by JENN WOOD
***
Attorneys for Alex Murdaugh are asking a South Carolina judge to throw out his murder and weapons indictments, alleging investigators manufactured forensic evidence, presented false testimony to grand jurors and leaked a discredited blood-spatter claim to the press before he was charged.
In a memorandum (.pdf) dated Friday (October 30, 2026), the defense also accused prosecutors of improperly using the state grand jury to develop evidence for Murdaugh’s upcoming retrial — while invoking its secrecy provisions to keep that evidence outside the defense’s view.
The filing supported a motion to dismiss (.pdf) originally submitted on August 7, 2026. It brings several long-running disputes into a single challenge to the four indictments under which prosecutors intend to try Murdaugh again.
The requested remedy would not permanently end the prosecution – but it would force prosectors to reboot it.
Murdaugh’s attorneys want the indictments dismissed without prejudice – meaning the state would be free to present its case to another grand jury. They argue prosecutors could obtain new indictments without moving the April 5, 2027 trial date.
***
“(Murdaugh) asks the court to dismiss the indictments that the fabricated evidence procured, without prejudice,” attorneys wrote, so prosecutors would be “free to seek true bills, on competent evidence, from a grand jury that has not been deceived.”
The decision on whether to toss the indictments is down to S.C. circuit court judge Debra McCaslin, who is presiding over Murdaugh’s retrial.
To recap: Murdaugh was convicted of the June 7, 2021 murders of his wife, 52-year-old Maggie Murdaugh, and younger son, 22-year-old Paul Murdaugh, and sentenced to life in prison following a six-week trial in Walterboro, S.C. in early 2023. Those convictions were reversed, however, after the S.C. supreme court found numerous issues with the conduct of the trial – including allegations of jury tampering and potential jury rigging.
As FITSNews previously reported, McCaslin moved the retrial to Sumter County after concluding Murdaugh could no longer receive a fair and impartial trial in Colleton County.
***
RETURN OF THE BLOODY SHIRT
***
***
At the heart of the memorandum is the white T-shirt Murdaugh wore when investigators encountered him after the June 7, 2021 killings at Moselle, the family’s hunting property in Colleton County.
As this outlet previously reported in July, the spatter narrative once appeared to be among the most damaging elements of the investigation. By late 2022, however, its forensic foundation had begun to unravel.
The new memorandum traces that dispute through laboratory records, emails, expert reports and testimony from Murdaugh’s first trial.
According to the defense, testing conducted by the S.C. Law Enforcement Division (SLED) in August 2021 failed to identify human blood in the tested shirt cuttings. A November 2021 supplemental report recorded those negative results and was addressed to lead investigator David Owen – who later testified that he did not see it until November 30, 2022.
Nevertheless, SLED retained Oklahoma-based bloodstain-pattern consultant Tom Bevel to examine the shirt evidence.
***
***
Bevel’s initial February 2022 report concluded the stains were consistent with transfers rather than back spatter from a bullet wound. Following additional discussions with SLED and an in-person examination in Oklahoma, he issued a revised opinion identifying more than 100 stains as consistent with spatter.
The defense alleged SLED engineered that reversal while withholding the negative blood-test results from Bevel until December 2022. Attorneys also claimed chemical processing had permanently altered the shirt, preventing an independent examination of its original condition.
Those accusations build on an issue FITSNews examined in August: what Owen told the Colleton County grand jury that returned Murdaugh’s indictments in July 2022.
According to the memorandum, Owen told grand jurors an expert identified blood spatter on the shoulders and front of the shirt — and that DNA in the purported spatter areas belonged to Alex, Maggie and Paul. The defense argued that account contradicted both the blood-testing results and the locations where Paul’s DNA was identified.
Prosecutors ultimately presented no blood spatter evidence at the first trial – but the defense argued that decision did not cure the alleged harm to Murdaugh at the earlier grand jury proceeding. They want to know whether false evidence influenced the decision to indict, regardless of what evidence prosecutors later presented to the trial jury.
