June 29, 2026
Once Convicted Double Murderer, Alex Murdaugh Back In Court. Why His Attire Is Making Headlines.
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The once prominent low country lawyer accused of murdering his wife and son, is back in court this morning, preparing for a new trial. 59-year-old Alex Murdaugh remains behind bars after pleading guilty to state and federal financial crimes, but he maintains his innocence in the murders of his family. There will be cameras in the courtroom as his lawyers fight for more DNA testing, a change of venue and despite a lengthy back and forth with prosecutors, we will likely see Murdaugh shackled, in his prison issued jumpsuit.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Monday, June twenty ninth, and a big day in court in South Carolina. Alex Murdoch will be back in a courtroom for the first time since his murder convictions were thrown out, and one of the biggest questions ahead of this hearing has been what is he going to wear? And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
00:00:26
Speaker 3: Rhodes.
00:00:26
Speaker 2: As we speak, Alex Murda is no longer a twice convicted murderer. He's going back on try at this point. Is he is not guilty of those murders.
00:00:36
Speaker 3: Yes, that is official, and it was made official just a short while ago. But he's facing those charges once again as the state vowed to retry him. And that's exactly what's happening in court today. This is at least a first step and his attorneys are coming with a lot of requests, a lot of requests.
00:00:56
Speaker 2: We wonder how many of these are going to get worked out today. This is supposed to be not a I guess, not an evidentiary hearing. It's supposed to be essentially a hearing to work out some logistics. They got details to go through, some scheduling to go through, but his attorneys have made several motions ahead of it, and one that is getting a lot of attention has to do with whether or not he can wear street clothes and whether or not he is going to be shackled, and it led to a pretty personal, heated and at times funny back and forth between the attorneys and their motions.
00:01:27
Speaker 1: We'll get into that.
00:01:28
Speaker 2: But Robes, we are here because this case was one of the biggest crime dramas we have seen in recent years that spawned all kinds of books, TV shows, podcasts.
00:01:39
Speaker 1: You name it.
00:01:40
Speaker 2: But Alex Murdaw, very prominent guy, a couple of years ago. Robes, his wife, his son both dead. He's been saying he's not guilty, but he was found guilty of this crime.
00:01:52
Speaker 1: But we bring us now to just May shocked everybody.
00:01:56
Speaker 2: Yeah, his conviction gets thrown out by the State Supreme Court.
00:02:00
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, that's right because of a former court clerk. Her name is Becky Hill. She actually pleaded guilty to charges of her interfering with this trial and she faced charges of misconduct, obstruction of justice, perjury, all of that. So she gets sentenced to I believe three years of probation, community service. But the big crime was that she upended the verdict in this crime because she reportedly was speaking to jurors telling them to look at his demeanor, in his body language, and she was basically implying, look at how guilty he is to the jury.
00:02:41
Speaker 2: It's kind of a big no no, a huge no no. So she was the one the clerk at the time, but she was the clerk who was assigned to taking care of everything having to do with the jury.
00:02:50
Speaker 1: So throughout his trial, she's just dropping little little nuggets in their ears.
00:02:54
Speaker 3: Easter egging, easter egging the jurors to convict him, and tainted.
00:02:58
Speaker 2: The jury, and sure enough we got to do this all over again again. Alex Murnaud has always maintained his innocence, But his wife and his son some twenty one two.
00:03:07
Speaker 3: Twenty twenty one were the murders of his son and his wife.
00:03:10
Speaker 1: No, I'm sorry his age. The son was twenty or twenty He was twenty or twenty one. Yeah, it did sound like a year.
00:03:14
Speaker 3: It was. Now you were asking what year they.
00:03:16
Speaker 1: Believe twenty one years old?
00:03:17
Speaker 2: But shot them both or they both are shot? He said, somebody else did it. Maybe several other people did it. He has maintained that. But he is going to get a new trial now. He is going to be in court today. We're expecting to see him now. Ahead of this, Robes, there's always some back and forth and maneuvering going on. But several motions have been filed. I don't know which order to take it, the one that's getting the most attention, or we get the other ones out of the way first.
