‘Your World’ on taxes, Murdaugh case

close

Video

Murdaugh's bond is set $20K but could it rise? Criminal defense attorney gives his predictions

Mark Eiglarsh provides legal analysis on the Murdaugh case on 'Your World'

This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto," September 16, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: All right, taking you inside a Hampton County, South Carolina, courtroom, where Alex Murdaugh, a South Carolina lawyer whose wife and son were killed in June, was arrested in connection with an insurance fraud scheme that could go, well, mightily beyond that insurance fraud.

Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto. And this is "Your World."

And in perhaps one of the more bizarre legal cases that dramas around a lawyer and a celebrated legal family that goes back 80 years in South Carolina, questions about a man who might have a range getting killed so that his son could get a $10 million insurance policy.

It sounds bizarre. There are a lot of doubts that have yet to be collected. But, for now, the focus in this Hampton County, South Carolina, courtroom is just to get an arraignment on the committing insurance fraud charge, and then it could expand from there.

Let's get the latest from Steve Harrigan in Hampton County with more -- Steve

STEVE HARRIGAN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Neil.

We are keeping an eye on the first court appearance of Alex Murdaugh, the 53-year-old who at this point stands charged with insurance fraud and with filing a false police report. He has admitted to attempting to stage his own murder, hiring a former client to shoot him in the head by the side of a rural road in South Carolina.

The alleged gunman, Curtis Smith, was released earlier in the day on $55,000 bond. Murdaugh has surrendered himself to police. He arrived here in a T-shirt and fluorescent sneakers. His hands were cuffed in front of his body.

Now, Murdaugh, as you mentioned, gained notoriety when his wife and son were brutally gunned down this summer outside the family's large hunting lodge in rural South Carolina. It was Murdaugh who discovered the bodies, Murdaugh who called 911.

Still no publicly known suspects in that double homicide here. And now police are talking about a new investigation that has begun into the Murdaugh family housekeeper, Gloria Satterfield. She died inside the Murdaugh house in 2018.

The 57-year-old, according to Murdaugh died from a -- quote -- "trip and fall." The coroner says there was no autopsy performed. So real questions in a new investigation there. And when you look at the web of the Murdaugh family, at this point alone, we're looking at six separate criminal investigations, five people dead, including two Murdaugh family members -- Neil, back to you.

CAVUTO: We should also point out, Steve, he's charged with stealing millions of dollars from his company, right?

And that's a separate issue.

Let's go right now to the courtroom.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Today is Tuesday. I'm sorry. Today is Thursday, September 16, 2021. The time is for 4:02 p.m.

We're here for a bond hearing for Richard Alexander Murdaugh.

As you know, we have representation from the attorney general's office. Can you please state your name for the record, please?

CREIGHTON WATERS, SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

My name is Creighton Waters of the South Carolina attorney general's office. And with me as Megan Burchstead also with that office.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

And also I see the defendant also has representation.

Can you please state your name, please, for the record?

DICK HARPOOTLIAN, ATTORNEY FOR ALEX MURDAUGH: Yes, Your Honor.

May I remove my mask to address the court?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just to state your name. You have to put it back on after that.

Yes, ma'am.

I'm Dick Harpootlian. This is Jim Griffin. We represent Mr. Murdaugh.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. Thank you.

HARPOOTLIAN: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right.

The cases that we before but s today, Mr. Murdaugh, is case No. 2021- A2510100204, insurance false statement, misrepresentation, and cases No. 2021-A2510100206, conspiracy, case No. 2021-A2510100207, filing a false police report for a felony violation.

OK?

I'm going to read this information to you. It should be in front of you right now. Please follow along with me as I read it.

We're going to start with number two.

Warrant for arrest may be issued for violation of any condition of this bail bond order. You have the right and obligation to be present at trial and that trial may proceed in your absence, if you fail to attend.

Failure to appear in court as required may result in institution of additional criminal charges. Failure to appear in connection with a felony, or while awaiting sentence after conviction carries an additional penalty of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years or both.

Failure to appear in connection with a charge for a misdemteanor for which the maximum possible sentence is at least one year carries an additional penalty of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year or both.

Failure to appear in court as required on any charge not specified above may result in the issuance of a warrant for defendant's arrest, as well as loss of posted bond.

You also have a right to a preliminary hearing. You have 10 days from today to do so. You do that orally or in writing.

You also have the right to a trial by jury. Once again, you are being charged with false statement (INAUDIBLE) first offense, conspiracy and filing a false police report of a felony violation.

You also have the right to counsel and the right to a court-appointed counsel in financially unable to employ counsel.

(INAUDIBLE) please.

