Speaker 1: Mother Knows Death Presents External Exams with Nicole and Jimmy.
Speaker 2: Hi, everyone, welcome to this week's External Exam. So we've
Speaker 2: been covering a bunch of stories on the news since
Speaker 2: we started Mother Knows Death, and we always have crime
Speaker 2: stories that involve things that have to do with bail
Speaker 2: and charges that are filed and jail time and things
Speaker 2: that Maria and I always question what does this mean?
Speaker 2: And now I thought it would be perfect if we
Speaker 2: interview an attorney who specializes in this. So we have
Speaker 2: a criminal defense attorney this week. Please welcome Allison treesal Hi.
Speaker 3: Hi, nice to speak to you. It's exciting, I know.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for being here. We're so excited
Speaker 2: to talk to you today. Allison has been a criminal
Speaker 2: defense attorney for twenty five years and has represented over
Speaker 2: one thousand clients who were charged with committing serious crimes.
Speaker 2: She is also a legal correspondent for Access Hollywood and
Speaker 2: has provided legal commentary numerous times for multiple news stations.
Speaker 2: So you are a pretty big deal in this world.
Speaker 2: So thanks so much for being on my little show today.
Speaker 3: It is my pleasure and I think it's great. I
Speaker 3: think it's great that you guys are covering it.
Speaker 2: So we're going to start off with the basics, because
Speaker 2: I really have no idea what lawyers do. Luckily, I've
Speaker 2: never been charged with a serious crime, so I guess
Speaker 2: that's a good thing. But can you tell us exactly
Speaker 2: what a criminal defense attorney is.
Speaker 3: So it's an interesting job because normally people come to
Speaker 3: me at the lowest point in their life and they
Speaker 3: have had some contact with the criminal justice system, usually
Speaker 3: law enforcement, and and they're either in custody, they've been arrested,
Speaker 3: or they're about to be arrested, and I meet with them,
Speaker 3: we walk through what it is that they've been charged with,
Speaker 3: either in custody, you're out of custody. I practice both
Speaker 3: federally and in California, so I handle cases anywhere from
Speaker 3: a dui all the way to a murder case. And
Speaker 3: you know, they're afraid. For the most part, they're afraid.
Speaker 3: I everything they say to me, everything that they say
Speaker 3: to their criminal defense attorney, has to be kept confidential.
Speaker 3: A lot of people will ask the question, well what
Speaker 3: if you know? What if you know the truth? Well,
Speaker 3: it's so much better for me if I know what
Speaker 3: actually happened, because then I know how to best defend them.
Speaker 3: So if they're lying to me and I learn about
Speaker 3: it for the first time from the judge or the prosecutor,
Speaker 3: we're in a pretty bad place. Unlike public deface, public
Speaker 3: defenders are assigned to a person that's unable to pay
Speaker 3: for a private attorney. I get paid ahead of time,
Speaker 3: and one of the benefits is that when you meet
Speaker 3: your public defender, you're normally meeting them as you're going
Speaker 3: into court or while you're in custody. Most times I
Speaker 3: get to meet someone before they go into the courtroom,
Speaker 3: so I can explain the process to them. I can
Speaker 3: reach out to the prosecutor beforehand, get an idea of
Speaker 3: what kind of evidence they have against them, and if
Speaker 3: there's anything we can do pre filing. For the most part,
Speaker 3: you will not be able to convince a prosecutor not
Speaker 3: to file a case, but you show up in court,
Speaker 3: you generally enter a plea of not guilty. Our system
Speaker 3: is set up that all defendants are presumed not guilty
Speaker 3: until proven otherwise. And it's interesting because it's not a
Speaker 3: it's it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3: So in our justice system, when people say, well are
Speaker 3: they guilty. It doesn't necessarily work that way. It has
Speaker 3: the prosecutor met their burden beyond a reasonable doubt. So
Speaker 3: we can't rely on speculation or or it seems like
Speaker 3: it's they possibly could be guilty. No, they have to
Speaker 3: have an abiding conviction that this person did the crime
Speaker 3: that they are accused of doing, and they don't have
Speaker 3: any reasonable legal defense to the charge.