00:03:43
Speaker 3: Which way, Well, let's do the change of venue first.
00:03:45
Speaker 1: Okay, with the change of venue, and this is to be expected. Robes.
00:03:48
Speaker 2: This family is as goes back one hundred years in terms of service, and the lawyers in that community, they say he can't get a fair trial.
00:03:56
Speaker 3: Oh that's right. So yes, he was a prominent lawyer, as was his father and his grandfather. We're talking about prosecutors, a prestigious law firm, and they covered the entire Low Country area. And look, I started out my first reporting job in the Low Country. So for those who don't know, in South Carolina, it basically takes over I believe it's about four or five counties in the area that lead up to the coastline of South Carolina, and they're asking that there is a change of venue and not allowed in any of those five counties. They want it out of those counties because not only of just the crime being as public as it has been. And I don't think anyone probably in this country most people know who Alex Murda is, but specifically in those counties, his family is so well known and had been highly regarded, and perhaps people had a lot of feelings about this family, given their power, their money, their status for as you pointed out, nearly a century.
00:04:56
Speaker 1: Yeah, so that kind of makes sense.
00:04:58
Speaker 2: It didn't work first time around, and I assume they were trying to get out of that area before they did not don't know what's going to happen there, but that was one request. The other request robe this sounds fairly significant to me, having to do with DNA that was under his wife's fingernails.
00:05:11
Speaker 3: You know, I don't know that I was necessarily aware of this fact that there apparently is DNA that was found under his wife, Maggie Murdo's fingernails, that is of an unknown male, so that DNA evidence did not match Alex, and so his attorney that makes a lot of sense his defense team wants that DNA independently reviewed by one of their people. It seems like that would be a fair request. Yeah, and that's interesting. I mean, I just had you heard that there was an unknown male DNA under her fingernails.
00:05:45
Speaker 2: As we do these so many cases, it seems to come up a lot in death row cases that we covered. Well, I'm like, wait a minute, there's DNA, let's just test it.
00:05:52
Speaker 1: Why not? And this is one robes they have it.
00:05:55
Speaker 2: They don't have a match for it, but they're asking now for another lab to do more detail build analysis. And what's they're doing with the genealogy stuff? Now, yes, they're trying to track it down in that way.
00:06:06
Speaker 3: Hey, let's find out.
00:06:07
Speaker 2: I'm curious myself to hear about that. But that is one of the other motions they are requesting. They want to get their hands on that DNA. The other one here, I guess some housekeeping stuff here is kind of makes sense. They want him to have a laptop in prison. They wanted to be able to have a secure laptop to go for trial materials. Don't know what the answer. I don't know if there's much of a fight on that one, but that was the other request. Now the big one robes that set off a strange and unexpected, heated and even personal back and forth. The defense is requesting that he come to court in street clothes today with no shackles on. Now I first heard that, and I go, oh, that makes sense. Doesn't this happen?
00:06:48
Speaker 3: Yeah, because look he's going in. I believe this is scheduled to happen just a short time from now. Cameras, we are told, are being allowed into the courtman. So the idea, or at least the defense is point, is that there are potential jurors who will be watching, who will be looking at him. To see him in an orange jumpsuit in shackles would taint that juror's opinion that would already make him look guilty. That's certainly the thought when you have defendants who are being tried for the first time, oftentimes, yes, they're allowed to wear a suit or just street clothes so that they are viewed as innocent before being either convicted or found innocent.
00:07:27
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:07:27
Speaker 2: So this defense attorney, he's been making their argument and making this motion, said that mister Monoch's convictions for non violent white collar crimes in no way justify presenting him to the jury pool as a shackled prisoner in a prison jumpsuit via video cameras at televised preach ryal hearings. Their point there, they're making right now he is not a double convicted murderer anymore. Now he is a convicted white collar criminal. So they're suggesting he's a white collar convict. Why does he have to be presented in shackles? That is their argument. State ain't trying to hear at all robes, and they went hard on this request.