If you're interested in a court-appointed attorney -- you do have an attorney with you now, so we don't have to go into that. But you can if you want to get one appointed through the clerical office.

Number seven, if the charges brought against you are discharged, dismissed or (INAUDIBLE) if you're found not guilty, you may have your record expunged.

You are also required to keep the court notified of any changes of address until the final dissolution of this case.

Turn to the next page.

This is a notice for right to a preliminary hearing. This is what I was telling you about earlier. If you're interested in a preliminary hearing, you must fill this out and have it back to our office.

The next page, information regarding your rights. Please listen carefully.

You have been charged with a criminal offense, and if you are found guilty, you are facing serious consequences which may include payment of a fine, loss of your driver's license, and the possibility of a jail sentence.

In addition, you may face increased penalties for later convictions, the loss of your right to possess firearms and/or ammunition, and your immigration status will be affected.

You have important constitutional rights, including the right to representation by a lawyer, but you may lose these rights or waive them if you do not act to protect these rights. You have the right to hire a lawyer to represent you in every case.

If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for a free attorney. If you want a determination made as to whether you are qualified for a free lawyer, then it is your obligation be screened at a location identified in paragraph 5C of the bond check list you will receive after this hearing.

If you do not hire a attorney or go to be screened, then you may be found to have waived your right to an attorney at your trial. You also have the right to represent yourself. However, you should be aware that self- representation can be dangerous.

For example, there may be certain factual or legal defenses to your charge that you are not aware of or legal issues related to the conduct of your trial or guilty plea that an attorney would know how to preserve for an appeal.

If you exercise your right to proceed without a lawyer, then you are responsible for complying with all applicable rules of court, including rules of evidence, procedural rules, and proper behavior before the judge and/or jury.

If convicted on the charges filed against you and you are to pay a fine, you may request a reasonable scheduled payment plan to pay that fine.

It is your obligation to keep up with your trial date and to obtain an attorney, either by hiring one or by being screened and found eligible for a court-appointed attorney prior to your trial date. If you do not appear at your trial with your attorney, you may be deemed to have waived your right to have an attorney represent you.

You are required to keep the court notified of any change of address until the completion of the case.

Turn to the next page.

In the event you are unable to employ counsel, the state will provide you with counsel by appointment or with the services of the public defender of this county.

If you desire the state to provide you with counsel, you may make application for counsel, unless you're not eligible under the order of the court. You may apply for counsel, should you qualify, at the clerical office in Hampton County located in the courthouse.

Once again (INAUDIBLE) application fee, you do have the right to apply if you meet the requirements. And also you have the right to be present at trial. But if you're not there, then we will proceed in your absence.

Turn to the next page.

You are hereby ordered to appear for roll call on October the 25th, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.

I acknowledge and understand that I'm too appear for -- to attend a (INAUDIBLE) scheduled roster meeting. I also understand it's my responsibility and condition of my bond that I hire an attorney or apply for a public defender within 15 days of this order.

Should I fail to appear for roll call, a bench warrant will be issued for my arrest. If I fail to get an attorney within 15 days, my bond may be revoked.

Understand there's a fee to pay the clerical office for a public defender application and that it's my responsibility to pay the fee within 15 days or this notice.

Understand that should I fail to meet any condition of my bond, the court will issue a bench warrant for my arrest and has the authority to revoke my bond.

Before I set Mr. Murdaugh's bond, do I have -- do you have anything to say the attorney general's office?

WATERS: Yes, ma'am, Your Honor. Thank you.

I believe there's a few conditions that we would ask for that the defense would probably not object to. The first one of those is surrendering the passport. I believe they have brought his passport here. And we would ask it be surrendered to SLED. for them to keep it in their custody.

The second thing is, we would like for (INAUDIBLE) sign a waiver of extradition. It is my understanding that they tend that -- that they plan for Mr. Murdaugh to be returned to a rehab out of state. And for that, we would request that waiver of extradition.

Finally, I think there's a few matters that we would disagree on. Your Honor, at this time, we would request a $100,000 surety, as well as GPS.

Your Honor, the reason for that, he has no prior record. However, while the charges here under the law are not violent, the underlying facts are violent. And they indicated, at least allegedly, an intent to harm oneself. And that makes that person not only a danger to themselves, but that enhances the danger to the community in that regard.

Indeed, they also involve conspiracy, and that means working with others for criminal activity. So, I think that enhances the danger to community.

Also, since he is going out of state, I think that does raise a concern of a flight risk. He was at one rehab and will be going to a rehab in a different state. And, again, he obviously has the resources to pay for these out-of-state inpatient rehab.

