but I will say that. But yeah, I mean, I agree that it is money in the bank if you can be like, here's the Supreme Court basically siding with us.

[00:18:54] [SPEAKER_00] Saying this is what happened. This woman did something really, really bad.

[00:18:58] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah. What do you mean with the siren call?

[00:19:03] [SPEAKER_00] I think we talked about this in our previous episode. She seems to have been lured by celebrities. She seems to have had the false idea that a book would be more marketable if he was guilty. And that seems to have influenced her actions in this case, which is bizarre. Or whatever limited value a book by her would have had, it would be identical whether or not he was found guilty or not guilty.

[00:19:30] [SPEAKER_01] I mean, maybe we're wrong about that and we're just bad business people because we don't do this because we're like, oh, let's gamify everything to be the best thing. It's just like, what's the truth? And let's write that. That was our approach to our book.

[00:19:46] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, and I think whatever limited value a book by her would have would be, here's what it was like behind the scenes.

[00:19:53] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, I agree.

[00:19:54] [SPEAKER_00] And I think what it's like behind the scenes is basically the same level of interest whether he's ultimately found guilty or innocent. Because what you want is to hear, oh, here's what people were doing. Here's what people were thinking. Here's how people reacted to things.

[00:20:11] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, and like, you know, I don't think OJ Simpson getting acquitted deadened interest in that case.

[00:20:19] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, that's a good point.

[00:20:20] [SPEAKER_01] You know, I don't think Casey Anthony getting acquitted deadened interest in that case. So there's cases where people, there's high profile acquittals and there's still people who are like, wait, what? And it may honestly make people be like, wait, what happened?

[00:20:35] [SPEAKER_00] I think I said this in our previous episode. Maybe I'm wrong. People have said that, oh, Kevin Ananya's book wouldn't have been as successful if he was acquitted. I think if Richard Allen was acquitted, maybe people would have been more interested in finding out what happened.

[00:20:51] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, what happened behind the scenes that led to that. I agree. I think there's definitely an argument that, you know, an unresolved situation that leaves some questions is something that people might be more likely to read about. But she says later what she claims are her profits on the book, and I'm going to be really interested to see what you have to say about that.

[00:21:12] [SPEAKER_00] Okay, well, let's.

[00:21:13] [SPEAKER_01] But I also just want to say, unfortunately, I don't think Miss Hill is alone in the siren call of celebrity affecting her judgment in a high profile true crime case. I actually think that's something we saw in Delphi from the defense team where you had Andrew Baldwin essentially filming himself working in the hopes of seemingly, you know, giving it to a documentary, selling it to a documentary.

[00:21:38] [SPEAKER_01] And I feel like a lot of the choices made by that Delphi defense team sort of reflected this kind of like putting yourself above the case and basically like, how can I make this work for me?

[00:21:48] [SPEAKER_00] And here's the interesting thing. If you are directly involved in handling a prominent criminal case that has a great deal of public interests, and if your motives are selfish, if you do want to become a celebrity afterwards and maybe make some money off it and get well known, I'll give you a secret.

[00:22:13] [SPEAKER_00] The best way you can do that, the best way you can grease your path to becoming a celebrity is by doing an extraordinary job. If you really work hard for Richard Allen and everybody says, by gum, this guy did an amazing job, that's good for you. If you are behind the scenes doing your job as a court reporter or whatever, and you just do a really good job and then tell the story of that. People like that.

[00:22:41] [SPEAKER_00] People like people who are good at their jobs, who are dedicated at their jobs. If you're acting in a transparent way to try to just become more famous by filming yourself or whatever, people see through that.

[00:22:54] [SPEAKER_01] It's fake. It's phony. It's pathetic. And I'm also going to say this, that you're absolutely right because the people who do this are the people who then end up sucking at their jobs. I mean, we saw that in Delphi and certainly we see it here. We see it here to be, you know, like to a wild degree. And here's the thing. My other thing is that, you know, if you're just some weird celebrity seeking person, not that anyone in our audience is like this. You guys are all ladies and gentlemen and we tip the hat to you.

[00:23:24] [SPEAKER_01] But like just for me, it's like you're in the wrong job. You're supposed to be a public servant, right? If you're a public defender, if you are a prosecutor, if you are a police officer, if you are someone who's working in a court, if you're a judge, right? If you're the clerk of court. Okay. Very honorable roles that should be served honorably. And the goal shouldn't be to write a book. The goal shouldn't be to get attention for yourself. The goal should be to uphold our system of justice. And that's important.

[00:23:54] [SPEAKER_01] And listen, if years and years later down the road you want to write a memoir where you touch upon some stuff, I don't have a problem with that. I don't think that's inherently bad. But I think there should be distance. I think there should be thoughtfulness. I think there should be ethics. And it shouldn't influence the way you do your job. Once it's influencing the way you do your job, you've lost the plot. And that's, again, what we saw in Delphi was very much within, in my view, in line with that.

[00:24:21] [SPEAKER_01] And, you know, when the goal is fame, when the goal is celebrity, it's very obvious to those around you. And, you know, it's not good. All right. So let's go onward after that siren call. Let's see.

[00:25:04] [SPEAKER_01] Quote, Okay. Mr. Murdoch brings this action to hold Ms. Hill accountable for her wrongful conduct under the color of state law and to recover compensatory and punitive damages as provided by law. Okay.

[00:25:29] [SPEAKER_00] So, again, I think that the implied message here is they want people to come away from this with the impression the only reason this man was found guilty was because of what this woman did.

[00:25:42] [SPEAKER_01] Yes, and that's also, you know, for the public, right?

[00:25:44] [SPEAKER_00] That's what I'm saying. That's for the public because the perception out there is, I believe, what I believe you and I said earlier, namely that he's guilty and there was a strong case against him. They want to dispel that notion and they want to give the word out to the public that in our view, the only reason he was found guilty was because of this woman.

[00:26:05] [SPEAKER_01] I'm absolutely certain, as with any high-profile case, there are people who go around saying he's innocent. I'm certain. Maybe some of them I don't know enough about their viewpoints, but maybe some.

[00:26:13] [SPEAKER_00] I've seen it.

[00:26:14] [SPEAKER_01] I'm aware of it. Maybe some have good reasons. Maybe some are conspiracy theorists. I don't know. I'm not trying to paint everyone with a broad brush here. But, like, to me, this is not a case that has attracted the kind of common, like, oh, I think there's a conspiracy to the same degree as others that we've seen. And the reason is, I think, partly because Alec Murdoch is not an inherently sympathetic figure, despite the victims being his wife and son.

[00:26:42] [SPEAKER_01] He's a man of extreme wealth. He was a man of extreme wealth, privileged, raised in a family that was considered very powerful. You know, they were tasked for generations. They were tasked with being the solicitors of their county, which is essentially like a prosecutorial role. They were seeing, you know, it's like when you see someone like that and someone who just squandered everything, all the advantages in life they've had.

