Alex Murdaugh trial: Defense lays out TWO-SHOOTER theory in murders of Paul and Maggie
Trigger warning: This article contains graphic content, readers' discretion is advised.
WALTERBORO, SOUTH CAROLINA: According to Alex Murdaugh's defense, two shooters killed Paul and Maggie because the person who murdered his son would have been "stunned" by the horrific injury to the head. According to Timothy Palmbach, a crime scene investigator retained by the defense, the 22-year-old had a "contact wound", which meant the 12-gauge shotgun's muzzle had touched the back of his skull.
Assault rifle shots were fired five times at Maggie, 52, who was only a few yards from her son at the family's estate in Moselle, South Carolina, near the kennels. According to Palmbach, the shooter would have been covered in blood, tissue, brain matter, skull pieces, and shot pellets due to "the explosive release of the gas trapped in [Paul's] cranium." According to him, this would have at least rendered the murderer blind and might even have injured him, rendering the prosecution's assertion that Alex recovered in time to shoot Maggie with a different firearm improbable, as reported by Daily Mail.
RELATED ARTICLES
Alex Murdaugh trial: Witness found skull the ‘size of a baseball’ at double-murder crime scene
What did Timothy Palmbach say?
"I think minimally that shooter is getting covered with this material and getting the shockwave of that and more than likely getting hit with at least something that is causing injury, a bone fragment or pellet fragment," Palmbach stated, according to Daily Mail. "Therefore, I think the shooter is, at least for some brief period of time, kind of out of it. It's not as if they can instantly suffer that, run to where the rifle is, pick that up and within any reasonable time period engage in an effective assault, shoot straight and make hits," he said, adding, "I believe the individual who shot first, probably with blood in his eyes and maybe even injured, would have taken some degree of time to recover."
'Why would one shooter bring two long weapons to the event?'
Palmbach further said that if there had been a lone gunman, Maggie would have had enough time to flee. However, she was discovered only a few yards from her son. The expert claimed that there was also no rational justification for a single murderer using two weapons. "Why would one shooter bring two long weapons to the event?" the expert asked, adding, "You can't handle and shoot two of them. So you've either got to put one down, use one, and then swap out the other one." Additionally, he claimed that the .300 Blackout would have most likely included a large magazine with upwards of 20 bullets, eliminating the need for two shooters to carry guns.
'Prosecution chose not to address that issue'
Palmbach's evidence addresses a key contention in the defense's case. Defense attorneys have emphasized throughout the trial that there is no conclusive evidence linking Alex to the crime scene and no justification for why or how the former attorney could have used two guns in such a brief amount of time. In their case, the prosecution chose not to address that issue, instead presenting the jury with data from cell phones, ballistics, and financial-crime evidence to support their claim that Alex murdered his wife and son.
'I did lie to them'
Alex admitted last week that he had been present at the kennels up until a few minutes before the killings when he took the witness stand in his own defense. He went on to say that he was asleep inside the main home when Paul and Maggie were shot and that he only lied to the cops because of drug paranoia. "I did lie to them," Alex said, adding, "As my addiction evolved over time, I would get into these situations or circumstances where I would get paranoid thinking," as per Daily Beast.
If convicted of the killings, Alex could face up to 30 years in prison. The prosecution could close its case but, before arguments commence, the jury will go to the crime scene at the request of the defense.