00:08:04
Speaker 3: They certainly did. They said Murdaw is not just a pre trial detainee. He is an inmate serving a very long sentence. The first two steps of any escape attempt are to become unrestrained and to get into civilian clothes. While admittedly there was wide public interest in the case, that is no basis to ignore normal security concerns in a non jury setting, and no basis to Murdaw's request to be treated differently from his fellow inmates in court simply because the crimes he allegedly committed have received media attention. So they're basically saying that that he would be a threat like to escape that's their main argument.
00:08:42
Speaker 2: That is, I mean they put it in writing. They said, clear and plain this day, and I like how they put that. I mean, yes, if you're going to escape, what do you have to do. You have to get unrestrained, you gotta get some new clothes.
00:08:53
Speaker 1: That was interesting.
00:08:54
Speaker 2: You all the requesting that we put him in three steps into his escape, and that's interesting.
00:08:59
Speaker 3: They didn't stop there, No, they went on and said, this case is ultimately about the fact that defendant thinks he is special. He is not. It is not the state or the South Carolina Department of Correction's fault. That defendant is serving a long sentence and he should not be able to simply ignore the consequences of what he admittedly did.
00:09:19
Speaker 2: Now the difference here, and this is where I say, Okay, I understand this is a pre trial hearing. It's different. If they were saying we want him to be in playing clothes during his trial, the state I don't think would have pushed back as much. That is, when you are in front of a jury, that's when they do see you every day. Who is going to be judging you? And if they see you in shackles every day, that does absolutely possibly have an influence. But this one they're saying, Hey, it's just pre trial. What's the big deal. This is not the case. So after all this back and forth again Robes, he's on trial with double murder and his attire has become a sticking point.
00:09:57
Speaker 1: They actually withdrew the request.
00:09:59
Speaker 2: Is defense attorney finally just said, you know what, never mind, not going to worry about it. But Robes, they still got in a little bit in the back and forth with the other attorney.
00:10:07
Speaker 3: Yeah. Wow, it's contentious from the beginning. They went on to say, Murdaw has admitted his many serious financial crimes, and he accepts the consequences of those crimes, decades of imprisonment, probably for the remainder of his life without complaint. If the state wants to use that for a public spectacle, so be it. Mister Murdaw will not waste the court's time at the upcoming status conference arguing about the optics.
00:10:34
Speaker 1: Okay, but they use words, they said the state is.
00:10:38
Speaker 2: They accused them of displaying the histrionics is what they called it said it was inappropriate in their response. So, yes, Robes, to your point, this is how we're just getting started, and this is why this just adds to what is already a fascinating case rope that has made people money, it has made people stars, it's made people TV personalities this case alone because of the interest.
00:11:06
Speaker 3: And now it's going back to trial, so this is going to be a public spectacle once again. And look, I am interested in this DNA evidence. I am interested in because I have to say, look, he was obviously convicted the first time around, and he looked pretty damn guilty. Where this took place in a remote on his property and it's a remote part of the state in Collington County, but there were no witnesses, so look, a lot of this is circumstantial. But this is going to be fascinated to see what the defense will try this time in terms of having a defense and whether or not a jury will buy it. This is going to be fascinating.
00:11:46
Speaker 2: Isn't it fascinating to think that did the jury buy it the first time? Did the jury ignore the clerk and it had no impact? But still you have to make sure the guy gets a fair trial. Yeah, I mean, it's a shame that maybe you're having to do this all over again for something that really didn't have an impact. But you don't know. And here we are we have this is a shame, bro, this is a lot of money.
00:12:06
Speaker 3: No, exactly. He was convicted three years ago in twenty twenty three. He was a niche or originally sentenced to two life sentences. But look, as his lawyers pointed out, a lot of this is really just for him, I think saying I didn't do it. I want to be on the record as being proven or being able to prove that I didn't do it. But it doesn't really impact him in terms of where he's going to be spending the next several decades.
