Murdaugh's Defense Gave the Prosecution THIS in Writing

SPEAKER_1 (0:00)

This is HiddenKillers With Tony Brueski.

Tony Brueski (0:11)

Alex Murdaugh.

There's a lot of things going on right now in the world, ole Alec, considering we're getting a new trial. First one's as good as gone, kind of. Jim Griffin, one of Alec Murdaugh's defense attorneys, sent an e-mail to lead prosecutor Creighton Waters recently. Want to hear about what's in that e-mail? Let's talk about it. On the night of January 19th, 2023, is when this e-mail was sent. So I guess recently might be a little much. It was a little ways back, and it's an important e-mail. It's an important e-mail to this whole story. The double murder trial was days away at the time this e-mail was sent. Griffin's team needed Alex's cell phone data, and they couldn't find it, allegedly. Let's go with what we supposed to have. We think we have. We don't have it. We don't know it. Then Griffin wrote something that will follow the defense team for three years, little niceties.

That you know, you usually say if they're real. He told Waters that the state, the AG's office and SLED had all been, his words, very accommodating and cooperative on cell phone discovery. He called the timing a problem the defense's own making. And he apologized.

If you're wondering what's going on here. So they couldn't find this data. I don't know if they thought they had it, didn't think they have it. They didn't know where it was. So spur of the moment, last minute, we're not going to find it quick enough. Let's go ask Creighton for another copy of it. We should have it regardless, which is how this discovery works. And he asked for another copy of it. Okay, and he apologizes. So you guys have been great, basically, you know, our fault, you know, we need this, obviously. We're supposed to have it. We think we have it. We don't know if we have it. We just, so three years later, that little minor kerfuffle, if you will, not even a kerfuffle, a polite request from opposing sides, but both understanding there's certain rules everyone has to play by here. So, let's play by them, at least, you know, no harm, no foul, if you will, on that email from a few years ago. Well, three years later, the state filed that email as an exhibit, not against a witness, but against the defense team itself. It's Exhibit H, in an October 6, 2026, filing, yes, if you're watching this, this just happened, that accuses Murdaugh's attorneys of lying to the court about evidence they've had since 2022 The fight underneath that filing matters because Maggie and Paul Murdaugh are dead. And whether this investigation got the right person or got lucky despite a flawed process, is still technically an open question and legally an open question. Alec Murdaugh is not convicted of their murders. No, no, no, no, no. Was he at one point in time? For a period of time, yes.

Not anymore.

That's something we need to remember as we try to absorb the Alec Murdaugh saga here.

And where things actually stand.

The prosecution says the defense is lying. The defense says the investigation was broken. Both sides have made it almost impossible to tell which at times. And if you're following along closely with this case, you get it. If you're kind of on the periphery of this case, I get why you would immediately be, Alec did it. Do I think Alec did it?

SPEAKER_1 (4:45)

Yeah.

Tony Brueski (4:46)

Deep in my heart, I believe Alec did it. I would say I'm 90 some percent sure Alec did it. But there is enough room in this saga. Five, 10 percent chance. Depending on the day, depending on who you talk to. I've had conversations with some very interesting folks about this case, including Alec's housekeeper. The one who saw him that morning, the one who testified to him changing or having a different shirt on than what he was wearing earlier. The one who said, Alec said, you remember I was wearing that shirt, right?

Yeah. We got those interviews here on the channel. And there's certain things in these conversations about that day, about what was going on on that property that are a bit sus.

And do make you wonder, is there something else at play here? Not that Alec isn't involved. I believe wholeheartedly Alec has everything to do with this. It's more so what exactly is the role that he played. Because sometimes criminals, people who want to get rid of people, will put a little bit of a barrier between themselves and the actual crime that was committed.

Did Alec do that? Did he do that well enough where there's a reasonable doubt, enough reasonable doubt for a jury to say, We don't know if you actually did this or not.