***
RELATED | Key Evidence And Venue Disputes Take Shape
***
OWEN’S TESTIMONY CHALLENGED AGAIN
The memorandum also targeted Owen’s statements concerning shotguns recovered at Moselle, the sprawling Murdaugh family property where the murders took place.
Attorneys say Owen told Murdaugh during an August 2021 interview that guns at the property were loaded with a combination of shells similar to those used to kill Paul. At trial, Owen acknowledged using deception during that interview to elicit a response.
The defense alleged he subsequently repeated the inaccurate ammunition claim under oath to both the state grand jury and the Colleton County grand jury.
“An agent who lies to a suspect and then tells the same lie to two grand juries has not made an error; he has made a case,” the memorandum stated.
Attorneys argued the claim supplied another purported connection between the guns at Murdaugh’s home and the unrecovered shotgun used to kill his son.
***
THE MEDIA LEAK ALLEGATION
The defense also accused the state of using the disputed spatter opinion to shape public perception prior to seeking the indictments.
The memorandum specifically cited FITSNews’ April 26, 2022 reporting which stated sources familiar with the investigation believed high-velocity impact spatter on Murdaugh’s clothing directly tied him to the killings. It also referenced subsequent reporting by CNN and People.
Defense attorneys asserted they possess sworn deposition testimony identifying the person who provided the information to a reporter – and linking the disclosure back to the state. The memorandum did not identify that person. Instead, the defense offered to submit the testimony if McCaslin requested it – or if prosecutors denied responsibility for the leak.
***
RELATED | EVIDENCE SOUGHT From Alleged Crime Scene Coverup
***
GRAND JURY SECRECY UNDER SCRUTINY
The filing’s other major argument concerned the state grand jury’s role in the investigation — both before Murdaugh’s indictment and in the months leading up to his retrial.
The defense distinguished that statewide investigative body from the Colleton County grand jury that returned the murder indictments. It argued murder is not an enumerated offense within the state grand jury’s statutory jurisdiction – and challenged its use to compel testimony from witnesses connected to the killings.
Attorneys cited investigative logs and subpoenas involving witnesses who later testified at the murder trial. They contend prosecutors continued using the state grand jury after Murdaugh’s indictment to gather evidence for an already pending prosecution.
The memorandum acknowledged a grand jury can legitimately investigate other people and other crimes after a defendant has been indicted. The defense argued the issue is whether preparing the pending case became the sole or dominant purpose of the inquiry.
That argument now addresses the murder weapons in this case – which have never been recovered. As FITSNews previously reported, the defense sought records tied to an alleged conspiracy to conceal weapons and clothing after the killings. A subpoena directed Yemassee police chief Greg Alexander – a Murdaugh family “fixer” – to appear before the state grand jury in September. However, his appearance was canceled after attorney Joe McCulloch notified prosecutors he was representing Alexander.
***
RELATED | THE ROAD TO MOSELLE
***
McCulloch previously called the allegations involving Alexander “absurd.”
Prosecutors have invoked grand jury secrecy and characterized the subject as a fresh lead concerning possession of the firearms after the murders. They have maintained they understand their obligation to disclose favorable evidence and will comply when that obligation is triggered.
At the October 16, 2026 hearing, lead prosecutor Creighton Waters told McCaslin the inquiry could yield nothing, favorable evidence requiring disclosure or information damaging to Murdaugh involving one of his friends.
The defense now argues that explanation supports its claim that prosecutors are measuring the secret inquiry’s value by what it could produce for the murder retrial.
McCaslin previously told prosecutors to disclose the material if their obligation to turn over favorable evidence was triggered. That directive did not establish the defense’s allegations about the weapons or resolve the broader challenge now presented in the dismissal memorandum.
***
WHAT DISMISSAL WOULD MEAN
The defense argued the alleged false testimony warrants examining the evidence behind the indictments — and dismissing them if the misconduct substantially influenced the decision to indict or leaves grave doubt that the decision was unaffected.
Attorneys also invoked the dismissal of Michael Colucci’s murder indictment, pointing to Owen’s involvement in that prosecution and the failure to document and disclose information bearing on the defense’s suicide theory.