[00:27:06] [SPEAKER_01] They've somehow not only squandered it, but then dug themselves a hole where they, like, are doing all this predatory financial stuff. So it's just, like, all of that context, I think it just he's not, you know, that's not very relatable to a lot of people. And unfortunately, like, frankly, I mean, fortunately or unfortunately, whatever your perspective is, like, there's a type of case that attracts this.

[00:27:30] [SPEAKER_01] And usually it's like there's some superficial things about the defendant that need to be ticked off. Usually it's less about the defendant and more about just people treating these cases like entertainment, frankly. But I think with this one, it's just not. It's just it's. Yeah. But I don't know. I'm sure there's some people who think he's innocent. So anyways, these this is. So we talked about the who and the what. Let's talk about where.

[00:27:57] [SPEAKER_01] They talk of the attorneys talk about jurisdiction and venue. Murdoch wants this to be heard in the United States District Court District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, because they say it happened in South Carolina. Colleton County is also in the Charleston Division. So let's do it there. And they kind of break down the timeline. And he was convicted March 2nd, 2023, sentenced the following day.

[00:28:24] [SPEAKER_01] The defense began its case in chief, notably on Friday, February 17th, 2023. OK, so where does Hill come into this? That date is crucial when the defense starts its case, because that's when she sort of, according to this filing, swoops in. Court was not. I'm going to read from it again. Court was not held on February 20th, which was President's Day.

[00:28:51] [SPEAKER_01] After returning from the holiday, defendant Becky Hill began to enter the jury rooms often. As the defense began its case, Miss Hill told jurors, y'all are going to hear things that will throw you all off. Don't let this distract you or mislead you. Additionally, Miss Hill and juror number 826, the new jury foreperson, on multiple occasions went to another room to have private conversations lasting five or ten. Ten minutes.

[00:29:18] [SPEAKER_01] Sometimes they would go into the jury room single occupancy bathroom together. Foreperson juror number 826 never said anything about the content of those conversations to other jurors. Miss Hill even instructed jurors that they could not ask foreperson juror number 826 about the conversations. Two days later, on Thursday, February 23rd, and continuing throughout the next day, Mr. Murdoch testified in his own defense.

[00:29:45] [SPEAKER_01] Before he began his testimony, Miss Hill told jurors not to be fooled by the evidence Mr. Murdoch's attorneys presented, which at least one juror understood to mean that Mr. Murdoch would lie when he testified. Miss Hill also instructed the jury to watch him closely and to look at his actions and to look at his movements, which at least one juror understood to mean Mr. Murdoch was guilty. Immediately after Mr. Murdoch testified, foreperson juror number 826 told the jury that Mr. Murdoch was crying on cue.

[00:30:13] [SPEAKER_01] She also criticized the former foreperson juror number 589 for handing Mr. For handing Mr. Murdoch a box of tissues when he was crying on the stand because that is what the defense wants us to do. End quote.

[00:30:25] [SPEAKER_00] So, again, that is troubling because this woman, this foreperson juror number 826 has these secret conversations with Miss Hill. And we know Miss Hill is making comments, casting doubt on the credibility of Mr. Murdoch. And then after these conversations, the foreperson says, don't ask me what Miss Hill and I talked about.

[00:30:54] [SPEAKER_00] But by the way, this Murdoch guy, I don't trust him. I think there's a very real possibility here that this foreperson juror number 826 is being used by Miss Hill to influence the jury and to parrot the opinions and whims of Miss Hill to the jury to try to influence them.

[00:31:17] [SPEAKER_01] I'm going to be a little bit of a devil's advocate here. I think it could be that the foreperson simply thinks Murdoch is sketchy and isn't buying the crying. And it's just like, that's, you know, yeah, like that's their genuine opinion. And it's not being inflamed or even foisted upon them by Hill. The problem, and I think that's a reality that very much could exist.

[00:31:46] [SPEAKER_01] But the problem is, once you start having things that are sketchy sort of infiltrate the jury room like this, you can't know. Like, you can't know for sure.

[00:31:57] [SPEAKER_00] You can't know.

[00:31:57] [SPEAKER_01] And that's what's so frustrating. And you can ask the jurors, but, you know, like, it just, it's hard. It's hard. This is why, like, sometimes, like, the appearance of propriety and, like, everything being ticked off and everything going as it should is so important. Because then you can say, well, nothing like this happened, so we know the verdict's solid. It protects the verdict. It protects justice. It protects the defendant's rights. It protects victims' families from having to go through this nonsense for a second time.

[00:32:27] [SPEAKER_00] And actually, as we discussed before, you really can't ask the jurors because what happens in the deliberation room is not typically allowed to be brought into future proceedings. What is allowed to be brought up in future proceedings is the circumstances around that deliberation. Were there improper communications? Were there bad juror instructions? Things like that. So, to a certain extent, we can't ask the jurors and then use that in judicial proceedings.

[00:32:57] [SPEAKER_01] Right. Although I think there is some, like, I think there's some stuff with the jurors later where they're kind of give some insight. But I will say, like, you know, also the other thing here is that it's not, I don't know, it's not, like, I understand that this is from the defense's perspective. So, obviously, they're kind of leaning into the whole, like, this was the crucial thing. So, I think it is important to keep that in mind. Okay, next portion.

[00:33:52] [SPEAKER_01] All right. All right. All right. So, let's get into this Facebook drama because this isn't something that really was in the Supreme Court filing.

[00:34:03] [SPEAKER_00] This is interesting because then the judge says to Ms. Hill what you would expect him to say. Okay, you saw this posting. Give me a copy of this posting, which indicates that there was some improper communication going on. And, again, this is happening on February 27th.

[00:34:25] [SPEAKER_01] Do you want to read the ex-husband's alleged apology post that Clerk's office board and employee Lori Weiss discovered, apparently?

[00:34:33] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, because what happened was, this is on February 27th, and they then go and try to find this post that Ms. Hill says she saw the previous night or the previous Friday, and it's not there. Instead, there's a post reading. Why don't you read it?

[00:34:47] [SPEAKER_01] No, you read it. You'd be the ex-husband.

[00:34:49] [SPEAKER_00] It says, quote,

[00:35:08] [SPEAKER_00] So, what is interesting is that post indicates that the initial post, the one that Ms. Hill says she saw on Friday, February 24th, had been deleted on February 16th. And if it was deleted on February 16th, then obviously she could not have seen the post on February 24th.

[00:35:36] [SPEAKER_01] And why would you lie about that?

[00:35:38] [SPEAKER_00] Yes. So, that's interesting.

[00:35:41] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah. Now, this defense team, I guess, got a sworn statement, or somebody got a sworn statement from juror number 785's ex-husband. He's claimed he never made such a post. And Murdoch also got an authentic download of all of his Facebook. And they kind of name him here, so I don't know. They put his last name in this filing. So, I mean, earlier they seemed to be trying to keep him anonymous, but whatever.