00:12:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, reminder of those convictions and why no matter what happens in this trial, he ain't getting out of prison. Also a reminder of a lawsuit he has recently filed. And we'll let you know who's showing up. Yes, folks are lining up to try to get into this next new trial of the century.
00:12:55
Speaker 3: Stay here, well, welcome back everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ. We are talking about Alex Murdau, the once double murderer, convicted double murderer who is now I guess innocent until proven guilty. He is back in court today in South Carolina, cameras will be rolling, and we believe he's gonna be in shackles and in a prison jumpsuit.
00:13:25
Speaker 1: At this point, this one he will be.
00:13:28
Speaker 2: And again I don't it's not it's highly they were fighting about this back and forth ro ropes about what he's going to wear. I guess there's a chance. Does he Is he required to make the appearance? Is he required to show up? With the back and forth? There is some question about whether or not we will see at all in court.
00:13:46
Speaker 1: I don't know if he has that option.
00:13:48
Speaker 2: But if we do see him, it's gonna be an orange suit and you're gonna hear him clanking.
00:13:54
Speaker 3: Would he still have to appear via zoom from the prison just to be a part of it, so you'd still maybe see a visual of him if he's not actually physically in court. But my god, if I were him, he just want to get out of prison for a little while. I always think when I watched these cases, in these trials, or they just like, thank God, I just have a break from the monotony of staring at a jail cell, Like I would want to get in court just to make a good point, have an experience other than four walls surrounding me.
00:14:19
Speaker 2: It's an outing. All of us sit in our houses. Sometimes we go you know what, we should get out?
00:14:24
Speaker 3: I just want to get out. So even if it's to be in a jury where everyone's talking about the worst thing I could have possibly done. Fine, at least I'm not staring at four walls. But so, yes, we'll see if he actually physically appears there. But look, he is in prison for a very long time for these financial crimes that he admitted to, basically bilking, stealing money from his clients for many, many years. Twenty seven years he got for his state financial crimes, but federal case he got forty years behind bars. He's fifty eight.
00:14:56
Speaker 2: Yeah, his attorney's acknowledge in their statement, they say, yeah, he's no matter what happens in this case, he's probably going to spend the rest of his life in prison, Like.
00:15:03
Speaker 1: Everybody acknowledges that.
00:15:05
Speaker 2: But we're about to go through this exercise again and again, an exercise robes that really turned this into a media sensation, and it's about to be again because they have limited seats in the courtroom. And guess who's shown up for all of them. You got dozens and dozens of reporters, news outlets, YouTubers, influencers and whatever else trying to get their hands on coveted seat throat.
00:15:28
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, this is being streamed live on YouTube and court TV, so you know that there is incredible public interest. But look, while he's dealing with these criminal charges, now, this double murder charges, he is also fighting that clerk by suing her. Correct, they are suing this clerk for what she did. And this financial gain to what pay for his lawyers?
00:15:53
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was it.
00:15:54
Speaker 2: I mean, it's not like what's he gonna do with the money exact, trying to get something and maybe trying to make a point here. I mean, Robes, is he's responsible for him having to go through this again and having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars attorneys for youse again. And it's hard to so you can't really still want to say it out loud because somebody might take the headline Robes, but this is a rare one where somebody might side with Alex Murdoch, right, I mean, if she is solely they are saying she's solely responsible for him having to do this again.
00:16:22
Speaker 3: And look, yeah, I understand he's now incurring an entire new set of legal fees to defend him once again in another trial, and I would imagine, Look, I know that she's had her consequences handed to her already, including the probation and the community service, but it does seem like financially she owes something back to the state because of the unbelievable costs they are incurring by re trying this entire murder case. I mean, this is significant.
00:16:52
Speaker 1: This stuff ain't cheap.
