Murdaugh Trial: I sat down with Murdaugh defense attorneys

It’s been a fascinating week at Colleton County Courthouse where the trial of South Carolina attorney Alex Murdaugh is finally underway. Murdaugh, 53, is charged with the double homicide of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul. Prosecutors argue he killed them to try in a vain attempt to stave off growing attention on his finances, and, subsequently, his alleged financial crimes (it’s alleged he has stolen around $8 million). The defense argues that they were likely killed by a third party who was seeking revenge on Paul, who was facing criminal charges at the time for having drunk-driven his boat into a piling one dark night, resulting in the death of a beautiful 19-year-old, Mallory Beach.

This week, the court heard how Murdaugh greeted officers at the scene with no trace of blood on him. Yet he told them he’d checked the pulses of each of the bodies. As they arrived, we heard that he also launched, involuntarily, into an explanation as to why they’d been killed. Paul had been getting threats.

Local lawyers have told me they expect a hung jury at the end of this, given the lack of hard evidence and the clout of Murdaugh’s defense team. I guess we shall see.

But I have met Murdaugh’s defense lawyers. Dick Harpootlian, the colorful state senator, and his quieter, more earnest colleague, Jim Griffin. I first met the duo in Harpootlian’s offices in Columbia, South Carolina, in the Fall of 2021. Alex Murdaugh had been involved in a second incident, soon after the murders of his wife and son: he’d been shot, roadside, while changing his tire. At first, he said he did it himself. Later he changed the story and said that Curtis Eddie Smith, a relative, had shot him at his request (allegedly for the insurance money) – and missed.

So, as I sat with Harpootlian and Griffin nearly 18 months ago, I expressed my astonishment that Smith had fired and missed. Whereupon Harpootlian, who was sitting across the desk from me, opened a drawer, took out a small handgun, passed it to me, and said something like: “OK, if it’s so easy, you try.”

That sort of thing doesn’t typically happen when I interview people. I handed the gun back to Harpootlian, without accepting his offer. Was he for real?

I’d soon discover that both lawyers are, in fact, considered heavyweights. Harpootlian has been on both sides of many murder trials. Griffin: Just one. Which was on Court TV. And which caught the attention of soft-hearted women everywhere, who started to mail in cash for Griffin to hand on to his client, Thomas Grover Rye. It was a fascinating idiosyncratic case, that I struggle to imagine could have taken place anywhere other than in South Carolina.

Read what happened at “Vicky Ward Investigates”

Why no mention of Qatar, Mike?

I have skimmed through the memoir of Mike Pompeo, former CIA director and former Secretary of State—and now presidential candidate. Two things jump out. His son, Nick, wrote the (unctuous) introduction. I’m not sure what the point is of having your non-author, non-public servant son write the introduction, but it made me think I should be very nice to my adult sons just in case I run out of options for my own books.

More seriously: Qatar.

I keep pressing the search function on my Kindle looking for any mention of the blockade of Qatar….and none.

This is completely fascinating. Why?

In Kushner, Inc, my own 2019 book, I have a whole passage on how Pompeo was caught in the middle between Trump and rulers of Saudi Arabia and the UAE. In April 2018, Trump wrote a letter to Saudi Crown Prince MBS, which he gave to Pompeo to hand-deliver, telling MBS to knock off the blockade of rival Qatar, which the US, who has an airbase there, would no longer support.

You can read my account of what happened at “Vicky Ward Investigates”

Prince Andrew’s Strange Settlement with Virginia Giuffre

Last March, I wrote about why Prince Andrew might want to settle with Virginia Giuffre and thus avoid going to a public trial. Here’s the transcript of that Q&A with former AUSA for South Florida David S. Weinstein about why he thought Andrew settled.

So, what might have have happened to make the Prince reportedly want to reverse this deal that put him into exile?