[00:36:07] [SPEAKER_01] So, they got his Facebook activity from January 23rd, 2023, to March 2nd, 2023. Obviously, whatever happened here would be in that. And it notes that he did not post the apology. And, quote, the supposed original post, if deleted, would not be recoverable at this point under Facebook's retention policy. So, I guess that's an ongoing mystery, but the apology does not appear.

[00:36:32] [SPEAKER_01] Which, again, does raise questions about, like, if the apology doesn't appear, it seems unlikely that the other one would be real. What do you think?

[00:36:44] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah. Well, there's some more information on that. Do you want to read, I think it's paragraph 24?

[00:36:51] [SPEAKER_01] Sure. Quote, on February 28th, Ms. Hill questioned juror number 785 about the fictitious post on Walter Burrow word of mouth alone in her office in the courthouse. She told juror number 785 that someone had emailed her stating her ex-husband posted on the Walter Burrow word of mouth Facebook page. And that juror number 785 had been drinking with her ex-husband and that while drunk, she expressed opinions on the guilt or innocence of Mr. Murdoch. Juror number 785 told Ms. Hill that never happened and that she had not seen her ex-husband in 10 years.

[00:37:21] [SPEAKER_01] Juror number 785 asked to see the post, but Ms. Hill would not show it to her. Ms. Hill directly asked juror number 785 whether she was inclined to vote guilty or not guilty. Juror number 785 said she had not made up her mind. Ah, Jesus. Okay. Well, if that's true, then that's obviously really bad.

[00:37:40] [SPEAKER_00] Yes. You don't go around asking a juror how they intend to vote. There's no legitimate reason for her to do that. I'm not even clear why she took it upon herself to conduct this little investigation and to have this meeting with this woman, just the two of them.

[00:38:01] [SPEAKER_01] Doesn't make any sense. That's the sort of thing you see that and you say, judge, hey, something's going on. And like you don't get involved. You just pass on the information.

[00:38:10] [SPEAKER_00] And then ideally, if this is something that needs to be investigated, it shouldn't just be the court reporter and the juror. It could potentially be a situation where it would be like the judge talks to the juror with representatives from the prosecution and defense present.

[00:38:28] [SPEAKER_01] You don't want some secret side quest investigation going on. I mean, like. But like you'd think. Yeah. All right. So next quote. Later that day, Miss Hill told juror number 785 that the South Carolina law enforcement division sled and Colleton County Sheriff's office personnel went to the ex-husband's house and he confirmed he made the post. This was a fabrication by Miss Hill.

[00:38:56] [SPEAKER_01] Miss Hill told juror number 785 that she would somehow reinstate a restraining order juror number 785 previously had against the ex-husband, which is something that Miss Hill did not have the authority to do. End quote. So she's lying. She's just lying. I mean, again, like we're getting this from one side. I don't know how these allegations. These allegations did not get they did not get into depth in South Carolina Supreme Court. It's possible that she'll come back and say that part never happened. I don't know. But certainly, you know, this is true.

[00:39:26] [SPEAKER_01] It paints a very bad picture. They also talked about like later that day. It was a long day. Judge Newman, who I just want to say, like, just from what I've read about how he handled this and seeing some of the footage from the original trial, like I he he did it. I mean, I feel bad that like I just feel like a lot of very good work went into this. I thought Judge Newman did a great job. And I can't imagine like just how annoying all of this is for a good, you know, a jurist like him.

[00:39:54] [SPEAKER_01] Like now I got to deal with this like random, you know.

[00:39:57] [SPEAKER_00] Let me read paragraph 27.

[00:39:59] Yeah.

[00:40:00] [SPEAKER_00] After juror number 785 was dismissed, Judge Newman said, quote, oh, boy, I'm not too pleased about the clerk interrogating a juror as opposed to coming to me and bring it to me. End quote. He was right to be concerned.

[00:40:13] [SPEAKER_01] Fair enough. You know, so what.

[00:40:15] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I think I called her the court reporter. She was the county clerk. Right.

[00:40:17] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, she was the clerk of court. Yeah, she's not the court reporter. So and I guess in this case, I was always confused by this, but I guess like this this filing indicates that she was tasked with taking care of the jury. So like when in the Delphi trial, which is the one that we kind of did the most in terms of talking to jurors, like the bailiffs were the ones who were guarding them. And when I mean guarding them, I mean, like, like they ran those folks in and out of that courthouse. They were on buses.

[00:40:46] [SPEAKER_01] They were like speeding around and pulling people over if they thought they were following them. I mean, like they were on they were sequestered and they were under lock.

[00:40:55] [SPEAKER_00] I taking care of the jury means making sure the jury is in the courtroom when they're supposed to be. If a juror has some sort of medical emergency or some sort of something comes up with the juror handling that. That's what it means when it says taking care of a jury. It doesn't mean, oh, there's a little case. I need to investigate this and have my own personal private case related interrogations of the jurors. That's inappropriate.

[00:41:21] [SPEAKER_01] Very inappropriate. But anyway, so so what happened? So you kind of got a little bit ahead of it. But Newman, Judge Newman basically examined juror number 785 about the Facebook posts and juror number 785 talked about like, here's my interactions with Hill. And she also said, I never made any inappropriate comments to third parties. And then this is what happened.

[00:41:48] [SPEAKER_01] A co-worker of a tenant of juror number 785 emailed the court on February 27th. And then that tenant said, oh, my landlord is a juror and expressed an opinion about the case when delivering a refrigerator to the property a week earlier. So it's possible that this juror. I mean, to me, it's possible that this juror was doing something inappropriate. Nonetheless, you can't handle it like this.

[00:42:16] [SPEAKER_01] It's got to be handled properly. Right. Yes. And it just is all very sketchy. But also, I guess I would have thought this jury would have been sequestered. It doesn't. When I read this, I can't. I've seen both online. And if someone knows, let me know if they were sequestered or not. Obviously, sequestration is very difficult on a jury. They kind of are basically kidnapped from their lives and like thrown in a hotel.

[00:42:45] [SPEAKER_01] But if someone's delivering a, you know, like the Delphi jurors were not delivering refrigerators during this time. They were like under lock and key. They were like imprisoned. You know, I mean, like, I hate to say it like that, but like, I really do mean that. They felt like, you know, they've been kind of ripped from their lives. And God bless them. I mean, they did a great job. I mean, like, and I feel like when I heard about the deliberations that they were doing, it was very methodical and, you know, thoughtful.

[00:43:14] [SPEAKER_01] But with this, it's like, I don't know. Maybe they weren't sequestered. I don't know. That probably would have been good. I don't know. But I get it's hard. It's a hard decision. So the judge was right. He's like, oh, my God. You know, you can tell just from the quote. He's just like, oh, geez. And then March 1st, the jury goes on a field trip. They visit Moselle, which is where the hunting lodge where the murders took place were. And so this is what happened.