Speaker 2: Now you said that they you really want them to
Speaker 2: tell you the truth, and that it's kind of the
Speaker 2: same thing with a with a psychiatrist or a psychologist,
Speaker 2: that they'll that you could tell them things and they're
Speaker 2: supposed to keep it confidential, except in certain situations they
Speaker 2: have to report certain things that their clients tell them.
Speaker 2: So does that ever work in your case if one
Speaker 2: of your clients tells you something super serious that you
Speaker 2: would have to report it to someone or it's always confidential.
Speaker 3: Well, for the most part, it's always confidential unless they're
Speaker 3: talking about an ongoing crime or they intend to commit
Speaker 3: a crime. Obviously I cannot I cannot hide from the
Speaker 3: prosecutor that they intend to kill somebody. I of course
Speaker 3: dissuade them of that idea, but I do have some
Speaker 3: duty to disclose acts that will be committed in the future,
Speaker 3: but in terms of the actual commission of the crime,
Speaker 3: what their level of involvement is, I am duty bound
Speaker 3: not to share that information.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's really interesting to know. So, Mike, before we
Speaker 2: start getting into all the cases that we've been talking
Speaker 2: about in the news, I want to get to know
Speaker 2: a little bit about you and just how you became
Speaker 2: decided you wanted to become a lawyer when you were
Speaker 2: a child, Did you always want to be a lawyer,
Speaker 2: and how you found out about this field and how
Speaker 2: you got into it.
Speaker 3: Sure. So, my dad was a psychiatrist and his clientele
Speaker 3: mainly consisted of people that were drug addicted and obviously
Speaker 3: the mentally ill and in some cases gravely mentally ill,
Speaker 3: and so there has always been a level of compassion
Speaker 3: for people that suffered from addiction. And in my practice,
Speaker 3: although I handle very serious cases along with drug related
Speaker 3: and DUIs, for the most part, the percentage of people
Speaker 3: that I represent was some type of either drug addiction,
Speaker 3: alcohol addiction, or mental illness ranges an upward of eighty
Speaker 3: percent of the cases that I ham, so I have
Speaker 3: I have a real compassionate side for those that are
Speaker 3: struggling with addiction. So I didn't want to go to
Speaker 3: medical school. I enjoy talking to people, and I always
Speaker 3: found criminal defense fascinating. So I knew that the only
Speaker 3: reason I was going to go to law school was
Speaker 3: to practice criminal defense. I started working. I opened up
Speaker 3: a phone book. I came home from college my freshman year,
Speaker 3: and my mother said, you have to get a job.
Speaker 3: You're not sitting home all summer. You got to open up.
Speaker 3: You got to get a job. So at the time,
Speaker 3: we had the Yellow Book, we had phone books, and
Speaker 3: so I opened up pages under criminal attorneys, and I
Speaker 3: saw a picture of a hand in handcuffs, and I
Speaker 3: called that attorney and I said, look, I don't need
Speaker 3: to make any money this summer. I just want to learn.
Speaker 3: And I ended up working for him for years while
Speaker 3: I was in college, while I was in law school.
Speaker 3: Once I graduated from law school, and I helped prepare
Speaker 3: him for trials. I worked on murder cases with him,
Speaker 3: I attended court appearances with him. And so I think
Speaker 3: it's always been something that I've loved. It's always been
Speaker 3: my passion, and it's kind of stayed with me, and
Speaker 3: it has branched out how I do legal commentary for
Speaker 3: TV and I comment on constitutional issues related to the law.
Speaker 3: But it's something that I've always loved doing. I've always
Speaker 3: had a passion for and I believe I've always believed
Speaker 3: that someone has the right to be defended. Our criminal
Speaker 3: justice system only works when there's two sides. When someone
Speaker 3: is defended and when a person a prosecutor, a judge,
Speaker 3: a jury gets to hear their side of the story.