I checked in with Weinstein to get his take. I still am waiting to hear from both the Prince’s attorney, Andrew Brettler, and Giuffre’s lawyer, David Boies. And I will let you know when/if I hear.

Take a listen to our audio Q&A on “Vicky Ward Investigates”

Ghislaine Maxwell Claims the Prince Andrew Photo is Fake

It’s going to be a very busy week.

Tomorrow, I am booked to talk to Britain’s Piers Morgan on Talk TV about an exclusive interview with British TV host, Jeremy Kyle, given by Ghislaine Maxwell from jail in Florida as she waits for an appeal.

What’s been reported so far about the interview is that she says that the famous photograph of herself with Prince Andrew and his arm around Virginia Roberts Giuffre, then 17, is, as far as she knows, a fake.

She told Britain’s Daily Mail:

‘I have no memory of them meeting. And I don’t think that picture is real.

‘It is a fake. I don’t believe it is real for a second, in fact I am sure it is not.

‘There has never been an original, there is no photograph’

OK. So I explained in my Audible Original podcast, Chasing Ghislaine, that that photograph is arguably more responsible than anything else for putting Epstein and later Maxwell behind bars–and for Prince Andrew’s subsequent disgrace. I also know that the photograph’s authenticity has long been a question mark for Maxwell and her siblings. A source close to the Maxwells told me weeks ahead of her trial at the end of 2021 that no one they knew had glimpsed the original.

So, In April, 2021 I asked Dawn Schneider, the spokesperson for David Boies, Giuffre’s attorney, about the whereabouts of the original photograph. She responded on email:

“i just confirmed. Virginia gave the photo to the FBI. it and other docs remain with the FBI.”

At the same time, I asked the editor for the Mail if anyone there had seen the original. Spokesperson Robyn Kelly emailed me:

This one is very straightforward: we did see the original photograph.

We had a photographer present at the interview with Virginia Roberts in Australia. During the interview, Virginia produced an envelope with photographs in it, including the one of her with Prince Andrew. The photographer then took a photograph of the photograph (which we still have), to send to the picture desk.

Since then, however, there appears to have been uncertainty about where that original is now. Last year, after Prince Andrew’s lawyers asked to see it, there was a rash of media reports suggesting that, in fact, the FBI has a mere copy in its files, and that Roberts has “lost” the original. (Today, I reached out to Giuffre’s lawyer, David Boies, and his spokesperson, Dawn Schneider. And to Prince Andrew’s lawyer. I’ll let you know when/if I hear back).

The reason that photograph matters: Jeffrey Epstein was not a household name in 2011 when that photograph, allegedly taken at Maxwell’s London home in 2001, was first published in the Mail on Sunday. Nor were Ghislaine Maxwell or Virginia Roberts Giuffre. But Prince Andrew definitely was. It was his celebrity that sparked international interest in Giuffre’s claims–and her subsequent civil lawsuits against Epstein and, later, Maxwell and Prince Andrew. The depositions in the civil suits became critical catalysts for the criminal suits subsequently brought by prosecutors against both Epstein and Maxwell. And those, in turn, were the catalyst for Giuffre’s civil suit against Prince Andrew.

Prince Andrew is now reportedly considering trying to roll-back the settlement he made last March with Giuffre after she sued him for sexual abuse. It was a settlement that resulted in him being stripped of his HRH title, military titles, and Royal patronages.

Andrew’s U-turn, according to British newspaper reports, started when Giuffre’s long-time suit against law professor and former Epstein pal, Alan Dershowitz, whom she had claimed abused her several times, was dropped last year. Roberts said she “may have made a mistake” in identifying Dershowitz.

I asked Alan Dershowitz what he thought. Turns out that one of Prince Andrew’s attorneys, Blair Berk, is a friend and former student of his. Interesting!

And I also turned to David S. Weinstein, the former assistant US attorney in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida to ask about possible risks for Maxwell in speaking to the press.

What to make of this?