[00:43:39] [SPEAKER_01] So, quote, during the visit, four person juror number 826 and Miss Hill walked off to have yet another private conversation. In her book, Miss Hill more vaguely hints at the communicating, at communicating her opinion on Mr. Murdoch's guilt to the jury during the visit to the Moselle property. While the jurors viewed the Moselle property, all we could hear and see, Alec's story was impossible.

[00:44:02] [SPEAKER_01] Some of us, this is from the book, some of us either from the courthouse, law enforcement or jury at Moselle had an epiphany and shared our thoughts with our eyes. What? At the moment, many of us standing there knew. I knew they knew that Alec was guilty.

[00:44:17] [SPEAKER_00] End quote. So, again, this is highly.

[00:44:19] [SPEAKER_01] Maybe instead of talking, we can have a conversation with our eyes.

[00:44:24] [SPEAKER_00] This is highly inappropriate. She is convicting herself with her own words here. It is wrong to do anything that will convey an impression about the merits of a case to a jury. It is the jury who is tasked with coming to that conclusion. Often, I can't tell you how many times in jury instructions I've heard judges say,

[00:44:52] [SPEAKER_00] it's possible that sometime during this proceeding, you may have seen or heard me make some sort of facial expression that you think might convey some sort of impression. I'm telling you that wasn't my intent and you should put that out of your mind because it's inappropriate. That's entirely up to the jury to reach those determinations about whether or not a person's story is plausible or implausible.

[00:45:20] [SPEAKER_00] So, she's admitting she was communicating with her eyes that she doubted some of this. And also, she was having a private conversation with a juror during this visit. And may I also say that excerpt from the book you read, this just sounds like it was an awful book.

[00:45:40] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah. Yeah. I think. I mean, I don't know if it would make it better if it had a lot of literary merit, right? Maybe it would to us. We're snobs. But I think, yeah, I mean, most cash grab books are, you know. I mean, honestly, like, I'm not trying to be, I'm not trying to, okay. Reel me in, reel me in if I start sounding like a jerk here.

[00:46:10] [SPEAKER_01] Writing is a skill that's often undervalued in our society because, you know, and you see that just with people posting like their AI slop, right? Like professional people posting AI slop. You know, people, oh, I can just have the machine write for me or I'm just going to crank this out. And writing is a skill. Writing well is a skill that you develop over time, you know, by writing a lot and writing poorly and learning how to write better.

[00:46:35] [SPEAKER_01] And you hone it. It's a craft. And so storytelling, right? I mean, storytelling, you can have beautiful prose and if you don't know what you're doing, it's going to just not land. So people undervalue this and people who are like not creative, frankly, undervalue this sometimes. And then they, you know, they're like, I can do this. And it's like, you have to work at it and then you can do it. But no, you can't just do it. Like a lot of people can't write. And that's okay.

[00:47:04] [SPEAKER_01] It's like, you know, but don't be like acting like, I just see people like, I'm just going to crank out a book on my experience. You need to be a good writer to do that well.

[00:47:12] [SPEAKER_00] Well, what I was trying to say is I wasn't even talking about the literal quality of the writing. Just if that's the story, the quality of the stories and anecdotes she is sharing. That doesn't sound terribly riveting to me. I went with the jury to this house. Yeah, I didn't think the story made sense. And I said that with my eyes. Chapter two, you know, that doesn't sound. I'm not riveted by that. I'm not putting down my money for that. That doesn't sound too interesting. No.

[00:47:41] [SPEAKER_01] People also think like I have a small experience with a high profile case. So that equals book and it doesn't. You know, because people want the whole story. They don't want what was it like for the clerk of court.

[00:47:53] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah.

[00:47:54] [SPEAKER_01] And if you can't capture that, then, you know, and also don't be thinking about writing a book. Do your job. You know, again, I don't mind the idea of like, oh, my memoir, I'll kind of like, you know, describe some of that. That's fine as long as you're doing it in a way that's responsible. But you also have to not like influence the jury in the first place. All right.

[00:48:15] [SPEAKER_01] So then they talk about, quote, that day, the judge, Judge Newman also held an in-camera conference regarding the tenant co-worker email in which he decided to revisit the Facebook post issue with Miss Hill. So we're going to let's do this. How about I'm Miss Hill, your Judge Newman. And then there's a couple of other people.

[00:48:39] [SPEAKER_00] Why don't I be everybody but Miss Hill?

[00:48:40] [SPEAKER_01] OK. And I think the other ones are Harpootlian, who is the defense attorney. And then John Meters, who was the trial prosecutor from the South Carolina attorney general's office. He was hired by them. He's very experienced.

[00:48:57] [SPEAKER_00] So I'll be everybody except for him.

[00:48:59] [SPEAKER_01] You'll be OK. And I'll be Hill. All right. Go ahead.

[00:49:02] [SPEAKER_00] OK. Well, let me see what Becky is talking about. I wanted to revisit the Facebook post that you mentioned yesterday.

[00:49:09] [SPEAKER_01] Uh-huh. Right.

[00:49:10] [SPEAKER_00] That's Becky Hill, the clerk of court. Can you tell us about that Facebook post?

[00:49:15] [SPEAKER_01] Yes. I think it was Friday evening. Just for a brief moment, I perused Facebook, got on Walter Burrow word of mouth and saw where someone had said that. Well, it was the ex-husband of a juror. And he said that he noticed that his ex-wife was saying that she was on the jury and saying stuff about how her verdict was going to be. And that he was the ex-husband, but she was known for talking way too much. And then I just kept on scrolling because that was enough for me. I've gotten enough.

[00:49:43] [SPEAKER_00] And how did you determine who he was talking about?

[00:49:47] [SPEAKER_01] When I heard there was an email on Monday, I figured the two went together, if it was true.

[00:49:53] [SPEAKER_00] Well, she's confirmed she has an ex-husband who she has three restraining orders out against.

[00:50:00] [SPEAKER_01] Right. So then we looked on Monday after you told me to try to go back and look for it and we couldn't find it. But then we found out his name and we found the post and printed it out where he said that he had put something up. But that he had deleted it at the time that he had put stuff out there that wasn't nice.

[00:50:18] [SPEAKER_00] He said he got drunk afterwards, something about the devil. Didn't he say it was Satan in it?

[00:50:24] [SPEAKER_01] Satan was in it, yes. In all of the details, yes.

[00:50:27] [SPEAKER_00] All right. Made me do it. OK, I just wanted to have that on the record. You're reading a Facebook post by the ex-husband who said it. Of course, you haven't talked with him, so you don't know where he got his information from.

[00:50:39] [SPEAKER_01] I don't. I can find it, though. It's I mean, yeah.

[00:50:45] [SPEAKER_00] That was it.

[00:50:45] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah. So what what the what Murdoch team says is, quote, but Miss Hill never saw any such Facebook post. She made it up further. She knew the apology post was not posted by juror number seven eighty five ex-husband. Juror number seven eighty five showed Miss Hill a picture of her ex-husband, which is not the Facebook profile picture of the other man's post about Satan. And that other man apparently had the same name, I guess. Or I don't know. Maybe they didn't. But yeah.