I think that, for that reason, a GPS would be appropriate, Your Honor. And, again, if, after 30 to 60 days, if he has done fine on GPS, I'm sure I can speak with Mr. Harpootlian, or he can file whatever motion he wishes to file.

But I think, in this instance, it is appropriate that we have that GPS.

I have seen these type of cases before. And, sometimes, those who had everything and who are suffering a possible fall from grace are actually more of a concern than a hardened criminal who's been in the situation before.

For that reason, we would ask for that surety bond and the GPS.

HARPOOTLIAN: May I remove my mask, Your Honor?

I don't think I speak clearly enough with the mask on to make myself understood.

Your Honor, Alec Murdaugh has spent his entire life in this county, no prior record, actually involved in all aspects of this community and, up until this charge, had no blemish on his character whatsoever.

He has and we concede a significant -- has had a significant opioid addiction, which has led him into some financial issues and there's no question into this situation where he finds himself charged.

Let me -- let me make a couple points. First of all, this crime -- this crime involved his attempt to have himself shot, so his son could collect insurance. The only violence he's ever been involved in this, which was to have himself executed.

So he's not a danger to the community. The only person he is a danger to is himself. He immediately surrendered and immediately went to rehab after this incident, as soon as he got out of the hospital. He was shot in the back of the head.

A bullet didn't actually penetrate his skull, but went in. There was an entrance and exit wound. He may have had a minor skull fracture and some minor bleeding on the brain. As soon as he was released, he went to detox. I'm sorry. And he was there for almost a week before he was ready to go to rehab.

Unfortunately, the place he was at did not have a bed. And so we had to find him another bed.

In terms of his financial resources, he is -- this is being paid for by insurance, not out of his pocket. And I can tell you, as a result of the recent events, he is not a man of significant means anymore.

Everything he owns is basically liened up. We would surrender his passport to SLED. I brought it here today.

Your Honor, I would like to hand up to the court a letter. I don't want to publish it and -- or the location of the rehabilitation facility for obvious reasons. We have tremendous media interest in this, and we certainly don't want them showing up.

And I think it explains that the doctor believes he can benefit from this. And he only let him come up here -- he came up this morning. He needs to go back this afternoon to not get kicked out of the facility.

On 17-15-10, which is the statute governing bond, says he's entitled to a personal recognizance bond unless it shown he's a danger to flee. He has come here today on his own. He did not fully -- he did not -- once he knew he was charged.

He is willing to waive extradition to come back whenever he is needed here. And, again, everything -- every member of family, his connections are to this county. He's got nowhere to go.

We have given -- we're giving the passport to SLED. He can't -- he doesn't have the financial means to leave the country, nor will he have a passport to leave the country.

Your Honor, he has had a tremendous opioid addiction. The death of his wife and son had put him over the edge in terms of that addiction. And that is why -- one of the major reasons he was considering having himself killed.

The other thing I would say is this. There's no evidence of danger, danger to the community, or evidence that he would flee the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution. He -- the way these charges came about is that Mr. Griffin and I visited him at the detox facility on Monday of this week.

He indicated he wanted to tell the truth. And I think SLED will affirm that they were expecting to show up down there and show him a lineup, they're investigating a drive-by shooting, when he and we decided he should call SLED. We asked him to record the conversation, in which he detailed every element of what he was charged with today, total cooperation, gave him the name, told him about the gun, told them about the knife, and we believe was totally honest and forthright with them.

So, he himself has put himself in this by what he did to begin with, but is attempting to make amends by being truthful. He wants to cooperate with law enforcement. He's cooperated to the extent he can cooperate, given his current mental and physical condition, as he gets -- when he gets out of rehab.

And, by the way, we're more than willing to have the facility required to notify us and or SLED if he leaves the facility. We can do that. So, that if he's not there, and hasn't gotten court permission to leave there, he would be a violation of your bond order.

Your Honor, as Mr. Waters indicated, he has fallen from grace. It has been a tremendous -- I mean, before any of that falling happened, his wife and son were brutally murdered. And that has had an extraordinary effect on him.

So we'd ask you to allow him to go and help heal himself. A surety bond is not needed in this case. And the practical matter, his financial condition is ruinous. So we would ask you to allow him on his own recognizance that 17-15-10 would indicate and allow him to go to rehab, allow -- and, of course, mandate rehab, the rehab facility notify the court and/or SLED if he leaves.

And if he completes his treatment there, when he completes his treatment there, we'd ask to be -- ask them to notify us, so that we then can coordinate with SLED and the attorney general's office on where he's to go next, whether he should come back here, or whether he can go -- should go somewhere else.