00:16:53
Speaker 2: No, it's not at all. But today this is happening. Just it's happening. It was a couple of hours from the recording here. I'm not sure how long court will go, but depending on what happens there, news jumps out of that. We will jump back on here and give you the update. But we always appreciate you spending a little time here with us. On TJ on behalf of my dear Amy Robach. We'll talk to him.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Monday, June twenty ninth, and a big day in court in South Carolina. Alex Murdoch will be back in a courtroom for the first time since his murder convictions were thrown out, and one of the biggest questions ahead of this hearing has been what is he going to wear? And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
00:00:26
Speaker 3: Rhodes.
00:00:26
Speaker 2: As we speak, Alex Murda is no longer a twice convicted murderer. He's going back on try at this point. Is he is not guilty of those murders.
00:00:36
Speaker 3: Yes, that is official, and it was made official just a short while ago. But he's facing those charges once again as the state vowed to retry him. And that's exactly what's happening in court today. This is at least a first step and his attorneys are coming with a lot of requests, a lot of requests.
00:00:56
Speaker 2: We wonder how many of these are going to get worked out today. This is supposed to be not a I guess, not an evidentiary hearing. It's supposed to be essentially a hearing to work out some logistics. They got details to go through, some scheduling to go through, but his attorneys have made several motions ahead of it, and one that is getting a lot of attention has to do with whether or not he can wear street clothes and whether or not he is going to be shackled, and it led to a pretty personal, heated and at times funny back and forth between the attorneys and their motions.
00:01:27
Speaker 1: We'll get into that.
00:01:28
Speaker 2: But Robes, we are here because this case was one of the biggest crime dramas we have seen in recent years that spawned all kinds of books, TV shows, podcasts.
00:01:39
Speaker 1: You name it.
00:01:40
Speaker 2: But Alex Murdaw, very prominent guy, a couple of years ago. Robes, his wife, his son both dead. He's been saying he's not guilty, but he was found guilty of this crime.
00:01:52
Speaker 1: But we bring us now to just May shocked everybody.
00:01:56
Speaker 2: Yeah, his conviction gets thrown out by the State Supreme Court.
00:02:00
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, that's right because of a former court clerk. Her name is Becky Hill. She actually pleaded guilty to charges of her interfering with this trial and she faced charges of misconduct, obstruction of justice, perjury, all of that. So she gets sentenced to I believe three years of probation, community service. But the big crime was that she upended the verdict in this crime because she reportedly was speaking to jurors telling them to look at his demeanor, in his body language, and she was basically implying, look at how guilty he is to the jury.
00:02:41
Speaker 2: It's kind of a big no no, a huge no no. So she was the one the clerk at the time, but she was the clerk who was assigned to taking care of everything having to do with the jury.
00:02:50
Speaker 1: So throughout his trial, she's just dropping little little nuggets in their ears.
00:02:54
Speaker 3: Easter egging, easter egging the jurors to convict him, and tainted.
00:02:58
Speaker 2: The jury, and sure enough we got to do this all over again again. Alex Murnaud has always maintained his innocence, But his wife and his son some twenty one two.
00:03:07
Speaker 3: Twenty twenty one were the murders of his son and his wife.
00:03:10
Speaker 1: No, I'm sorry his age. The son was twenty or twenty He was twenty or twenty one. Yeah, it did sound like a year.
00:03:14
Speaker 3: It was. Now you were asking what year they.
00:03:16
Speaker 1: Believe twenty one years old?
00:03:17
Speaker 2: But shot them both or they both are shot? He said, somebody else did it. Maybe several other people did it. He has maintained that. But he is going to get a new trial now. He is going to be in court today. We're expecting to see him now. Ahead of this, Robes, there's always some back and forth and maneuvering going on. But several motions have been filed. I don't know which order to take it, the one that's getting the most attention, or we get the other ones out of the way first.
00:03:43
Speaker 3: Which way, Well, let's do the change of venue first.
00:03:45
Speaker 1: Okay, with the change of venue, and this is to be expected. Robes.
