Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Snapchat Custodian Testimony Provides More Details On Alex Murdaugh's Timeline; Connecticut Lawmakers Want To Ban State Agencies From Using Latinx; U.S. Jobless Claims Fall To Nine-Month Low. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired February 02, 2023 - 15:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[15:30:00]

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: Today in the ongoing double murder trial of Alex Murdaugh, the CFO of his former law firm testified that she confronted him about a large sum of money that was missing on the morning of the murders. Prosecutors allege that Murdaugh killed his wife and son to distract from his other alleged financial crimes.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Now the jury was not present for the testimony as the judge weighed whether the evidence is admissible in court. CNN's Randi Kaye is in South Carolina following this story. And the prosecution is honing in on the timing of some of the videos recorded on Paul's phone. What more do we know?

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Victor and Alisyn. They're talking about this Snapchat video in court once again today. This was a video that was uploaded on to Paul Murdaugh's cell phone at 7:39 and it was sent to a friend via Snapchat at 7:56. You don't see Paul Murdaugh on it but you hear him laughing, but do you see Alex Murdaugh on it next to this tree that somewhat falling down.

Now what's significant about seeing in that is what he's wearing. He's wearing long pants and a long sleeved blue shirt. I'll tell you why that significant in just a second. But there was a representative from Snapchat who came into court today and testified to this Snapchat video's authenticity. Listen to what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what is on the content of that CD?

HEIDI GALORE, CUSTODIAN, SNAP INC.: It's a video of a subject near a tree, and it's a short video with some audio.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did you determine from reviewing records whether that account sent out that particular video?

GALORE: Yes, it was sent on the same day, June 7, 2021 at 7:56 hours Eastern time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: Now that's significant because if you look at what he's wearing, as I said, it's long pants and a long sleeve shirt. But when he called 911 Alex Murdaugh greeted police and investigators, he was wearing shorts and a white T-shirt and that was at 10:07 p.m., this video was at 7:56 p.m.

So, prosecutors are sort of laying the groundwork for the idea that possibly he killed his family, his wife and son, washed up, changed clothes and then called police. Where are those clothes now? That's a good question. That's because they didn't discover this video -- this Snapchat video for many months after the murders.

[15:35:02]

So, they haven't collected -- as far as we know at least, they haven't told us in court -- that clothing that he was wearing -- Victor, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK, Randi, thank you for all of that background. Let's discuss with criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Bernarda Villalona. Bernarda, thanks so much for being here. I want to ask you about something that happened outside of the earshot of the jury.

So, the CFO from his law firm basically was, we found out, had confronted Alex Murdaugh about some missing -- basically $800,000 from the law firm on the day of the murders. And the prosecutors are basically alleging he knew he was in financial trouble and there were all these other financial crimes and that was his motivation to kill his family members. It would distract from that.

It would make seen the victim. The judge is now deciding if that's admissible. Why wouldn't that be admissible if that's the motive?

BERNARDA VILLALONA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND FORMER PROSECUTOR: Because when you're talking about another crime, so prior bad acts -- and just to be clear that other crime in terms of stealing from the firm, he's already been charged. So, he's facing charges for those counts for those appearance. In terms of why the judge doesn't want to take a chance of presenting it to the jury, allowing it to come in, because it goes to propensity.

So, it's possible that a jury can base their decision -- be like, wait, if you can steal from your firm, $100 or $1000, almost $800,000 and that's just on one occasion because we heard he stole more than $2 million, than you're capable of killing your family, killing your wife, killing your son.

But the problem is that the prosecutor has yet to make a link. What is the nexus between the financial crimes and killing his wife and his son? I mean, the prosecutor is saying, look, he didn't want to be discovered.

He wanted to take the light away from him. And it actually worked. Because they didn't approach him again until months later -- I believe in September -- where at that time he tried to kill himself. He staged it.

BLACKWELL: Do you think that the state can make this case without the introduction of not only this element but also, we know that he's facing close to 100 charges related to financial troubles? Can they make the link without that being admissible?