But this is a 20-year addiction. This is not -- this is something he's struggling with every day. And if anyone wants to see the face of what opioid addiction does, you're looking at it. This is a horrible, horrible disease.

So, Your Honor, I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have any questions.

Thank you, Your Honor.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have been hearing both sides.

I don't feel that Mr. Murdaugh is going to be a risk to the community. I do -- however, do want him to surrender his passport. And the waiver of extradition, we will have that in place.

So, with that being said, with the insurance false statement, mis- imprisonment -- I mean, misrepresentation -- I'm sorry -- we want to say set his bond at $10,000. And that's going to be a personal recognizance bond.

And on the conspiracy, I'm going to set it at $5,000 personal recognizance bond. And report -- filing a false police report, $5,000 personal recognizance bond. His total bond is going to be $20,000 personal recognizance.

And that's going to be the report. If he does leave the facility, if he leaves the facility without any permission, your bond will be revoked and there will be a bench warrant for your arrest.

ALEX MURDAUGH, DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you understand that?

MURDAUGH: Yes, ma'am.

And that will be the order the court. I need you to sign these papers.

HARPOOTLIAN: Your Honor, I'm at this point handing this passport to SLED, for the record.

Your Honor, just so that that letter does not become public information, can we have it back, please? Otherwise, we will actually (OFF-MIKE)

Thank you, Your Honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (OFF-MIKE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, so -- but he's not -- he's not applying (OFF-MIKE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (OFF-MIKE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Murdaugh, do you have any questions before you go?

MURDAUGH: No, ma'am. None.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If there's no further questions, this concludes the bond hearing for September the 16th, 2021. (OFF-MIKE)

CAVUTO: All right, there you have it, Alex Murdaugh.

He's a prominent South Carolina lawyer, so you're only seeing him from the back. But, in South Carolina, he's well-known. He comes from a legal family back better than 80 years in South Carolina.

And this bond today set at $20,000 was for insurance fraud and charges that he was staging his own assassination, if you will, back in September 4, when he hired a former client to shoot him, so that his surviving son could get $10 million in insurance.

You might recall that, back in June, his other son and wife were killed at the family's home. But that has nothing to do what was brought up here, but mysteries around that killing, as well as now, we're understanding, the death of the Housekeeper back in 2018.

Now, these fraud and other related charges are only linked to this incident in which he hired this fellow to shoot him, presumably to kill him, and then make sure his son could get the $10 million insurance policy.

But a lot of things are not adding up in this, including these incidents in the past that are still not resolved, including the killing of his wife and other son earlier this year.

Steve Harrigan, there's a lot to unpack here, isn't there?

HARRIGAN: Neil, a lot of dead people around the Murdaugh family, at least five at the latest count so far.

And you're pointing out really what a tremendous turnaround it is to see Alex Murdaugh there in a brown prison jumpsuit making his first court appearance. This was a family for three generations were the chief prosecutors across five counties in South Carolina. Now it's flipped, and Alex Murdaugh arriving today with his hands cuffed before him.

He will be free to go on $20,000 bail. But, keep in mind, as you mentioned, this is just the beginning. This is a fraud charge for insurance and filing a false police report.

But you mentioned earlier he was kicked out of his family law firm for stealing large sums of money from that firm. Now the police are reinvestigating the death of a housekeeper inside that house in 2018. Murdaugh said it was a trip and fall. Now police aren't so sure.

They are going back to that, as well as two other deaths of young people tied to the Murdaugh family. The biggest question, what role, if any, did he have in the deaths of his own wife and son? He was the one who found the bodies. He was the one who called 911.

So, really, a year of incredible turmoil for Alex Murdaugh, and the legal process only just starting now -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, thank you very much for that, Steve.

Want to go to Mark Eiglarsh, a criminal defense attorney.

Mark, there's a lot to this case. Obviously, it just doesn't end at the fraud and insurance. I mean, where does this go?

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, today was just the beginning. And it was a huge victory for the defense.

Had the judge ruled in the prosecution's favor, he would have had to have posted a corporate surety bond, which means he would have had to have come up with at least 10 percent of the $100,000 bond that the state was requesting. The defense got a huge victory in that he could just guarantee that he will pay the $20,000 bond if he takes off and flees.

So he didn't have to pay anything. Huge victory. But where it goes from here, this is just the beginning. Every time the state adds additional charges, which I suspect they will, at a minimum, stealing from his own law firm, once you have those charges, he will be brought back in front of the court. And the judge is going to say, well, now you're more of a risk of flight because you're facing additional time.

You have more of a reason to take off. And you're going to see that bond amount go up.