00:03:48
Speaker 2: This family is as goes back one hundred years in terms of service, and the lawyers in that community, they say he can't get a fair trial.
00:03:56
Speaker 3: Oh that's right. So yes, he was a prominent lawyer, as was his father and his grandfather. We're talking about prosecutors, a prestigious law firm, and they covered the entire Low Country area. And look, I started out my first reporting job in the Low Country. So for those who don't know, in South Carolina, it basically takes over I believe it's about four or five counties in the area that lead up to the coastline of South Carolina, and they're asking that there is a change of venue and not allowed in any of those five counties. They want it out of those counties because not only of just the crime being as public as it has been. And I don't think anyone probably in this country most people know who Alex Murda is, but specifically in those counties, his family is so well known and had been highly regarded, and perhaps people had a lot of feelings about this family, given their power, their money, their status for as you pointed out, nearly a century.
00:04:56
Speaker 1: Yeah, so that kind of makes sense.
00:04:58
Speaker 2: It didn't work first time around, and I assume they were trying to get out of that area before they did not don't know what's going to happen there, but that was one request. The other request robe this sounds fairly significant to me, having to do with DNA that was under his wife's fingernails.
00:05:11
Speaker 3: You know, I don't know that I was necessarily aware of this fact that there apparently is DNA that was found under his wife, Maggie Murdo's fingernails, that is of an unknown male, so that DNA evidence did not match Alex, and so his attorney that makes a lot of sense his defense team wants that DNA independently reviewed by one of their people. It seems like that would be a fair request. Yeah, and that's interesting. I mean, I just had you heard that there was an unknown male DNA under her fingernails.
00:05:45
Speaker 2: As we do these so many cases, it seems to come up a lot in death row cases that we covered. Well, I'm like, wait a minute, there's DNA, let's just test it.
00:05:52
Speaker 1: Why not? And this is one robes they have it.
00:05:55
Speaker 2: They don't have a match for it, but they're asking now for another lab to do more detail build analysis. And what's they're doing with the genealogy stuff? Now, yes, they're trying to track it down in that way.
00:06:06
Speaker 3: Hey, let's find out.
00:06:07
Speaker 2: I'm curious myself to hear about that. But that is one of the other motions they are requesting. They want to get their hands on that DNA. The other one here, I guess some housekeeping stuff here is kind of makes sense. They want him to have a laptop in prison. They wanted to be able to have a secure laptop to go for trial materials. Don't know what the answer. I don't know if there's much of a fight on that one, but that was the other request. Now the big one robes that set off a strange and unexpected, heated and even personal back and forth. The defense is requesting that he come to court in street clothes today with no shackles on. Now I first heard that, and I go, oh, that makes sense. Doesn't this happen?
00:06:48
Speaker 3: Yeah, because look he's going in. I believe this is scheduled to happen just a short time from now. Cameras, we are told, are being allowed into the courtman. So the idea, or at least the defense is point, is that there are potential jurors who will be watching, who will be looking at him. To see him in an orange jumpsuit in shackles would taint that juror's opinion that would already make him look guilty. That's certainly the thought when you have defendants who are being tried for the first time, oftentimes, yes, they're allowed to wear a suit or just street clothes so that they are viewed as innocent before being either convicted or found innocent.
00:07:27
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:07:27
Speaker 2: So this defense attorney, he's been making their argument and making this motion, said that mister Monoch's convictions for non violent white collar crimes in no way justify presenting him to the jury pool as a shackled prisoner in a prison jumpsuit via video cameras at televised preach ryal hearings. Their point there, they're making right now he is not a double convicted murderer anymore. Now he is a convicted white collar criminal. So they're suggesting he's a white collar convict. Why does he have to be presented in shackles? That is their argument. State ain't trying to hear at all robes, and they went hard on this request.