[00:51:15] [SPEAKER_01] The next day, March 2nd, twenty twenty three, the day of the verdict, juror number seven eighty five received a call from her ex-husband that she did not answer. The call upset her because Miss Hill's lies had led to her believing he was posting on Facebook about her and might be stalking her. Juror number seven eighty five asked to speak with Miss Hill. She told Miss Hill she was scared. Miss Hill told her that Murdoch's that the Murdoch's probably got to him, meaning her ex-husband.

[00:51:40] [SPEAKER_00] And it's holding her head in her hands.

[00:51:44] [SPEAKER_01] I mean, again, we're hearing this from one side, but if that's true, then that's really bad, obviously. All right. So this is this is just so nutty. Quote, Miss Hill once again asked her opinion regarding Mr. Murdoch's guilt. Juror number seven eighty five told her that Creighton Waters closing was good, but that she still had questions. Miss Hill asked what questions and juror number seven eighty five replied that she was concerned that no murder weapon was found.

[00:52:12] [SPEAKER_01] Miss Hill then asked, well, what makes you think he's guilty? Juror number seven eighty five said Paul's video at the dog kennels. Miss Hill then told juror number seventy five that everything Mr. Murdoch has said has been lies and that I should forget about the guns. They will never be seen again. Miss Hill then asked juror number seven eighty five about the views of the rest of the jury, telling her that the foreperson would just go in and ask for a raise in the hands. This would be over and done with. And everyone needs to be on the same page.

[00:52:37] [SPEAKER_00] So, I mean, I feel like I'm just repeating myself with this and I probably am. But this is highly inappropriate. She's having conversations about the merits of the case with a juror who is in the process of delivering about those merits of those case. That is completely inappropriate, highly improper.

[00:53:04] [SPEAKER_00] And it did rob Mr. Murdoch of his right to a fair trial.

[00:53:08] [SPEAKER_01] And I mean, I guess and, you know, some some people have been following this case for years. So they may feel like, well, this juror is exaggerating or making it up or, you know, I don't know. I don't know what the other side is. So I'm not willing to just go on one side without being like, what's the counterpoint or people saying, oh, this juror has made other statements that didn't turn out to be true. So, like, I'm open to that. But certainly there's enough here that it's very concerning.

[00:53:36] [SPEAKER_01] Juror number seven eighty five went in the jury room and 10 minutes later was excused from the jury in open court. Immediately after her excusal, juror number seven eighty five asked Judge Newman if he had spoken with the clerk of court. Referring to the conversation earlier that morning with Miss Hill, Judge Newman reported responded that I have not spoken. With her today and that this is totally independent of any conversation regarding her ex-husband, apparently misunderstanding her question to refer to the issue of the Facebook post.

[00:54:01] [SPEAKER_01] When the jury deliberations began when jury began deliberations that evening, Miss Hill told them that they shouldn't take this shouldn't take us long and that they deliberated past 11 p.m. They would be taken directly to a hotel, even though none were prepared to stay overnight. Miss Hill told jurors that after the trial, they would be famous and predicted that the media would request interviews with them. Miss Hill even handed out reporters business cards to jurors during the trial.

[00:54:28] [SPEAKER_01] Juror number five seventy eight took this to heart and made an appearance on Good Morning America the night of the verdict, which is why on the day the jury began deliberations, he wore a suit coat for the first time during his trial. The trial after the verdict immediately before sentencing, Miss Hill pressured the jury to speak as a group to reporters from a network news show. She traveled with jurors to New York City when they appeared on the today show.

[00:54:51] [SPEAKER_00] So, yeah, she's setting up media appearances and also just telling the jurors, oh, if you don't reach a verdict by this particular time, you're going to go to a hotel, even though you're not prepared for that. That's obviously putting pressure on the jurors to reach a verdict.

[00:55:07] [SPEAKER_00] And again, that's not about the substance of the case, but it is exerting pressure because if a jury feels, oh, we need a certain amount of time to really reach this decision and you're pressuring them to do it sooner or quicker. That, again, that's a perversion of the process, which is highly inappropriate.

[00:55:30] [SPEAKER_01] So, you know, and with the media side of things, I mean, there's no problem with the juror after, you know, wanting to say, OK, here's how we came to our jury or here's how we came to our verdict or what happened. Obviously, I mean, I don't care. I mean, like, good. That's more transparency in my view. If a juror wants to, jurors shouldn't feel pressured to and feeling pressured to like appear on a network news show. So, I mean, so, again, like this is something where it's like, oh, you know, I don't think it's appropriate that she's handing out reporters business cards to anybody. I do.

[00:55:59] [SPEAKER_00] I do. It says she's doing that during the trial.

[00:56:02] [SPEAKER_01] I'm saying I don't think that's appropriate.

[00:56:03] [SPEAKER_00] Oh, yeah. That is inappropriate. It may be that would be OK to do after the trial. She's doing it during the trial.

[00:56:11] [SPEAKER_01] No, I want to be clear. I was saying it was inappropriate. It's not appropriate. You should not be doing that during trial. Maybe if you squint, you can say, OK, collect all the cards you're given and then at the very end post verdict, toss them on the table and say if anyone wants to do anything and then like walk away. Like, but like, I mean, even that you don't have to do reporters jobs for them.

[00:56:32] [SPEAKER_00] But doing it during the trial. That's that's just appalling.

[00:56:35] [SPEAKER_01] Totally inappropriate. Saying you guys are going to be famous is not right.

[00:56:40] [SPEAKER_00] Right. And also and suggesting that this one juror showed up on the day, the final day of deliberations, prepared to make a media appearance. That at least raises the possibility that at least one of these jurors may have had some communications with reporters during the trial.

[00:56:56] [SPEAKER_01] I don't I don't really think that's the case, honestly. I mean, they knew how high profile it was. They were seeing the inside of that courtroom every day. I don't I don't it doesn't raise that specter for me. And frankly, that that one juror may have just been like, hey, I want to tell the media about what happened. That's fine. It's to me, it's not making me suspicious of the jurors themselves necessarily, but it's just still inappropriate. You know, then now we get to the book. Quote, Miss Hill got her book deal.

[00:57:26] [SPEAKER_01] Her book Behind the Doors of Justice was released on August 1st, 2023. She had been planning to write a book about the trial even before it began. In the period leading up to the trial, she repeatedly told co-workers that a guilty verdict would sell more books and she needed to sell books because she needed a lake house. Miss Hill's book, however, caused some jurors to come forward to describe her efforts to obtain her desired guilty verdict through jury tampering during trial.

[00:57:50] [SPEAKER_01] In August 2023, several jurors provided affidavits or statements to Mr. Murdoch's defense counsel describing Miss Hill's jury tampering, end quote. So then from there, September 5th, 2023, Murdoch filed a motion with the South Carolina Court of Appeals for leave to file a motion. He wanted a new trial based on the jury tampering appeal. The Court of Appeals granted the motion.