CAVUTO: You know, the death of the housekeeper, if memory serves me right, it was considered a trip and fall, right?

She fell. I think she tripped over the family's dogs going down the stairs, later died in a hospital.

EIGLARSH: Yes.

CAVUTO: There was a separate settlement with her family. Her now grown sons, they never got payment.

It's a whole 'nother side mystery to this.

EIGLARSH: There's a whole 'nother investigation.

You notice prosecutors didn't bring that up today. They're going to at some point, but the defense would have said, well, judge, that's premature. There's nothing here. There's no charges. Oh, they're very well may be.

The -- allegedly, the injuries on the housekeeper are inconsistent with natural causes, which apparently was what they said how she passed. Also, her two children were supposed to receive $475,000. And who was their lawyer? Alex, the defendant, who failed to give them a nickel, even though this case was settled quite some time ago.

So he has some 'splainin' to do on that one as well.

CAVUTO: I'm wondering too. When his wife and other son were killed, they - - it's a cold case. They couldn't get any leads on it.

What could happen. I mean, would they talk to maybe former cases that he had and whether anyone wished the family ill or certainly himself ill? Have we learned anything about that and connections with cases that he tried?

EIGLARSH: Unfortunately, we don't know enough about that case at all.

And while he is very forthcoming about the current case -- we heard from his own lawyer, he gave it up, right? He opened up to law enforcement. He told them everything they needed to know. He fully cooperated, Your Honor, they said.

My guess is, he's probably not going to be as forthcoming about any information he has which may show his alleged involvement in some way to his own family's demise, assuming that's the case.

CAVUTO: You know, the one thing that also doesn't add up to me, Mark, I mean, this incident in which he was planning this Curtis Smith, a former client, to shoot him up, so that his son could get the money.

And then he later was saying that this had nothing to do with what was originally thought to be a link to the death of his wife and son. But what was odd about that is, it was originally deemed to be a miraculous incident which he survived because, in the end, he wasn't killed.

He was -- he had minor wounds to the outside of his skull, and he more than survived it, which makes you worry and wonder about the premise of this in the first place, that he had hired someone to kill him.

EIGLARSH: Yes.

No, that's the biggest issue to me. When I read this, I'm thinking, OK, he's guilty. He's guilty of hiring the worst assassin ever. He wants to be killed, and he couldn't get killed. That, to me, is bizarre.

I think somebody needs to answer some questions about that. How does he survive his own hit? How do you miss?

CAVUTO: Let me switch gears here.

We're just getting this in, if you will indulge me, Mark. We're just learning now, this from Washington, that U.S. special counsel Durham has secured an indictment against an attorney who represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, and that Michael Sussmann might have lied to the FBI about that meeting.

What are we to make of that? And that this Durham thing has been like waiting for Godot and get a read on where this case that was just up to its five-year max limit. What are you to make of that?

EIGLARSH: Well, the first thing is, I tell all of my clients in the past 30 years, don't lie to the feds.

At a minimum, they will get you on that. And so if that's what we're hearing is coming down the pike, then they will have to prove that the statements were false, and it was material, and it was done knowingly and intelligently and voluntarily. And that could potentially land somebody in federal prison.

CAVUTO: Now, the extent of this then goes back to whether people were deliberately misrepresenting connection, then spying on the Trump campaign at the time.

But could this be a hint of it being potentially much wider than that?

EIGLARSH: Of course.

Any time you have somebody arrested, especially in the federal arena, there are lots of cheese going around. There's a lot of cheese being offered. A lot of people look at what they're facing, and they want to take the cheese. They want to take whatever opportunity they have to work off their own time.

And so the first thing that agents want to know and federal prosecutors want to know is, well, how can you help us? How can you offer us substantial assistance? Many times, people say, look, I will do the time. And, oftentimes, they give up everyone they know who can assist in helping them with their own case by saying what they did wrong.

So, yes, some people have some concerns tonight.

CAVUTO: All right. We will watch it closely. I'm just sorry to throw that at you unprepared here.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But, obviously, you handled it quite well.

But, again, a jury now indicting Mr. Sussmann on this whole incident, and whether he in fact lied to the FBI, and how much further that spreads. We will keep an eye on that.

But, again, back to this Alex Murdaugh bizarre case that seems to expand with more questions than it does answers, I want to go to Ted Williams, the former D.C. homicide detective.

So much, Ted, doesn't add up about the case, even to the apparent paying of this individual to shoot and presumably kill Murdaugh. It was one of the more botched so-called assassination attempts, because he easily survived. I don't know how close he was when he pulled the trigger. But it didn't work out that way.