VILLALONA: I believe the prosecution can still prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt without putting forward the financial crimes. It's going to be a hurdle. Because what the defense is doing is saying, why would a man that loves his family, was hanging out with his family that same day wants to off them.

And that's why the prosecution is trying to give them the why, trying to give them the motive. Even though motive is not an element of the crime in order to prove murder.

And again, the prosecution has strong evidence. They have completely destroyed his alibi. Alex Murdaugh was saying he was sleeping. But yet we have you on this Snapchat video. We have his voice in the background, that has been authenticated, and you're hanging out at the dog kennels. Which by the way, that's where your wife and son was killed. But you denied it and then tie you time into this set.

BLACKWELL: Bernarda Villalona, thank you so much.

So the high cost at the pump for families certainly pumped out the profits for Shell. The gas company says it doubled its profit last year. Details next.

[15:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: A group of Latino lawmakers in Connecticut are calling for a statewide ban of the term Latinx from official government documents. They say the gender-neutral alternative to Latino or Latina is a woke term that is offensive to Connecticut's large Puerto Rican population.

BLACKWELL: Joining us with more. Democratic Connecticut State Rep. Geraldo Reyes Jr. -- the bill sponsor. Thanks for your time. First, just explained to us why to you this term is offensive.

GERALDO REYES JR., (D) CONNECTICUT STATE REPRESENTATIVE: Well, thank you very much for the question. So, I'm one of the sponsors. I want to clarify that there are six sponsors on the bill. Rep. Rosario, Rep. Gonzalez, Rep. Candelaria, Rep. Sanchez and Rep. Santiago and myself are all Puerto Rican Latino elected officials here in the state of Connecticut all find the term offensive.

And it's a term that we believe is unnecessary because the Spanish language which is 1,500 plus years old already identifies male, female and neutrality. So, we don't believe it's necessary. If you don't like the word Latino and Latina, you can use the word Latin or Latino which is what the proper term is for neutral gender.

CAMEROTA: Well, here's what the actor and comedian John Leguizamo says about it. He likes the term, here's why.

He says: I love it. I think it's about time. I think it gets rid of the machismo that is not natural to our language but got used by our language to promote male dominance. I love now that it's Latinx, it's all inclusive and I love that.

So basically, he's saying that using Latino is gendered because it's the male adjective.

[15:45:00]

REYES: And that's correct and I respect John Leguizamo. I understand his brilliance and I respect his work. But I will beg to differ him on that particular segment, whether it's -- in my term, by my thinking, it is offensive. And I'll give you an example. So, I've had the opportunity to travel across these great United States to speak with many Latino legislators.

And the majority of the legislators in the United States of America that are of Latino descent are Mexican. And most of the Mexican- American legislators find the term very offensive. And we've had this discussion with legislators from Texas, California, , Arizona, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and obviously Connecticut.

So, my point here is that the majority, the high 96-97 percent of Latinos that speak Spanish find it offensive. There is a small percentage of people that -- again, this is not to be divisive in any way and this is not to put off anybody.

This is simply a term that we don't want to see in the government and in higher education. It's not a ban of the word. It's a ban the word and using it as it's related to government official business.

BLACKWELL: So, you talked about the percentage of Latinos who you know who do not use this word, or do not like the word. There's a Pew study that shows that most Latinos adult have never even heard of the term Latin next -- 76 percent have not heard of it, another 20 percent do not use it, only 3 percent -- according to this Pew study use the term Latinx. So, you've this legislation now. What's the possibility, the probability that it gets passed?

REYES: Well, thank you for the question. So, there's a process. We will have a public hearing. It's a general administrative committee right now. And it's going through committee screening. What we are hoping to get is a public hearing very soon. Because we can only want the input of the public, number one.

Number two, it comes out of committee and it goes to screening and it has to pass screening both in the majority and the speaker's screening process on both aisles of the majority and the minority parties. Then when it passes that hurdle, then it goes to either -- it's a House bill. It it'll go to the House of Representatives floor first. If it passes there, then it goes to the Senate. If it passes there, then governor can sign or veto it. So, that's the process.