Here, they argued, requiring prosecutors to return to a grand jury would be a measured response that preserves the state’s ability to prosecute while removing the benefit of the alleged misconduct.
Dismissal could also affect a separate evidentiary fight. As FITSNews reported in August, Murdaugh’s attorneys have challenged prosecutors’ effort to use his first-trial testimony at the retrial, including arguments concerning whether the second trial proceeds under the same indictments. Dismissing and replacing the indictments could sharpen that dispute; it would not automatically resolve it.
McCaslin previously indicated she intended to address the dismissal motion at the next pretrial hearing, scheduled for November 13, 2026, in Lexington County.
The defense said the Colleton County grand jury next meets December 10, 2026 – providing an opportunity for prosecutors to seek replacement indictments before the April retrial.
Whether the existing indictments stand will turn on McCaslin’s assessment of the alleged misconduct and its effect on the grand jury’s decision.
***
THE MOTION…
Subscriber-only document
This PDF is available to FITSNews subscribers. Get full access and be able to view documents like this one.
Subscribe for accessAlready a subscriber? Log in here
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
SOUND OFF…
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
6 comments
Congratulations to Jenn Wood for tippy-toeing around what happened regarding the public dissemination of the (fake) blood spatter “evidence”. For it was Mandy Matney who wrote those blood spatter stories when she worked for Fitsnews. And Will ran a blood spatter story almost every day– at least it seemed that way. It was very effective in painting Alex as the killer to the public and to prospective Colleton County jurors.
My question (for a long time) has been this: Former SLED agent David Owen is the guy who fabricated the phoney blood spatter “evidence” and sought to then get it leaked to the public. There are many TV reporters and print journalists in South Carolina. Why and how did Owen end up choosing Mandy Matney of Fitsnews as the person for leaking the phoney evidence? Hmmm.
Your “Hmmm” say it all without making other H sounds.
Does David Owen now share a bite of “multi-million dollar company” Malicious Mandy Matney (“MMM”) built over innocent blood?
And the company MMM keeps!?! MMM and her now-three lawyers deserve each other. The spectacle will be when they start falling out. There is no honor or loyalty among the likes of them.
The bovine excreta Pooty Poot and Jimbo are throwing against the wall to see if it sticks is starting to resemble the after effects of a hand-grenade in a porta potty – it smells just as bad and matters just as little.
It seems that bovine excreta belongs solely to David Owen and his enablers. Sadly Creighton and his crew were in the porta potty when Jimbo pulled the pin. This case will all come down to cell phones and On Star equipment. My Christmas wish list includes Chief Alexander, brother Smith, and who’s ever DNA crud was under Maggie’s nails.
To prime you for my coming VIC/VBA, let me re-paste here Rogan Gibson’s OFFICIAL first-trial testimony that Richard Alexander Murdaugh (“RAM”) early-on TACITLY admitted having briefly gone to the kennels that night:
(R. GIBSON – DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WATERS [1437 = RoA_2670])
[2] Q. And are those other missed calls that came in?
[3] A. 10:25 p.m. and 10:30 p.m.
[4-6] Q. When you spoke to Special Agent Croft on June 8th of 2021, did you tell him and Special Agent McCallister who you thought you heard on that phone call at 8:40?
[7] A. I did.
[8] Q. And who did you say you heard?
[9] A. I thought it was Mr. Alex but I wasn’t exactly sure.
[10] Q. And did you give him a percentage?
[11] A. I did.
[12] Q. What did you say?
[13] A. 99 percent.
[14] Q. That you heard Mr. Alex on that phone call at 8:40.
[15] A. That’s correct.
[16-17] Q. As time went on after the murders, did you go to Moselle where all of the family and friends were gathering?
[18] A. I did.
[19] Q. Were you there a fair amount?
[20-21] A. Probably the whole part of that — or that — later that week.
[22-24] Q. While you were there at the house where the family and friends had gathered, did anyone ever ask you about your last contact with Paul?
[25] A. There was.
[1] Q. And who asked you? (R. GIBSON – DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WATERS [1438 = RoA_2671])
[2] A. Grandmar.
[3] Q. And that would be Ms. Branstetter?