And this on top of the questions still unresolved over his wife and son's death and housekeeper's death some back and other principals having connections to him some years back, legal cases, more to the point. What do you make of it all?

TED WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, there's no doubt about it.

This is a made-for-television movie, but it's a very tragic movie that we are watching, Neil, in real time here. The first mystery here started with me last Saturday when it was reported that Alex Murdaugh was alongside the road, and that a person he talked had made a turn in the road and shot him and left him.

Now, there is a great deal of mystery here. Look, you want to die for $10 million that you want to give in an insurance policy to your son. Look, a killer normally is not just going to graze you. He's going to shoot you numerous times.

There's something very smelly here. It is my understanding that the shooter, Curtis Smith, alleged shooter, has confessed to the shooting, but there's a lot of smelly stuff going on around Alex Murdaugh. As you said, on June the 7th, he comes home and he finds his son Paul and his wife, Maggie, dead, and he reports this.

But what we have learned here is that Paul, who was found dead, had -- earlier, in 2015, had been involved in a motorboat death of a woman by the name of Mallory Beach. And Paul was going to go on trial.

So, just before he was going on trial, he's killed. Initially, individuals thought maybe that someone in Mallory Beach's orbit had killed Paul. And that may still be a possibility.

But what -- need to be found out here is -- and I don't know the answer -- is, was there an insurance policy on Maggie, and was there an insurance policy on Paul? Who was the beneficiary of that insurance policy? Or did the investigators do a complete investigation when they got to that scene?

And my rationale behind that is because Alex Murdaugh come from a very, very powerful South Carolina family. And, even today, when he was going in to turn himself in, he had a police escort. That tells me that there is a lot of moving parts in this case that we don't know at this stage.

We do know that Maggie and Paul, when they were shot, they were shot multiple times with two weapons. We know that one was a shotgun and one was a rifle. It is possible, just possible, that there were more than one individuals who shot those two people.

All of that is part of this investigation. And it's a very -- there are a lot of question marks, Neil, a lot of question marks.

CAVUTO: Yes, to put it mildly, my friend.

Thank you for that very much, Ted Williams, a former D.C. homicide detective, trying to make sense of this bizarre South Carolina case that is gripping not only South Carolina now, but much of the nation. A lot of people wonder, so much that doesn't add up.

We were updating you and just remind you again of a very important development. A grand jury that was worked with special counsel John Durham's office has now indeed handed up an indictment of Michael Sussmann, who prosecutors have accused of making false statements to the FBI.

This dates back to the 2016 presidential campaign. The indictment charges that Sussmann -- quote -- "lied about the capacity in which he was providing allegations to the FBI, potential cyber links between a Russian bank and a company owned by former President Donald Trump."

An attorney, a prominent law firm tied to the Democratic Party, Sussmann has been bracing for this possible indictment. And it has come. We will have more on this after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: This Durham investigation into the origins of who knew what and when in advising the FBI, talking to the FBI has finally come up with an indictment of lawyer Michael Sussmann, with -- the allegations are that he lied to the FBI during this 2016 presidential campaign, and specifically lied about the capacity in which he was providing allegations to the FBI, so essentially turning it around as a low-level issue where the FBI was the victim of the crime.

What is interesting here is that, prior to this, Sussmann and his lawyers were saying that a lot of this just didn't add up.

Now, this was a statement they made to The Washington Post prior to this indictment being handed down, that: "Michael Sussmann is a highly respected national security and cybersecurity lawyer who served the U.S. Department of Justice during Democratic and Republican administrations alike. Any prosecution here would be baseless, unprecedented and an unwarranted deviation from the apolitical and principled way in which the Department of Justice is supposed to do its work. We're confident that, if Mr. Sussmann is charged" -- and, by the way, he was -- "he will prevail at trial and vindicate his good name."

Now, in recent months, as The Washington Post and others have been reporting, Durham has been circling a little bit closer to the core of this by questioning witnesses about ties between the Trump Organization, the Alfa Bank, some of these other financial representatives that were also making their way to the FBI.

Durham was also examined about the authenticity of that data that was given. No one is saying whether he made up that data or gave false data, just that he misrepresented it to the FBI, which is another way of saying he lied.

David Spunt has a little bit more on this.

David, what can you tell us?

DAVID SPUNT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Neil, basically, the crux of this story is that you have somebody here that worked for the DNC, that worked for the Clinton campaign, went to the FBI on September 19 of 2016, almost exactly five years ago, sat down with the FBI, made some allegations about then-candidate Donald Trump, went ahead and said that there are some connections between Donald Trump himself and Russia and the Donald Trump campaign and Russia.