00:08:04
Speaker 3: They certainly did. They said Murdaw is not just a pre trial detainee. He is an inmate serving a very long sentence. The first two steps of any escape attempt are to become unrestrained and to get into civilian clothes. While admittedly there was wide public interest in the case, that is no basis to ignore normal security concerns in a non jury setting, and no basis to Murdaw's request to be treated differently from his fellow inmates in court simply because the crimes he allegedly committed have received media attention. So they're basically saying that that he would be a threat like to escape that's their main argument.
00:08:42
Speaker 2: That is, I mean they put it in writing. They said, clear and plain this day, and I like how they put that. I mean, yes, if you're going to escape, what do you have to do. You have to get unrestrained, you gotta get some new clothes.
00:08:53
Speaker 1: That was interesting.
00:08:54
Speaker 2: You all the requesting that we put him in three steps into his escape, and that's interesting.
00:08:59
Speaker 3: They didn't stop there, No, they went on and said, this case is ultimately about the fact that defendant thinks he is special. He is not. It is not the state or the South Carolina Department of Correction's fault. That defendant is serving a long sentence and he should not be able to simply ignore the consequences of what he admittedly did.
00:09:19
Speaker 2: Now the difference here, and this is where I say, Okay, I understand this is a pre trial hearing. It's different. If they were saying we want him to be in playing clothes during his trial, the state I don't think would have pushed back as much. That is, when you are in front of a jury, that's when they do see you every day. Who is going to be judging you? And if they see you in shackles every day, that does absolutely possibly have an influence. But this one they're saying, Hey, it's just pre trial. What's the big deal. This is not the case. So after all this back and forth again Robes, he's on trial with double murder and his attire has become a sticking point.
00:09:57
Speaker 1: They actually withdrew the request.
00:09:59
Speaker 2: Is defense attorney finally just said, you know what, never mind, not going to worry about it. But Robes, they still got in a little bit in the back and forth with the other attorney.
00:10:07
Speaker 3: Yeah. Wow, it's contentious from the beginning. They went on to say, Murdaw has admitted his many serious financial crimes, and he accepts the consequences of those crimes, decades of imprisonment, probably for the remainder of his life without complaint. If the state wants to use that for a public spectacle, so be it. Mister Murdaw will not waste the court's time at the upcoming status conference arguing about the optics.
00:10:34
Speaker 1: Okay, but they use words, they said the state is.
00:10:38
Speaker 2: They accused them of displaying the histrionics is what they called it said it was inappropriate in their response. So, yes, Robes, to your point, this is how we're just getting started, and this is why this just adds to what is already a fascinating case rope that has made people money, it has made people stars, it's made people TV personalities this case alone because of the interest.
00:11:06
Speaker 3: And now it's going back to trial, so this is going to be a public spectacle once again. And look, I am interested in this DNA evidence. I am interested in because I have to say, look, he was obviously convicted the first time around, and he looked pretty damn guilty. Where this took place in a remote on his property and it's a remote part of the state in Collington County, but there were no witnesses, so look, a lot of this is circumstantial. But this is going to be fascinated to see what the defense will try this time in terms of having a defense and whether or not a jury will buy it. This is going to be fascinating.
00:11:46
Speaker 2: Isn't it fascinating to think that did the jury buy it the first time? Did the jury ignore the clerk and it had no impact? But still you have to make sure the guy gets a fair trial. Yeah, I mean, it's a shame that maybe you're having to do this all over again for something that really didn't have an impact. But you don't know. And here we are we have this is a shame, bro, this is a lot of money.
00:12:06
Speaker 3: No, exactly. He was convicted three years ago in twenty twenty three. He was a niche or originally sentenced to two life sentences. But look, as his lawyers pointed out, a lot of this is really just for him, I think saying I didn't do it. I want to be on the record as being proven or being able to prove that I didn't do it. But it doesn't really impact him in terms of where he's going to be spending the next several decades.
00:12:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, reminder of those convictions and why no matter what happens in this trial, he ain't getting out of prison. Also a reminder of a lawsuit he has recently filed. And we'll let you know who's showing up. Yes, folks are lining up to try to get into this next new trial of the century.