Speaker 3: Cases are complicated. It's never a one size fits all,
Speaker 3: and all the fans are different, and their stories are different,
Speaker 3: and the levels of mitigation are different. So the fact
Speaker 3: that I've been able to be their spokesperson for almost
Speaker 3: thirty years has been a real blessing for me, and
Speaker 3: I've enjoyed it so much. I represented all walks of life.
Speaker 3: I've represented wealthy people, poor people, every kind of you know,
Speaker 3: every demographic, any religion, and so every day is sort
Speaker 3: of a new experience for me, and I go in
Speaker 3: with the attitude of the prosecutors got to prove their case,
Speaker 3: but also I need to do something to help this
Speaker 3: person so that they do not return to the criminal
Speaker 3: justice system.
Speaker 2: Have you ever had a situation where someone has told
Speaker 2: you their crime, and you thought to yourself, well, this
Speaker 2: is really messed up, and like having a moral issue
Speaker 2: within yourself to think, can I really represent this person?
Speaker 2: They just did something completely heinous and I just there
Speaker 2: may be mental illness isn't involved with it, and they're
Speaker 2: just kind of pure evil. And have you ever had
Speaker 2: that kind of moral back and forth with yourself over
Speaker 2: certain cases?
Speaker 3: I have, and I have been lucky enough to own
Speaker 3: my own practice, so I get to pick and choose
Speaker 3: the cases that I want, which is a little bit
Speaker 3: different than when you work for the public Defender's office.
Speaker 3: So years ago, I had a case where it was
Speaker 3: a sex trafficking case involving minor children. The man was
Speaker 3: a professor and it was a sex ring out of Thailand,
Speaker 3: and the family offered me thousands and hundreds of thousands
Speaker 3: of dollars, which is a lot of money, and I
Speaker 3: just I could not represent him. I could not represent
Speaker 3: him because I believe that he deserved better than the
Speaker 3: defense I could, because I was so morally offended that
Speaker 3: I turned the case down. I've also had a case
Speaker 3: where I represented a cannibal and it was a similar situation.
Speaker 3: I was getting threats from community members. I had young
Speaker 3: children at the time, and again I thought that he
Speaker 3: deserved better than I could give him because I was afraid.
Speaker 3: And you can never represent someone and be afraid to
Speaker 3: represent them, so I turned that case down. So I
Speaker 3: have had occasions where, frankly, I had a woman came
Speaker 3: out into her office and her child would wet the
Speaker 3: bed and she would take the rod to use to
Speaker 3: open and close the blinds, and she beat her child
Speaker 3: with it. And I was so horrified by it because
Speaker 3: I was at a stage in my life where I
Speaker 3: was potty training my children, and I felt that, you know,
Speaker 3: in those cases, you give them love and support and
Speaker 3: not physical violence. So I frankly said to her, I'm
Speaker 3: too busy to represent you. I wish you the very best,
Speaker 3: but I'm not your person. So, yes, those situations do
Speaker 3: come up, and I have to ask myself, can I
Speaker 3: live with myself if I'm handling this case and representing them,
Speaker 3: and do well I give them the representation that they deserve,
Speaker 3: and if the answers know, then I decline. But on
Speaker 3: the other hand, I recently represented a woman who was
Speaker 3: accused of killing her two children, and I was absolutely
Speaker 3: convinced that she suffered from postpartum psychosis, which is an extreme,
Speaker 3: extreme form of postpartum depression. And she was somebody that
Speaker 3: I believed, and thankfully sort of the prosecutor and the
Speaker 3: judge that she was not guilty by reason of insanity
Speaker 3: and that she needed treatment and not prison. And so
Speaker 3: that is ultimately what happened in that case, and that's
Speaker 3: one of the cases that I'm most proud of.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's actually another case of that going on right now.