And John Durham, the special counsel is alleging that this attorney who you see right now on your screen, Michael Sussmann, did not disclose that he did prior work for the Hillary Clinton campaign and for the DNC, nearly was hired for the DNC to look into the allegations of having those DNC servers hacked in 2016 allegedly by Russia, but he didn't make that clear to the FBI agent.

This is according to John Durham, I spoke to somebody that works with Sussmann. They said that they have a little bit of a different story.

I also want to read -- we may not have it for the screen, but I can just read a statement from his attorney to me: "Mr. Sussmann has committed no crime. Any prosecution here would be baseless, unprecedented and unwarranted deviation from the apolitical and principled way in which the Department of Justice is supposed to do its work. We are confident that, if Mr. Sussmann is charged" -- this was sent a couple of hours ago he has been charged.

The attorney goes on to say: "He will prevail at trial and vindicate his good name."

Neil, this is also interesting because the John Durham investigation began in May of 2019. We didn't see the first charge until June of 2020. That was former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith. So that took almost a year to actually come forward with a charge in the special counsel investigation.

Clinesmith was accused of altering an e-mail that was used to obtain that foreign surveillance, that FISA warrant against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page to be able to surveil him. And then a little bit over a year now, 15 months or so later, we're seeing this charge now.

And John Durham, Neil, is incredibly close to the vest. People that have worked with him and know him, they say that he does not do things quickly. He's very meticulous. And he would not take a case to court unless he believes he would win that case -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Do you have any information, David, whether this goes beyond Mr. Sussmann? I mean, how far is this? Is this it from Durham?

PAVIA: No, I'm told that there is more of an investigation definitely that is taking place.

The reason that we're hearing about this now, I mentioned September 19, 2016. There's a five-year statute of limitations on making a false statement to the FBI. So the five-year anniversary of that alleged conversation -- I want to say alleged because we weren't there -- is coming up in just a few days.

So that's why Mr. Durham, special counsel Durham had to do this now. As far as other parts of an investigation, people in government or out of government, the special counsel has the backing of the attorney general. Merrick Garland, Neil, in his confirmation hearing said that he saw no reason to interfere with special counsel John Durham.

And it's pretty likely that he's going to be renewing the special counsel's budget to allow him to continue his work. So, by no means is this investigation over. This is just one part of it.

CAVUTO: All right, thank you very much for that, David Spunt.

To John Pavia now, who looks at these matters very, very closely.

John, legally, what does this mean going forward?

JOHN PAVIA, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: The first thing it means is, I think John Durham must have some solid evidence, I think, against Mr. Sussmann.

I know John. I'm not going to say we're best friends or that I know him that well, but he is just regarded as a man of impeccable integrity and someone who, as a career prosecutor, would not bring a case for any political reasons. He'd only bring a case forward if he could prove the elements of that crime.

And so that's the first thing. Second thing is obviously what the speedy -- I will call it the speedy trial element that's now come into play because of the five-year statute. He has to move forward and at least begin the process, which is the official charging document with the indictment. So it's no surprise that he's come forward now with the deadline looming.

But, also, the last thing it tells me, at least -- and you speculated about it with one of your questions -- is, there, I would think -- and this is where I don't know. And I know your last question on that report was, is there more there?

There could be. But, again, this could be it. This is -- could be all that he found. I doubt that. But my hunch is that there is more. But there's just no way of knowing with these things. And so a lot -- we're going to learn a lot more in the next couple of days, as some of the facts come out.

CAVUTO: John, a dumb question on my part, but just curious, what took so long here? This is like five years in the waiting.

PAVIA: Well, if there is more -- and this is where -- this is why I think -- if I had to bet, I would think there's more.

You don't want to come forward and show your hand as to what your strategy is with respect to a larger prosecution until you have got all your ducks in a row. In this case, he's up against a statute of limitations.

So, it probably forced his hand to actually go ahead and indict and file -- go forward with filing the indictment. Now, again, that's if there's more there. And that would be a reason to wait this long, because you -- again, once you start the process, if there are others involved, then it just makes your job harder, as if you're still trying to connect all the dots.

CAVUTO: So, John, the fact that Merrick Garland, the attorney general, did not interrupt or disrupt this case, what is the procedure there, John?

Would he be brought up to speed from Mr. Durham himself about, here's where I stand on this? Would he have to bounce that off the attorney general? Would the attorney general then just say, all right, proceed, or not know the details and just say, well, there's no reason for me to interrupt this or interfere with this?

How is that ultimately decided on the attorney general's part? Could he have stopped it or shut it down?