00:12:55
Speaker 3: Stay here, well, welcome back everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ. We are talking about Alex Murdau, the once double murderer, convicted double murderer who is now I guess innocent until proven guilty. He is back in court today in South Carolina, cameras will be rolling, and we believe he's gonna be in shackles and in a prison jumpsuit.
00:13:25
Speaker 1: At this point, this one he will be.
00:13:28
Speaker 2: And again I don't it's not it's highly they were fighting about this back and forth ro ropes about what he's going to wear. I guess there's a chance. Does he Is he required to make the appearance? Is he required to show up? With the back and forth? There is some question about whether or not we will see at all in court.
00:13:46
Speaker 1: I don't know if he has that option.
00:13:48
Speaker 2: But if we do see him, it's gonna be an orange suit and you're gonna hear him clanking.
00:13:54
Speaker 3: Would he still have to appear via zoom from the prison just to be a part of it, so you'd still maybe see a visual of him if he's not actually physically in court. But my god, if I were him, he just want to get out of prison for a little while. I always think when I watched these cases, in these trials, or they just like, thank God, I just have a break from the monotony of staring at a jail cell, Like I would want to get in court just to make a good point, have an experience other than four walls surrounding me.
00:14:19
Speaker 2: It's an outing. All of us sit in our houses. Sometimes we go you know what, we should get out?
00:14:24
Speaker 3: I just want to get out. So even if it's to be in a jury where everyone's talking about the worst thing I could have possibly done. Fine, at least I'm not staring at four walls. But so, yes, we'll see if he actually physically appears there. But look, he is in prison for a very long time for these financial crimes that he admitted to, basically bilking, stealing money from his clients for many, many years. Twenty seven years he got for his state financial crimes, but federal case he got forty years behind bars. He's fifty eight.
00:14:56
Speaker 2: Yeah, his attorney's acknowledge in their statement, they say, yeah, he's no matter what happens in this case, he's probably going to spend the rest of his life in prison, Like.
00:15:03
Speaker 1: Everybody acknowledges that.
00:15:05
Speaker 2: But we're about to go through this exercise again and again, an exercise robes that really turned this into a media sensation, and it's about to be again because they have limited seats in the courtroom. And guess who's shown up for all of them. You got dozens and dozens of reporters, news outlets, YouTubers, influencers and whatever else trying to get their hands on coveted seat throat.
00:15:28
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, this is being streamed live on YouTube and court TV, so you know that there is incredible public interest. But look, while he's dealing with these criminal charges, now, this double murder charges, he is also fighting that clerk by suing her. Correct, they are suing this clerk for what she did. And this financial gain to what pay for his lawyers?
00:15:53
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was it.
00:15:54
Speaker 2: I mean, it's not like what's he gonna do with the money exact, trying to get something and maybe trying to make a point here. I mean, Robes, is he's responsible for him having to go through this again and having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars attorneys for youse again. And it's hard to so you can't really still want to say it out loud because somebody might take the headline Robes, but this is a rare one where somebody might side with Alex Murdoch, right, I mean, if she is solely they are saying she's solely responsible for him having to do this again.
00:16:22
Speaker 3: And look, yeah, I understand he's now incurring an entire new set of legal fees to defend him once again in another trial, and I would imagine, Look, I know that she's had her consequences handed to her already, including the probation and the community service, but it does seem like financially she owes something back to the state because of the unbelievable costs they are incurring by re trying this entire murder case. I mean, this is significant.
00:16:52
Speaker 1: This stuff ain't cheap.
00:16:53
Speaker 2: No, it's not at all. But today this is happening. Just it's happening. It was a couple of hours from the recording here. I'm not sure how long court will go, but depending on what happens there, news jumps out of that. We will jump back on here and give you the update. But we always appreciate you spending a little time here with us. On TJ on behalf of my dear Amy Robach. We'll talk to him.