Can justice be as elusive as the morning mist, disappearing before our eyes just when we think we've grasped it? This question hovers over the recent episode of the "Hidden Killers" podcast, where Tony Brueski engages in a thought-provoking conversation with Eric Bland, the attorney spearheading the charge against Alex Murdaugh on behalf of several victims, including the family of Gloria Satterfield and the mother of the late Stephen Smith. The discussion offers a glimpse into the potential for a retrial in the Murdaugh saga and the ever-evolving narrative that surrounds this complex case.
 
 Eric Bland, known for his staunch advocacy for the victims of Alex Murdaugh, provides an incisive update on the intricacies of the potential retrial. The conversation begins with a sharp critique of Murdaugh's courtroom behavior, particularly his 'correction' of the Satterfield family's statements during victim impact testimonies. "That was not the time or place to go, well, I mean, just obviously very disconnected," Bland remarked, shedding light on Murdaugh's apparent lack of empathy.
 
 As Brueski delves deeper, Bland touches on the curious case of Stephen Smith, whose tragic demise years ago still haunts his family. The case has seen "rumblings" of a connection to the Murdaughs, though no charges have ever been formally brought against them. However, the conversation takes a significant turn when discussing Gloria Satterfield, whose death narrative, long held as an accident caused by the family dogs, was questioned in a recent court admission by Murdaugh himself.
 
 "Isn't that the story when he made up the story? Wasn't that still the story that he's been sticking with all this time?" Brueski probes, seeking clarity on Murdaugh's statement that seemed to suggest an alternate version of events leading to Satterfield's death. Bland's response indicates a disconcerting possibility that Murdaugh's recent courtroom narrative may be an intentional deviation from his previous statements, casting further shadows of doubt on his credibility.
 
 The discussion shifts to the broader implications of a retrial, hinging on an evidentiary hearing that may unravel due to potential jury tampering allegations against Becky Hill. Bland's portrayal of the jurors' stance is one of indignation and firm resolve to protect their verdict, a direct refutation of the manipulation they are accused of succumbing to. "These are some very smart people," Bland asserts, emphasizing the jurors' commitment to justice as they served in the high-profile case.
 
 Bland expresses initial confidence that a retrial would not be granted solely on the basis of jury tampering claims. However, the conversation takes a darker turn as he brings up the recent ethical charges against Becky Hill and the wiretapping allegations involving her son. These developments, according to Bland, could undermine Hill's credibility and, by extension, impact the proceedings of a potential retrial.
 
 Brueski and Bland traverse the murky waters of legal proceedings and the complex human emotions intertwined with them. As Bland narrates the emotional toll on the Satterfield family and the ongoing search for answers in Stephen Smith's murder, the podcast serves as a reminder of the human cost of legal battles.
 
 In the closing moments, Bland articulates a poignant sense of urgency for the truth. "Sandy doesn't want blood," he says, referring to Stephen Smith's mother. "She's not looking for somebody to be convicted of murder, which she's looking for answers." It's a powerful testament to a mother's relentless pursuit of justice for her son, a quest that has endured agonizingly since 2015.
 
 The article concludes by leaving readers with a haunting thought: As new evidence surfaces and the potential for a retrial looms, will the hidden human condition, with all its complexities and contradictions, finally yield the clarity and resolution these families seek? Or will the mists of justice recede once