Speaker 2: I'm sure you heard of it, that a woman killed
Speaker 2: her three children recently, and she was a nurse, and
Speaker 2: she was on all this psychiatric medication, and they're trying
Speaker 2: to say that she pre planned the children's murder. She
Speaker 2: tried to jump out of a window and kill herself
Speaker 2: actually after she killed the three kids. And when I
Speaker 2: heard the list of medications that she was on and
Speaker 2: the help that she was trying to get, and just
Speaker 2: friends of hers showing pictures of her working in the hospital,
Speaker 2: being a nurse and a seemingly normal minded person, it's
Speaker 2: really upsetting. And I hope that someone like you can
Speaker 2: help her not get in trouble for this, because I'm
Speaker 2: sure she already feels completely terrible that this happened, and
Speaker 2: being on all that medication, it's kind of not her fault,
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 3: Look, in my case, this woman still wants to kill herself.
Speaker 3: She was accused of poisoning her two children. One was
Speaker 3: an infant, and she took the poison herself, and she
Speaker 3: had repeatedly reached out for help. She went to go
Speaker 3: see a practitioner who did not recognize postpartum depression and
Speaker 3: psychosis sent her home. And this is someone that should
Speaker 3: have been hospitalized. So we thankfully had a long documented history.
Speaker 3: And this is someone who had done everything she could
Speaker 3: too have a child. She wanted this child, she wanted
Speaker 3: to love this child, and unfortunately, her depression and her
Speaker 3: delusions and her postpartum was so crippling that she would
Speaker 3: spend hours and hours just walking in circle. She had
Speaker 3: scratched much of the skin off of her arms. And
Speaker 3: so this was, in my mind, somebody that did not
Speaker 3: believe in did not belong in prison. She believed she
Speaker 3: belonged in a state psychiatric facility. And to this day
Speaker 3: she has to live. Even if she her sanity is restored,
Speaker 3: she then has to deal with the trauma of killing
Speaker 3: both of her children, So it's cases like that. And
Speaker 3: also I've represented people who were factually innocent, so I
Speaker 3: like to believe that there are certain instances, but for
Speaker 3: my representation, they would be innocent people who were spending
Speaker 3: all arrest of their life in prison. So for those reasons,
Speaker 3: I feel very good about what I do. I don't
Speaker 3: you know, there are cases that are harder than others
Speaker 3: and have caused a lot of pain to the victims.
Speaker 3: But for the most part, the stories that I'm told
Speaker 3: are just so traumatic and awful, and they've lived through
Speaker 3: such horror existence, and I try and get them the
Speaker 3: help they so desperately need.
Speaker 2: Yeah, sometimes you hear about these horrible things that even
Speaker 2: people murdering someone, but then when you hear about how
Speaker 2: they grew up, it's so terrible, even if they're in
Speaker 2: their fifties. You just feel so bad that a person
Speaker 2: was abused their whole life and treated that way, and
Speaker 2: whatever their history is, that you almost feel kind of
Speaker 2: bad that now this is the spot they ended up in,
Speaker 2: even though they're hurting someone else.
Speaker 3: Now, Yeah, I mean I recently covered and I'm sure
Speaker 3: you've covered it many times, the case of Gypsy Rose. Yes,
Speaker 3: because Gypsy was just released. And what was an interesting
Speaker 3: what was very interesting or my takeaway from that case
Speaker 3: was she killed her mother. She planned the murder. She
Speaker 3: even knows she wasn't the one holding the knife, She
Speaker 3: was instrumental in her killing. She however, however, she was
Speaker 3: living in prison before she ever went to prison, and
Speaker 3: why do believe that some punishment was justified? And she
Speaker 3: will say the best thing that ever happened to her,
Speaker 3: and actually the first time she ever felt free is
Speaker 3: when she was behind prison walls. The circumstances surrounding that
Speaker 3: murder were so horrific, and she did believe it was
Speaker 3: her only way out and what she had been put
Speaker 3: through and the trauma that she suffered at the hands
Speaker 3: of her mother is unfathomable, something that none of us
Speaker 3: would ever wish on our worst enemy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm actually surprised that she went to jail at autib.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is why I have questions, because I
Speaker 2: just look at it, like, I don't understand how every
Speaker 2: single person that listened to that case wasn't like, oh good,
Speaker 2: she should have killed her mom because that was terrible.