All right, Rep. Geraldo Reyes, thanks for explaining your perspective. Great to talk to you.

REYES: Thank you very much for having me.

BLACKWELL: Weekly jobless claims are at their lowest level since April. So, what does that mean for a potential recession? We'll discuss.

[15:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: Some encouraging economic news out today. The number of weekly jobless claims fell to a nine-month low.

CAMEROTA: CNN's Matt Eagan is here. So, Matt, this took some economists by surprise. Why?

MATT EAGAN, CNN REPORTER: Yes, these numbers are surprising. Because we keep hearing about layoffs, right. S.A.P., Hasbro, IBM, PayPal, all in the last 10 days those companies have announced thousands of job cuts. In January, job cuts are quintupled from the year before.

And yet, jobless claims, which are a proxy for layoffs, they keep going down, down to the lowest level since April. And this suggests that even though some tech and media companies are clearly cutting jobs, a lot of other companies, they are hoarding talent. Like they don't want to let go of the workers they have because there's a shortage of workers.

I mean, just yesterday, there was a report out that showed that the number of job openings in the United States went up to 11 million. That means that there are almost two available jobs for every one person looking. And that is despite all this pressure from the Federal Reserve, which is trying to slow the economy down.

So. speaking of the Fed and borrowing costs. A new number is out on mortgage rates today showed that mortgage rates, they came in at 6.1 percent, so, the bad news is it's still twice as high, almost twice as high as a year ago. But the good news is, they are inching lower for the fourth week in a row.

They are well below that almost 20-year high that was set last fall of 7 percent. And hopefully the fact that they're settling in here just above 6 percent gives buyers and sellers some certainty.

BLACKWELL: These oil company numbers are bananas.

EAGAN: That's a technical term.

BLACKWELL: I mean, there's a well-crafted question in the teleprompter. This is the headline, they're bananas.

EAGAN: Technically they're bananas. They are making a mountain of money, right. Oil Shell just reported earnings of $40 billion last year. They doubled their profits. Now, it's not just Shell. Exxon, almost $60 billion, Chevron, $36.5 billion. You add it all up, $135 billion from just those three companies just from last year in profit. I mean, that is enough to buy every single NFL franchise. Which is pretty amazing.

BLACKWELL: It's bananas, that's what I said.

EAGAN: It's bananas. It is worth noting, this is a notoriously boom to bust industry, right. When things are bad, they're really bad. I mean, these companies lost a lot of money in 2020, but clearly, they're making a lot right now and meanwhile, you're seeing gas prices tick higher, $3.50 a gallon. You see their well below that peak from last year, but we need to keep an eye on gas prices are starting to move higher.

CAMEROTA: Maybe they can spread some of the wealth.

EAGAN: Maybe.

CAMEROTA: Ever think of that? Matt, thank you.

BLACKWELL: Thanks Matt.

[15:55:00]

CAMEROTA: All right, Russian air strikes targeted Kramatorsk today, killing several people and destroying neighborhoods. And CNN was on the ground when the missiles hit. That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: Time again for that annual rodent ritual in Pennsylvania.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Punxsutawney Phil, ladies and gentlemen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Sorry to report that Phil woke up and saw his shadow, which means six more weeks of winter.

BLACKWELL: According to the weather service NOAA, though, Phil has only been right about 40 percent of the time over the last decade.

[16:00:00]

CAMEROTA: So, actually, it means that there will not be six more weeks of winter.

BLACKWELL: I've always wanted to go to this, but I only remember the day that it happened.

CAMEROTA: You have got to set your timer for this.

BLACKWELL: It looks like fun, I mean -- are there other black people in Punxsutawney?

CAMEROTA: No, none, no none. Again, you would make history going there. BLACKWELL: On this day, this day in black history, Victor Blackwell

became the first black person to attend.

CAMEROTA: Next year.

BLACKWELL: Black history month.

"THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.