[00:58:18] [SPEAKER_01] And so he filed a motion for new trial on October 27th, November 1st, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition to prohibit Judge Newman from adjudicating the new trial motion. Based on public statements Judge Newman made after the guilty, the jury returned guilty verdicts. And then November 15th, Supreme Court denied the petition as moot because he, Judge Newman, recused himself from hearing the new trial motion.

[00:58:48] [SPEAKER_01] And so December 18th, the chief justice appointed Gene H. Toll to serve as the trial judge hearing Mr. Murdoch's motion for a new trial. So there was an evidentiary hearing for that on January 29th, 2024. So it's technically the trial court, but it's a new judge. So one juror testified on January 26th.

[00:59:12] [SPEAKER_01] And so this is they identify here the jurors all instead of by numbers, by anonymous letters. So I'm going to read out what what came out that they were saying at this hearing. OK. Juror quote jurors C F L E O Y W Q and K testified that they did not hear Miss Hill comment on the merits of the case before the verdict.

[00:59:39] [SPEAKER_01] OK, so that's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Nine out of 12. Or rather, there's alternates, too. But nine of these folks, they're like, we didn't even hear any of this. OK. Next one. Quote juror P testified that he heard Miss Hill tell jurors regarding Mr. Murdoch's decision to testify in his own defense to watch his body language. End quote.

[01:00:06] [SPEAKER_01] Quote juror X testified that she heard Miss Hill comment regarding Mr. Murdoch's decision to testify in his own defense that it was rare for a defendant to testify in a criminal case and that this is an epic day. End quote. To me, that's not good, but that's a little bit more neutral. It is rare for a defendant to testify in a criminal case. You shouldn't be commenting on it at all. But to me, that one's not quite as bad. Quote juror Z testified that she heard Miss Hill comment regarding Mr.

[01:00:35] [SPEAKER_01] Murdoch's decision to testify in his own defense to watch Mr. Murdoch's action actions and to watch him closely. Jersey testified that the other comments that the comments did affect her verdict. Do you want to go back and forth as the juror? I can be Jersey. You can be the court asking me questions.

[01:00:52] [SPEAKER_00] All right. Was your verdict influenced in any way by the communications of the clerk of court in this case?

[01:00:57] [SPEAKER_01] Yes, ma'am.

[01:00:57] [SPEAKER_00] And how was it influenced?

[01:00:59] [SPEAKER_01] To me, it felt like she made it seem like he was already guilty.

[01:01:01] [SPEAKER_00] All right. And I understand that that's the tenor of the remarks she made. Did that affect your finding of guilty in this case?

[01:01:08] [SPEAKER_01] Yes, ma'am.

[01:01:09] [SPEAKER_00] So there you go. That's pretty bad.

[01:01:12] [SPEAKER_01] So then you have a quote. The trial court then examined Jersey regarding her affidavit attached to Mr. Murdoch's motion for a new trial. And she affirmed each paragraph therein, including statements that during the trial, Ms. Hill told the jury not to be fooled by the evidence presented by Mr. Murdoch's attorneys, which I understood to mean that Mr. Murdoch would lie when he testified and that Ms. Hill instructed the jury to watch him closely immediately before he testified, including look at his actions, look at his movements, which I understood to mean that he was guilty. End quote.

[01:01:42] [SPEAKER_01] What do you make of the fact that only one juror said that? If she's making these statements to all the jurors, why is only one saying, yeah, I heard that?

[01:01:51] [SPEAKER_00] Well, when you look at it, it actually sounds like most of the when we read about the allegations about what she said, the allegations which were accepted by the Supreme Court, it often sounds like she's just communicating with one or two people. And the Supreme Court said that's essentially immaterial because you're not guaranteed. OK, you have you have 12 jurors. You're guaranteed that nine of them would be impartial. No, you're guaranteed that all 12.

[01:02:21] [SPEAKER_00] So it doesn't matter that there were some people saying, well, I didn't hear these comments. What mattered is there were some people that said we did hear them. And by the way, it affected us.

[01:02:33] [SPEAKER_01] One said it affected them.

[01:02:34] [SPEAKER_00] One said it affected them. That's more than enough.

[01:02:37] [SPEAKER_01] So, quote, Miss Hill testified after jurors. She denied engaging in any jury tampering. She also denied stating that she wanted a guilty verdict to promote book sales. She admitted she had plagiarized portions of her book and that her profits from its sale in the six months before it was withdrawn from the publication from publication because of her plagiarism were approximately $100,000. She admitted the book contained unfounded statements included for poetic license or literary ease. End quote.

[01:03:09] [SPEAKER_01] $100,000?

[01:03:11] [SPEAKER_00] That seems very high.

[01:03:14] [SPEAKER_01] Are we just doing something wrong?

[01:03:18] [SPEAKER_00] Here's what I don't know. And I admit I haven't researched this. I don't know who published her book. Anya is looking.

[01:03:25] [SPEAKER_01] I'm literally keep talking.

[01:03:26] [SPEAKER_00] Because the fact of the matter is if it's published by a traditional publisher, even if a book generates $100,000 worth of sales, $100,000 worth of profits, there are so many people taking a piece of that. That by the time the author takes their share, it will be much, much, much less than $100,000.

[01:03:51] [SPEAKER_00] But if on the other hand, it's a self-published book or a Vandy Press situation and she's getting every cent the book generates and she doesn't have to pay a promotional department, doesn't have to pay the business affairs of the publisher. If these people aren't taking their cut, if every penny from day one goes to her, then okay, maybe.

[01:04:13] [SPEAKER_01] So Amazon says that, let's see, what I'm seeing is that the publisher was Wind River Media LLC, which I can't really find much about.

[01:04:34] [SPEAKER_00] So if Wind River LLC is in fact Ms. Hill, then that number seems plausible to me.

[01:04:41] [SPEAKER_01] Really? That seems way high.

[01:04:44] [SPEAKER_00] If she's getting every cent of the book's profits, if the book sells for $10 and she's getting all $10 of it, minus whatever Amazon takes.

[01:04:56] [SPEAKER_01] She had a co-author. She had a co-author with Neil Gordon. I guess, okay, so yeah, it's basically a limited liability company and it's based in Georgia, apparently. I'm intrigued.

[01:05:15] [SPEAKER_00] So yeah, so I don't know. I'm just saying if you have a book from a major publisher, you're not going to make that much money in six months unless you're Stephen King.

[01:05:25] [SPEAKER_01] Oh, George, okay, it's that LLC belongs to the co-author, Gordon.

[01:05:32] [SPEAKER_00] So in that case, that seems plausible to me. What do you think?

[01:05:36] [SPEAKER_01] I still think that seems incredibly high. I remember when I looked on Amazon, this thing had like, I don't know. It didn't really, I don't remember it having like that many reviews and such. And it just seemed a little bit behind the doors of justice. I mean, yeah, I don't know. How many reviews does it have? Okay, well, 767.