Listen to both interviews at “Vicky Ward Investigates”

“Alex Murdaugh might be in jail. That doesn’t mean his tentacles stop at that cell door.”

In the past 18 months, I’ve spent a great deal of time in the Lowcountry of South Carolina, talking to people about the bizarre, gothic tragedy and mystery of the Murdaugh family. Alex Murdaugh is accused of murdering his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul, at a hunting lodge. His trial starts Monday.

The Murdaughs have effectively “ruled” over the five counties comprising South Carolina’s Lowcountry for nearly a century. They’ve held the position of “Solicitor”–equivalent to District Attorney–AND had a lucrative private law practice…yes, it’s a conflict. But this is South Carolina. In Yemassee, a town close to Colleton, where the trial will take place, I’ve spent six or more evenings in the only bar/restaurant and found that no one–and I mean no one–wants to discuss the family. If something about them flashes up on the TV above the bar, the channel gets switched to something else. Given their extraordinary fall and straitened circumstances, I found this a little weird.

I spoke this morning with Susanne Andrews, whom I met during my reporting. Susanne lives in Columbia, South Carolina’s capital. She’s a friend of the family of Stephen Smith, a young gay man whose roadside death in 2015 is being re-investigated in connection to evidence found around the Murdaugh murders. We discuss trial expectations and why justice may yet be perverted in the next few weeks. Like I said: this is South Carolina.

Listen to our conversation at “Vicky Ward Investigates”

Goldman Gossip: Is DJ CEO being spun by predecessor in press?

So, Goldman Sachs posted earnings this week. On the birthday of CEO, David Solomon, no less. Reportedly, it was a tough phone call, with Solomon on his back foot at times, given the worse-than-expected results. These came right after the bank laid off 3,200 employees on what was nick-named “David’s Demolition Day.” And right before Solomon jetted off to the World Economic Forum in Davos.

One of the reported highlights of the bloodbath was that employees were summoned to work for “phony” meetings. This, unfortunately, is not an uncommon practice on Wall Street. “How else do you do it?” one senior banker at a competitive firm asked me rhetorically. “It’s not nice. But everyone is a grown-up.”

Solomon has received extra criticism, perhaps because he is such an unusual Wall Street CEO. He’s a DJ at night. And there have been reports of his many weekend breaks on board the firm’s private planes, and an investigation into whether the expense for those is justified.

Read the rest at “Vicky Ward Investigates.”

As Jared Plots World Domination, Ivanka Seems to Have Settled into Floridian Retirement

A small item today, but I promised you I’d share all things great and small, so here it is.

What the heck is going on with Ivanka Trump in Miami?

I don’t mean just the bizarre photographs of Ivanka’s hair last week. One moment, on Wednesday of last week, she was photographed leaving the salon with it cut into a bob that was pulled back.

Just days later, if you looked at her Instagram, she miraculously had her usual look: hair down past her shoulders.

Okay, so she may wear hair extensions, whatever. No problem with that.

But the photographs of her very-quickly-evolving hairstyle emphasize a bigger story.

While she had her shorter look, she played golf at the very waspy (and, reputationally, antisemitic) golf club, the Everglades. Then, apparently—at least according to photographs in the Daily Mail—she and Kushner had people over to their swank apartment in Miami. And then, the next day, apparently, she got her long hair back.

I couldn’t help but think about the extraordinary extremes Ivanka’s ambitions, like her hair, have seemingly swung between.

Read the rest at “Vicky Ward Investigates.”

Saudi-Owned LIV Golf Has Put Millions into Trump’s Pockets

Here’s why we should all care about this little report in a nonprofit publication founded by slain journalist Jamal Khashoggi: It reveals that the LIV Golf tour is 93 percent owned by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), which is controlled by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. That means that MBS has been effectively using his corporate cover to pay who knows how much to Donald Trump’s golf businesses.

