Welcome back to the Dershow ever since Alex Murrow was convicted of murdering his wife

and son.

I would say dozens of people ask me the same question people come up to me on the street

in restaurants.

How would you have defended him?

Could you have gotten him off?

The answer to the second is probably not.

I did participate in the trial in the acquittal of O.J. Simpson.

Again, soon the evidence was overwhelming.

But as you'll hear later in this discussion, we didn't win the O.J. Simpson case.

The prosecutors lost it.

They blew it in every possible way.

But as to the first question, how would I have defended Murdock exactly the same way we

defended O.J. Simpson?

Never would have put him on the witness stand.

Would have introduced no witnesses whatsoever except for distinguished scientists, forensic

scientists presented the narrowest, technical, scientific case, simply challenging all the

states, forensic evidence, the Snapchat, the cell phone evidence, whereabouts, the bullets.

That would have left a lot of unanswered questions.

But that's the role of the defense attorney to create unanswered questions.

Once he took the witness stand, he had an obligation to answer all the questions he had

to admit that he was at the kennels, having previously denied it.

...