Speaker 3: You know, it's an interesting case and she was given
Speaker 3: the low term on a second degree murder, which was
Speaker 3: ten years, which is the absolute lowest you could receive.
Speaker 3: But it was a textbook definition of a murder case, right,
Speaker 3: it was intended, it was planned, she participated in it,
Speaker 3: and I did applaud the prosecutor for recognizing the circumstances
Speaker 3: and even know the prosecutor was very comfortable in trying
Speaker 3: a first degree case, meaning that they could prove all
Speaker 3: of the elements of first degree murder. They thought that
Speaker 3: the circumstances in mitigation warranted the lowest possible second degree sentence.
Speaker 2: When I was in PA school, I had to rotate
Speaker 2: at the medical Examiner's office for a couple of months,
Speaker 2: and during that time I was able to go to
Speaker 2: a court case for a homicide with the medical examiner
Speaker 2: who was testifying, which I thought it was kind of
Speaker 2: the coolest experience ever. It was like watching Law and
Speaker 2: Order but being there and it was really surreal, and
Speaker 2: that the way that the court case went down, it
Speaker 2: was like this guy had he had strangled, manually strangled
Speaker 2: his girlfriend to death, and I kept staring at him
Speaker 2: the whole time. I was in the courtroom thinking wow,
Speaker 2: like I know that this person murdered a person, and
Speaker 2: it kind of freaked me out just being in the
Speaker 2: same room with that person because I never experienced obviously
Speaker 2: I don't maybe I've crossed paths with a murderer before,
Speaker 2: but never have known it and been in the room
Speaker 2: with that person, and it scared me a little bit.
Speaker 2: So the first couple of times you met with one
Speaker 2: of your clients that had KIT that was accused at
Speaker 2: least of committing murder, did that ever scare you to
Speaker 2: be in the presence of that person or to be
Speaker 2: alone with that person just knowing what they were capable of.
Speaker 3: Well, it's interesting that you say that, because one of
Speaker 3: the things that burned I think my my passion for
Speaker 3: criminal defense. This is when I went to law. I
Speaker 3: went to undergraduate at Tulane, and one of the criminal
Speaker 3: justice classes that I took, we actually went on a
Speaker 3: field trip to Angola, which is a state prison that
Speaker 3: has a long history of executions, and we went on
Speaker 3: death row and I remember thinking, oh my god, these people,
Speaker 3: these men are going to spend the rest of their
Speaker 3: lives in these cells. And we walked by and I
Speaker 3: watched them and they were many devoid of emotion or feeling,
Speaker 3: and I was fascinated by it. And then I started
Speaker 3: to spend time in jail alone with inmates that were killed,
Speaker 3: that were accused of killing people. And I wouldn't say
Speaker 3: that I'm scared because most of them are handcuffed to
Speaker 3: something or we're talking through a glass. But I'm always
Speaker 3: amazed at how little insight most of them have to
Speaker 3: the heinousness or the finality of their actions. So while
Speaker 3: they're telling me their story, it's as if they've removed
Speaker 3: themselves from the event and they're speaking in the third
Speaker 3: person as to what happened. So that's always been something
Speaker 3: that's really fascinating to me. There have been other instances
Speaker 3: where I have been concerned. I've had some people show
Speaker 3: up at my home. At one point, I was representing
Speaker 3: the head of a fairly notorious gang and he threatened
Speaker 3: me and said, you know, if you don't get me out,
Speaker 3: I'm going to do X, Y and Z. And I
Speaker 3: said to him, look, buddy, I'm the wrong person for
Speaker 3: you to mess with. I'm the only thing that stands
Speaker 3: between you and freedom. Someday I probably wouldn't not threaten me.