Trump has now hosted two LIV events at his golf clubs. What we should be asking is: Given the preferential treatment to Saudi Arabia by the Trump Administration and the allegations of self-dealing by Jared Kushner, was there a quid pro quo with Trump?

Sports ownership, increasingly, is a great way for authoritarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia to win influence over Western countries under the guise of something apparently popular and harmless.

But just how desperate those regimes can be to curry favor in the West was revealed on Friday in a British newspaper report about British academic Matthew Hedges.

I interviewed Hedges in November about the World Cup. Readers may recall that he specializes in the Middle East. In 2018, Hedges was pursuing a doctorate in the security of the United Arab Emirates (Saudi Arabia’s ally and neighbor), when he was detained in the UAE, imprisoned, and tortured in solitary confinement for six months. He was forced to sign a confession document in Arabic, saying he worked for MI6. (He has since said, as has Britain’s Foreign Office, that he did not and does not work for British Intelligence.) Hedges says he only signed the document because he hoped it would secure his release.

In 2021, via the UK foreign office, Hedges sued four UAE officials he alleges were complicit in falsely imprisoning and torturing him. Six months ago, Hedges testified to the UN’s Committee on Torture. The UAE handed the UN a dossier, claiming it showed photographs from CCTV proving Hedges was not treated inhumanely—because it showed him on a bed, reading a book, and talking to a doctor. The dossier also contained sensitive private information about Hedges and his family. It was not made public.

Then, in November, Hedges came to Washington to talk privately to think tanks in DC about his new research on the UAE’s increasingly close alliance with Russia throughout the war in Ukraine.

Here’s our Q&A about what happened next.

Listen to the interview or read a transcript at “Vicky Ward Investigates.”

The royal tragedy at the heart of ‘Spare’

Maybe “Megxit” was never about Meghan Markle. Maybe it was always driven by Prince Harry, who, in his American wife, found the much-needed catalyst to leave a family where he could never outrun the feeling of being second-best. The spare as opposed to the heir.

This is not simply my opinion. It’s the central theme and story of “Spare,” the prince’s wildly buzzy new autobiography. I read the book this week, in one sitting. It has made headlines for its various gossipy nuggets — Harry dunks on William hair loss! William punches Harry! And it easily pivots between heartfelt and introspective to petty and naive. But to my surprise, I shed a tear for the protagonist at the end. Because I think what the book really reveals is an ultimately complicated man who has been truly traumatized by the preordained details of his birth order. He is a man motivated less by higher principles, perhaps, than by a sincerely felt insecurity. That insecurity has haunted and molded his psyche, from childhood to adulthood. And his latest life chapter with Meghan merely confirms a lifelong lament.

The term “spare” is used in this memoir literally dozens of times. Harry tells us there’s not a moment since his birth where he’s not felt relegated. Even his birth is diminished because, he learns, his father Charles feels that now that he’s got a spare, his paternal duties are over. “I was twenty the first time I heard the story of what Pa allegedly said to Mummy the day of my birth,” Harry writes. “Wonderful! Now you’ve given me an Heir and a Spare — my work is done. A joke. Presumably.”

Harry says he felt like the spare as a young boy because Prince Charles and William were never supposed to go on the same plane, so that if one died, the other would survive. But no one cared what plane Harry was on. He felt like the spare when it was suggested that William walk behind his mother’s casket without him (that did not happen). And he says he believes British tabloids singled him out because of his second-son vulnerability, calling it a “public sacrifice of the spare.”

Indeed, Harry’s resentment of William colors so many moments in the book; even his memory of the tabloid reports of him dressed up as a Nazi are tied to this insecurity. Why wasn’t the focus on his brother, who was wearing a “skintight” leotard?

But there are also advantages to being overlooked.

William, Harry says, believed his younger brother exploited his “spare” status to curry favor with “Granny,” the queen, when he asked her to break with army rules and wear his beard on his wedding. “You put her in an uncomfortable position, Harold! She had no choice but to say yes.”