[4] A. That’s correct.
[5] Q. Maggie’s mother?
[6] A. That’s correct.
[7] Q. And what did you say?
[8-10] A. I told her, yeah, that I had talked to Paul about the dog. I told her that I heard Ms. Maggie in the background, and I heard a male voice that I thought was Mr. Alex.
[11] Q. Was he in the room then?
[12] A. Yes.
[13] Q. Did he stand up and say no, I wasn’t there?
[14] A. He didn’t.
[15-16] Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Alex Murdaugh about what happened that night?
[17] A. No, sir.
[18-19] Q. Did he ever ask you about whether or not you heard him on that phone that night?
[20] A. No, sir.
[21] Q. Did he ever tell you what he did that night?
[22] A. No, sir.
[23] Q. Did you ever ask him what he did that night?
[24] A. No, sir.
[25] Q. Not a subject you wanted to talk about, was it?
[1] A. That’s correct. (R. GIBSON – DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WATERS [1439 = RoA_2672])
I reiterate what I wrote many times before: that kennels video is IRRELEVANT to the REAL time of the shootings AND Paul MOST LIKELY did not send it because: (1) no problem with Cash-the-dog’s tail appears in the video; (2) Paul’s phone’s battery charge was down to 1%; and (3) Paul had gone to the kennels/shed area to prepare for replanting the dove field, not to mess with dogs.
And here comes my VIC/VBA (Very Important Comment/Very Brilliant Analysis) for this morning:
Know why it was crucial for SLED/the Prosecution to fabricate that the Murdaughs loaded their shotguns with alternating birdshot and buckshot ammo, WHICH NO EXPERIENCED HUNTER EVER DOES and which NO hunting or self-defense manual EVER recommends?
BECAUSE Paul was shot with TWO different shotguns: one loaded with birdshot and another with buckshot ammo.
Why is that important?
BECAUSE it blows the single-shooter theory out of the water.
And instead of a two-shooter theory, we have a THREE-SHOOTER likelihood, with a concomitant necessity of a shooting cabal, about which I have been writing for a while, and which is the INEVITABLE result of Malicious Mandy Matney’s (“MMM”) relentless incitement against Paul MONTHS before his indictment for the boat crash case.
And no, No, NO! These were NOT the much ridiculed “random vigilantes” wondering what to do on a damp Low-Country June evening.
This was an organized, role-assigned, cabal formed after several interviews among MMM and the wider circle of the young Murdaughs’ supposed friends and the older Murdaughs’ supposedly loyal employees.
And it was also carefully planned to pin it ALL on RAM.
For example, they pretend RAM “lured” Paul to Moselle. But why did Paul go to Moselle that day? To replant the dove field.
And why did the dove field need to be replanted?
Because the flowers had died after having been sprayed with pesticide.
And who sprayed the pesticide?
You got it. CB Rowe.
Whether the unknown Murdaugh-unrelated DNA under Maggie Murdaugh’s finger-nails and on her cell phone turns out to be CB Rowe’s or not, CB Rowe’s main role was already complete: poison the dove field.
Then comes a name, Olivia Boyles, from MMM’s book “Blood on Their Hands,” as a respondent to MMM’s advertising for info on the boat crash and on Stephen Smith’s death.
Of course, it could be a coincidence of a not-rare name, or Olivia Boyles could be related to the male Boyle room-mate/best friend of Paul’s according to RAM’s 8 June 2021 interview with SLED.
“But the birdshot and the buckshot came from the same shotgun” you say.
“Says who?” I answer.
You see, all that controversial testimony about ammo/firearm identification relates MAINLY to the black-out 300 rifle, where the ammo casing is metal, the firearm bore is striated, and the firing pin’s impact on the primer can be talked about.
But shotguns’ bore is smooth; and the casing is plastic which does not carry striation marks and explodes on ejection, and the firing pin on primer impact is pretty uniform.
Meaning the impact of the firing pin on the primer is going to look similar, if not identical, of 12 gage ammo fired from DIFFERENT shotguns of the same caliber and manufacturer.
Prove me wrong if you can.