[01:06:03] [SPEAKER_00] So yeah, so I think it's plausible.

[01:06:05] [SPEAKER_01] Maybe. Well, yeah.

[01:06:08] [SPEAKER_00] But we can move on.

[01:06:09] [SPEAKER_01] I just thought that. I still think that's high, but I mean, just, I mean, here's the, because I don't want people taking up like, oh, you can earn $100,000. Like when you, when you actually put work into a book and like do research, you know, in this day and age, you're probably not going to make anything close to that. And especially if you treat it like a job instead of treating it like something you can just like plagiarize and like slop out like it's nothing.

[01:06:36] [SPEAKER_01] You know, like you're going to make very minimal wages on, on whatever time you put into it is what I'm saying.

[01:06:45] [SPEAKER_00] Yes. And if you're going through a traditional publisher, you'll probably get a dollar or two per book sold, which means you'd have to sell like what, 100,000 copies, which you're not going to do. But if you're going through your own publisher, you probably get like $15 for each book sold.

[01:07:01] [SPEAKER_01] But the thing is, there's so much slop when it comes to self-publishing that you're not going to, it's going to be very difficult to cut through the noise and get it in front of people.

[01:07:10] [SPEAKER_00] Yes.

[01:07:11] [SPEAKER_01] I don't know. I don't want to encourage people to pull a Becky Hill. Cautionary tale for everybody. Not that any of you would. Quote, examination by the trial court revealed that Miss Hill's denial during direct examination of questioning a juror during the murder trial was not truthful. And she, in fact, did want a guilty verdict, end quote. That's what they say. So.

[01:07:34] [SPEAKER_01] Next, they had some testimony from the Barnwell County Clerk of Court, Rhonda McElveen, who testified she rebutted Hill and the denial that she wanted a guilty verdict to promote book sales. Miss McElveen was in the courtroom during the murder trial and assisting. So why don't you be the judge? I'll be Miss Rhonda.

[01:07:53] [SPEAKER_00] And did she discuss with you, what, if anything, did she discuss with you about how she felt the verdict should turn out to be in the Murdoch trial vis-a-vis in reference to the book? What would help the book?

[01:08:03] [SPEAKER_01] A guilty verdict.

[01:08:04] [SPEAKER_00] Tell the judge and me exactly what she said to you that you remember. This is prior to the trial.

[01:08:10] [SPEAKER_01] Okay. Well, first of all, she said we might want to write a book because she needed a lake house and I needed to retire. And from then, further conversation was that a guilty verdict would sell more books. And we left it at that. This was before even in December.

[01:08:26] [SPEAKER_00] And when did she ever say that again to you during this, the weeks you spent there?

[01:08:33] [SPEAKER_01] Several times. It could be said it was, you know, amongst friends in her office or we might be having dinner, that kind of stuff. But that's about it.

[01:08:39] [SPEAKER_00] That she needed a guilty verdict to sell more books?

[01:08:42] [SPEAKER_01] That would be the best way to sell books. Yes, sir.

[01:08:44] [SPEAKER_00] The best way to sell books. Now, during this process, did she ever express to you an opinion on whether or not, in fact, was Mr. Murdoch guilty of the murders of his son and his wife?

[01:08:56] [SPEAKER_01] Yes, sir.

[01:08:57] [SPEAKER_00] Tell me. Tell me what she said and if you remember when.

[01:09:00] [SPEAKER_01] I don't exactly remember when. I know it's over half of the trial had already happened, but the evidence was coming forth and it looked like he might be guilty. She made a comment that guilty verdict would be better for the sale of books. End quote. Yeah. Yeah. So, again, it's like, you know, she's allowed to she's allowed to have her opinions. Right. But when it's also paired with also bringing those opinions potentially and tampering with the jury, that's when it becomes wrong.

[01:09:26] [SPEAKER_01] Like someone watching a trial like a bailiff or clerk or a court reporter, they can be sitting there and being like, this guy's obviously guilty. That's fine.

[01:09:33] [SPEAKER_00] And if we have other people saying, oh, she said things to us that are very similar to what the jurors said she said to them, that just adds more credibility and plausibility to the idea that she is, in fact, going around making these statements to one and all.

[01:09:48] [SPEAKER_01] Well, it's like she's not telling the jury about the book necessarily and like guilt sells copies. But she is. But like it's like she's denying all of it. So it's like then it's like, well, I, you know, if this back will be why would this other woman lie? You know what I mean?

[01:10:03] [SPEAKER_00] But this woman, Ms. McElveen, she also reported that Ms. Hill said things to her like, don't be fooled by the evidence presented by Mr. Murdoch's attorneys. This is the exact same sort of thing she was saying to the jurors. So I think these things lend credibility to each other.

[01:10:19] [SPEAKER_01] They do. They do. No, you're right. You're absolutely right. Yeah. Basically, that she made that don't be fueled by the evidence prevent presented by Mr. Murdoch's attorneys. And, you know, she talked about how, quote, Ms. Hill insisted on allowing a book writer who wrote the forward to Ms. Hill's book sit in the well of the court during trial where she could see sealed exhibits under the subterviews of being a Sunday school teacher. What?

[01:10:50] [SPEAKER_00] So I want to talk about what happened at the conclusion of this hearing where the trial court judge ruled from the bench. And this is what the trial court judge said, quote, did clerk of court Hill make comments to any juror which express her opinion what the verdict would be? Ms. Hill denies doing so. And so the question becomes, was her denial credible? I find that the clerk of court is not completely credible as a witness. Ms. Hill was attracted by the siren call of celebrity.

[01:11:19] [SPEAKER_00] She wanted to write a book about the trial and express this as early as November 2022, long before the trial began. She denies that this is so, but I find that she stated to the clerk of court, Rhonda McElveen and others, her desire for a guilty verdict because it would sell books. She made comments about Murdoch's demeanor as he testified, and she made some of those comments before he testified to at least one and maybe more jurors.

[01:11:44] [SPEAKER_00] The clerk of court allowed public attention of the moment to overcome her duty, end quote. So the judge, the judge is saying this person is not completely credible as a witness. He's saying this witness is a liar.

[01:11:59] [SPEAKER_01] By the way, the author who wrote her forward was Rhonda Rich, in case anyone was wondering. So I guess they talk about the final witness, though, was 741. Did we talk about that?

[01:12:16] [SPEAKER_00] No.

[01:12:16] [SPEAKER_01] It was just that she said, like, quote, the defense is about to do their side. They're going to say things that will try to confuse you, but don't let them confuse you or convince you or throw you off. OK, so the so that's the I mean, the court, the trial court really damaged Hill's credibility with their finding there. Is that fair to say?

[01:12:34] [SPEAKER_02] Yes.