Speaker 3: And once I took that position with him, we worked
Speaker 3: out just behe.
Speaker 2: That's that's scary. I mean, especially because you have children,
Speaker 2: so people you hear horror stories of stuff like that happening,
Speaker 2: that the person that you were representing ends up showing
Speaker 2: up at your house or something, and that's just scary,
Speaker 2: is it. So you've had to actually call the police
Speaker 2: on people for showing up at your house.
Speaker 3: I've had certain situations that involve the police. I had
Speaker 3: one in particular, by the way, who was actually led
Speaker 3: the police on a police chase to my home and
Speaker 3: he led them here because he wanted me to speak
Speaker 3: to the police on his behalf. So things happen. Things happen.
Speaker 3: And I and I do represent people who without drugs
Speaker 3: and alcohol or true schizophrenics. And I would say, of
Speaker 3: all mental illness, schizophrenia, unfortunately, to me, is one of
Speaker 3: the most sad because it's like being a prisoner in
Speaker 3: your own brain when you really can't control your thoughts.
Speaker 3: And it's for me, my experience has been it's generally
Speaker 3: younger men in between the ages of eighteen and twenty six,
Speaker 3: and they've lived seemingly normal enough lives and then you
Speaker 3: know they're diagnosed with schizophrenia and in their early adulthood.
Speaker 3: There are medications that help, but they they are resistant
Speaker 3: to taking the medication and that becomes a major problem
Speaker 3: because without it they really cannot function.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree with you totally. One time I found
Speaker 2: so I came across some video that said what does
Speaker 2: it sound like to be a schizophrenic and be hearing voices?
Speaker 2: And when I listened to it, I thought, wow, I
Speaker 2: can't imagine to hear it, because you know how you
Speaker 2: talk to yourself Sometimes you're like, is that what they hear?
Speaker 2: That kind of thing? And it no, it sounds like
Speaker 2: another like we're having a conversation right now, and if
Speaker 2: another person was talking a little bit louder over us
Speaker 2: to try to get me to hear and just hearing
Speaker 2: like all these opinions from all these different places, that
Speaker 2: that alone would just would just drive you crazy. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you see these people walking down the street. We were
Speaker 2: in New York the other day and the sky walked
Speaker 2: by us and was just completely having a conversation with himself, right,
Speaker 2: And I feel I agree with you. I feel so
Speaker 2: terrible for people that are that are dealing with that
Speaker 2: because they can't control it. And it's just.
Speaker 3: When I first started practicing, there was not the movement
Speaker 3: there is now for the mentally ill to get help,
Speaker 3: and I think that the shift has been has been
Speaker 3: a really positive one. You know, of course no system
Speaker 3: is perfect, but when you are addressing criminals who are
Speaker 3: mentally ill, if you can do something to help with
Speaker 3: their mental illness, if you can get them on medication
Speaker 3: and you get them so they're feeling better, they are
Speaker 3: much less likely to commit any crime.
Speaker 2: I have this big thing that I feel that way
Speaker 2: about mental health. And I think that if you could
Speaker 2: call and get an appointment as easy as you can
Speaker 2: with like a primary care doctor or something, to get
Speaker 2: mental health treatment, and it was covered by insurance and
Speaker 2: it was all treated the same way, I feel like
Speaker 2: there would be a ton less problems just in America alone.
Speaker 3: No doubt, no doubt in my mind, I mean no
Speaker 3: doubt in my mind. And you know, I'm somebody as
Speaker 3: a practitioner I can say there are too many people
Speaker 3: that I represent who have had undie knows untreated mental
Speaker 3: health issues for decades, for decades.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's a hard I've dealt with that too
Speaker 2: throughout my life. It's just like a horrible it's a
Speaker 2: horrible way to live too, if there's a way that
Speaker 2: you can get help for it.