And, there’s that tense, desperate moment when, inside Nottingham Cottage, Harry says William decked him over frustration with the new duchess’ seeming inability to fit in. “She’s rude. She’s abrasive. She’s alienated half the staff,” William reportedly says. The real motivation for the physical altercation, according to Harry? “I wasn’t dutifully playing the role of the Spare,” he writes.

You have to admire his honesty — and it’s somewhat impossible not to feel sorry for him (even if the repetition does get tedious).

This side of Harry — a man prepared to take at least some accountability for much of the drama that the English media, in particular, has hitherto blamed on Markle — is new.

In TV interviews — with Oprah Winfrey in 2021 and in last year’s Netflix series “Harry & Meghan”— Harry presented himself as a cultural warrior dutifully supporting his wife’s battle against the systemic racist bigotry of the outdated institution that was his family. He was a man who’d seen the light.

Even in recent promotional interviews, Harry has still often spun his airing of the royal laundry as noble. At least he’s going on the record, he says, whereas his family members use anonymous mouthpieces to leak garbage on their relatives.

But in “Spare,” a sadder, smaller truth is writ large on page after page. The details show a far more complex picture of “the bad guys,” precisely because the author’s vision is clearly constricted by his feelings about his circumstances.

Reading between the lines, King Charles comes off as loving, not remote or anachronistic. He calls Harry “my darling boy.” He takes Harry to see Shakespeare. He drops Harry off at Sandhurst to begin his time at the military academy. Before Charles gets too old, he plays tag with his son. He bonds with Meghan over Chopin. The king is not perfect, but he’s decent.

So, too, despite all Harry’s resentment, seems to be his brother. William stays by Harry’s side the night before Harry’s wedding, only leaving to stay the night with Kate and his kids. (And for Harry to begrudge him that last bit — which he does — feels petty.)

The main villain is Camilla, who, in Harry’s telling, becomes the leaker-in-chief in order to protect herself. He rarely mentions Camilla without also mentioning how she usurped his mother.

The runner-up villain is Kate. But on this topic, Harry’ resentment gets the better of him. In the way he describes interactions with his sister-in-law, he clearly wants the reader to choose Meghan over Kate. Informality over formality. The spare’s wife over the heir’s. But in the end, I don’t think readers will choose. They’ll read “Spare” and see that, personalities aside, the chief culprit for Harry’s lifelong resentment is the unfortunate law of primogeniture.

Until he met and married Meghan, other than when he was in the army (another escape), Harry struggled to make sense of his life. But his wife, an American, presented him with the opportunity to do something he says he has always wanted: to break free of his family and make a statement. Even in his teens, Harry sensed he’d one day break the mold. He writes, “Part of me really did want to do something totally outside the box, something that would make everyone in the family, in the country, sit up and say: What the—?”

Well, with his marriage to Meghan, their exit, and “Spare,” he’s done it. Hopefully he can finally find some happiness.

Are the British Press As Bad as Prince Harry Says?

On Tuesday, in a single sitting, I read Prince Harry’s memoir, Spare. I’ve written a review for NBC which you can read here.

Meanwhile, I’ve been thinking about a central assertion of Harry’s: His allegation that the British press, particularly the tabloids, are singularly deplorable.

Harry can’t stand their intrusion or the unfairness of the made-up or exaggerated stories. Harry says that the same paparazzi who hounded his mother to her death forced him and Meghan to flee the country. He says they don’t report on the royal family as much as do business with it—in the guise of reporting.

On “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” on Tuesday night, Harry looked emotional and exhausted as he blamed the British media for irresponsibly singling out what he’d said about killing 25 Taliban fighters in Afghanistan without, he said, providing the necessary nuance and context of the description in his book. Their sensationalism, he said, had endangered his family.

Is his characterization fair?

I’ll give you my perspective.

Read the rest at “Vicky Ward Investigates.”