[01:12:36] [SPEAKER_01] Then they at the same time, the trial court did not grant the motion for the new trial. They denied it. They said, quote, there's no presumption of prejudice from tampering with jurors during a trial about the matter pending before the jury. And Mr. Murdoch failed to prove that Miss Hill's comments changed the jury's verdict. I guess you could argue that even if one of them was like this influenced me. The others might have kind of corralled them all the same without Hill's influence. Is that kind of what their reasoning is there?

[01:13:05] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah. And again, that ruling by that judge was overturned.

[01:13:08] [SPEAKER_01] I know it was overturned. I'm just trying to like retrospectively.

[01:13:11] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah.

[01:13:13] [SPEAKER_01] March 25th, 2024, Hill resigns from office. The State Ethics Commission gets involved. They had ethics complaints against her for criminal prosecution. May 14th, 2025, she's arrested. She's charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, misconduct in office. And December 8th, 2025, she pleads guilty to all that. And for the what? So what was the perjury charge about? That was about her testimony at the evidentiary hearing for the motion for a new trial.

[01:13:42] [SPEAKER_01] Quote, she testified she did not give news media access to sealed trial exhibits, including crime scene photographs of Maggie and Paul Murdoch's slain bodies. Forensic evidence, however, conclusively proved she escorted news media to secured areas of the courthouse after hours where she allowed them to photograph sealed exhibits. Quote, Ms. Hill attempted to profit from Maggie and Paul's murders not only by advising the jury to convict Mr. Murdoch so that she could write a book about his conviction, but even by selling

[01:14:10] [SPEAKER_01] access to the grisly photographs of their slain bodies. End quote. What is with clowns in true crime and leaking crime scene pictures? I don't know. It's an epidemic. Quote, on May 13th, 2026, the South Carolina Supreme Court vacated the order denying the motion for a new trial. And basically they said Becky Hill did something really bad here. So then they kind of get into some of the we have already gone into this with the South Carolina Supreme Court and like how wrong she was.

[01:14:39] [SPEAKER_01] So they're just kind of explaining again. But we already covered that in our episode about that. And so this is what this is where we get into the like how much money Murdoch is asking for from Hill. Quote, following the revelation of Mr. Murdoch's financial crimes, the South Carolina court placed him in receivership. Mr. Murdoch had funded his murder trial defense with a $600,000 withdrawal from his 401k retirement funds.

[01:15:07] [SPEAKER_01] This withdrawal was to fund his legal defense was authorized by the court overseeing the receivership. These retirement funds were employer contributions to his retirement account untainted by any criminal activity and were his sole remaining asset. Mr. Murdoch spent the entire $600,000 on his trial defense. The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that Mr. Hill's actions motivated by her own desire to profit from the trial caused these funds to be lost.

[01:15:36] [SPEAKER_01] So basically, he's asking for that money to come back to him through Hill and for attorney's fees, things like that. So basically, this civil action is about the violation of his sixth and 14th amendments under the United States Constitution, about the jury tampering and about Becky Hill being, quote, motivated by evil motive or intent and involved reckless or callous indifference to Mr. Murdoch's federally protected right to a trial before an impartial jury.

[01:16:07] [SPEAKER_01] And yeah, what do you think is going to happen with this? I mean, it's early.

[01:16:12] [SPEAKER_00] It's early. Let's just keep watching. Again, I think a big part of it is PR. They want the public to come away from this with the belief that the only reason he was convicted was because of this woman's admittedly bad acts.

[01:16:29] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah. I mean, I definitely don't dispute that these were bad acts. And I can certainly understand why the South Carolina Supreme Court made the decision it did. We're getting all this from their side right now, so it'll be curious to see what Hill's team files back. And, you know, it's possible that some of this stuff is overstated. It's possible it's all accurate. You know, I think we just have to be kind of open minded with it a little bit.

[01:16:53] [SPEAKER_01] But either way, I do feel like regardless of what the defense's take is on this, I just think there was enough here that was pretty bad. And it's a reminder that it's important to elect people who are publicly minded, civically minded, who are public servants and not seeking to enrich themselves. The goal of being a public servant should not be to gain fame or a ton of money or any of this stuff. It should be to serve the public.

[01:17:23] [SPEAKER_01] The public is not served when they have to foot the bill for a massive second trial. And it's just really unfortunate that any of this happened. And, you know, I can only hope that people kind of walk away from it, you know, where we kind of are like. There's something to be said for that kind of old fashioned, sober minded, blinders on type

[01:17:50] [SPEAKER_01] of public servant who does not give a flying you know what. And just treats it, treats a case like this, like any other case and brings their best and brings their A game. But isn't doing it because, oh, it's a special case, but because like this is my job. This is my calling. And again, that goes for not only clerks of court. It goes for the court reporter. It goes for the judge, the prosecutor, the public defender.

[01:18:19] [SPEAKER_01] You know, everybody, everybody involved, the police officers. Just I sometimes feel like our society prioritizes flash and fame over. Just doing your job well. And so I understand why sometimes people get lured by that siren song. And certainly in true crime, we see that. Right, Kevin? Like, I mean, the sensationalists, the conspiracy theorists, they get a lot of attention. They get a lot of engagement because that's what sells.

[01:18:49] [SPEAKER_01] But you shouldn't be lured by the siren song because you will end up on the rocks. First of all, you know, you got to tie yourself to the mass like Ulysses.

[01:18:58] [SPEAKER_00] And again, the best way to become a celebrity in a situation like this, the best way to walk away from a case like this in a better place than you were when you entered the case, is to do a great job. All of us would have a much higher opinion of Ms. Hill if she had just done her job confidently.

[01:19:21] [SPEAKER_01] Just focus on your job. Nothing else. And, you know, there's a reward in itself of doing a job well done where you helped uphold justice and did not cause massive destruction later on. And kept your integrity. Right? Like, what happened to wanting to serve with honor and integrity? And I just, you know, I would encourage people when you're making decisions about, you know, unfortunately, like even a county clerk,

[01:19:51] [SPEAKER_01] that can be a pretty pivotal role, obviously. You know? And we got to just make sure we're getting people in there who have a lot of integrity and are holding themselves accountable. And, you know, in fairness to the voters of Colleton County, I don't really know. I don't think they could have anticipated this one. I don't think they could have been like, hmm, are you going to disrupt? Like, I mean, so I'm not blaming them. I'm just saying like it just, you know, I think it's important when we're looking at this.

[01:20:18] [SPEAKER_01] I mean, we've had a couple of cases in Indiana recently where there's been like sheriffs who've been stealing money. So, I mean, it's a big deal. This kind of public corruption or people are easily corrupted by these kind of lures. And I just, you know, I don't know. I'm just kind of rambling. But anyways, thank you guys for listening. And, you know, if there's anything else you wanted us to cover in this case, definitely interested in learning more about that.

[01:20:43] [SPEAKER_01] But in the meantime, you know, take care and, yeah, be safe. Bye.

[01:20:51] [SPEAKER_00] Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail dot com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[01:21:09] [SPEAKER_01] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[01:21:35] [SPEAKER_00] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[01:21:44] [SPEAKER_01] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join The Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.