PAVIA: Well, could he have? Yes, I'm sure he could have.

Remember, we got rid of the independent counsel -- well, we let it expire many years ago after the -- after Ken Starr. So John has to be reappointed. And that report just said that there's every indication that he will be reappointed by Garland.

Now, in terms of what can be shared with Garland, as the attorney general, I think everything, unless there's some reason why there's a conflict. And it has to be more than just Garland was appointed by a Democrat president. It's got to be more than that.

And so unless there's some reason specifically where Garland is compromised in some way, maybe some association with the person who was indicted, with the law firm, whatever, but short of that, everything would be, I would think, shared with the attorney general.

And would he ever shut it down at this point? How could you? I mean, I think the answer is no. John's a career prosecutor. Merrick Garland has been -- he's been a judge and whatnot. So there's just -- I think that's highly unlikely that it gets shut down. I think it moves forward, and John Durham gets reappointed, and that his appointment gets extended.

CAVUTO: Got it.

John Pavia, thank you very much at last minute's notice. I do appreciate it.

Again, Michael Sussmann, whose firm, Perkins Coie, had previously represented the Democratic National Committee, indicted on making a false statement to the FBI when he had raised concerns over whether computer servers linked to the Trump Organization were in communications with a Russian bank.

He misrepresented himself to the FBI, which is a fancy way of saying he lied. And now he's in some hot water.

We shall see what happens -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm not out to punish anyone. I'm a capitalist.

If you can make a million or a billion dollars, that's great. God bless you. All I'm asking is, you pay your fair share. Pay your fair share.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: All right, for regular viewers of the show, you know this whole pay your fair share thing has been like a -- well, I guess I have been a dog with a bone on this.

I just don't know what fair share means, because it used to be when we were at 37 percent, the top rate, that was closer to fair share, because President Trump had just cut it. Now we're returning to 39.6 percent if the president has his way. That's maybe fair share. Apparently not.

And there's a surtax on capital gains. That brings it up a few more percentage points. That brings you up into the -- what, the low 40s as a top rate. Apparently, that's not fair share enough, so maybe a 3 percent tax on the super rich $5 million and over, that will do it. That will bring them up to close to 50 percent. Throw in states like New York and New Jersey and California that have their own surtaxes. Now you're well over 60 percent.

What is fair share? It's a moving target, isn't it?

Hillary Vaughn has been following that very argument here, because this is lopsidedly, this package, in favor of paying for it by going after the wealthy and corporations. And that's about it, right, Hillary?

HILLARY VAUGHN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Right, Neil.

And even Democrats in Congress, to your point, don't agree on what the exact definition of pay your fair share is. But one thing that President Biden does want to do is supersize the IRS to get more money from the very super, super rich.

But one of the ways that he would do that is by making everybody hand over more information to the IRS about how much money is going into their bank account, and how much money is going out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: The IRS can't see what they make and can't tell if they're cheating.

That isn't about raising their taxes. It is about the super wealthy finally beginning to pay what they owe, what the existing tax code calls for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUGHN: Here's a snapshot of what the IRS would look like under President Biden's plan compared to today.

Its workers would double. Its budget would balloon, going from a $12 billion annual budget right now to $80 billion in taxpayer cash spent over a decade. Democrats are celebrating a smorgasbord of new taxes that sailed through the House Ways and Means Committee, along with this extra cash for the IRS, as pay-fors for the final spending package, including taxes targeting big business, taxes on investment income, taxes on multimillionaires, taxes targeting retirement funds, even taxes on tobacco and cigarettes.

But White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain bragging to Wall Street titans yesterday at a conference in Manhattan, saying this: "We have found a way to pay for every part of the spending with taxes. The net cost of Build Back Better is zero."

But the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Kevin Brady, telling me today the math is off.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEVIN BRADY (R-TX): I think they are planning more tax hikes. I worry about on family-owned farms, on small businesses especially, I think, already get just hammered in this bill. I think they're in the target some more.

I think these tax hikes, we're going to fight to try to stop them first, to lower them, if we can't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUGHN: And, Neil, whether or not this is paid for it really comes down to what the final price tag is.

One estimate is that it could be as high as $5.5 trillion -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Well, that might get us closer to a fair share of what the rich should pay.

Thank you, Hillary, very, very much.

Mug's game here, but, on FOX Business, which, if you don't get, we -- you should demand it, we crunched the numbers and said, what -- what if you took all the money from the top 1 percent, just all of it, confiscate all of it, 100 percent? That certainly would be a fair share.

It wouldn't pay for this. It wouldn't come close to paying for all of this. Just throwing it out there.

Here's "The Five."

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.