Speaker 1: This episode is brought to you by The Gross Room.
Speaker 1: Do you want to explain for everybody the awesome work
Speaker 1: you do in there?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So the Grossroom is kind of it was kind
Speaker 2: of born because of the extreme censorship that I get
Speaker 2: on Instagram, and I made this blog that you can
Speaker 2: join and you could subscribe to, and I do post
Speaker 2: deeper dives into all of the news stories. So, for example,
Speaker 2: last week we talked about NFL player Michael Williams and
Speaker 2: his death, his untimely death at thirty six years old
Speaker 2: from a dental abscess. So I do a deeper dive
Speaker 2: into cases like that to show like what that would
Speaker 2: look at like at autopsy and kind of go to
Speaker 2: more details than we can get into on Instagram or
Speaker 2: the podcast, especially because some of them are autopsy pictures
Speaker 2: and stuff can be really graphic. And we also just
Speaker 2: do so many things, like I was telling you that
Speaker 2: the Southwest flight, we look at cases that a were
Speaker 2: kind of high profile, and we break it down and
Speaker 2: we show all of the photos that we can find
Speaker 2: from those cases, but also just what things might have
Speaker 2: looked like at autopsy when these people died. So I
Speaker 2: think it's a really educational website, but we also have
Speaker 2: a lot of fun. It's a great group of people.
Speaker 2: You could comment back and forth to each other. People
Speaker 2: have made friends on the Gross Room and we just
Speaker 2: love it. And there's posts every day, lots of content,
Speaker 2: lots of videos, audio. We do audio of a lot
Speaker 2: of things. And actually we were doing this podcast for
Speaker 2: like what a year before we started this public one,
Speaker 2: So if you're interested in the podcast too, you could
Speaker 2: go back and listen to all of the old episodes
Speaker 2: when me and Maria were first starting out with this
Speaker 2: and we're stuttering all the time. But yeah, it's it's cool,
Speaker 2: and it's an it's just like a nice it's a
Speaker 2: nice meeting place for people that like are into things
Speaker 2: that are a little bit weird but want to learn
Speaker 2: something too. It's it's it's awesome. I love it. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So especially we have fifty episodes before Mother Knows Death launch,
Speaker 1: you could tune into we read all of the high
Speaker 1: profile and celebrity death the sections on audio. Today. For example,
Speaker 1: I'll be adding a couple of pictures into this episode's
Speaker 1: post for more information, So make sure to visit thoughgrossroom
Speaker 1: dot com.
Speaker 2: And you can join for only five ninety nine a month,
Speaker 2: and if you hate it, then you could unjoined. But
Speaker 2: you know what, we have sales once in a while
Speaker 2: that you can join for only twenty dollars for the
Speaker 2: whole year, and most people that start month a month,
Speaker 2: they jump right on that because they just love it
Speaker 2: so much. So see you in the grossroom. All right,
Speaker 2: Let's get into some of the cases that I'm sure
Speaker 2: you've been covered on all of your news channels as well. First,
Speaker 2: let's talk about Scott Peterson that came out that came
Speaker 2: out this week that just for for anyone that's unaware
Speaker 2: of what's happening with that case he was he's saying
Speaker 2: that he was wrongfully convicted in two thousand and four
Speaker 2: for murdering his pregnant wife, Lacy Peterson, and she was
Speaker 2: almost full term pregnant, so I think that he got
Speaker 2: convicted of killing the unborn fetus as well. And that case,
Speaker 2: I was like really attached to that case because that
Speaker 2: was in my prime of being in school for all
Speaker 2: this stuff, and I just and it just you related
Speaker 2: to it just because it was a young pretty woman
Speaker 2: who was pregnant and seemingly happy marriage by all accounts,
Speaker 2: and she went missing, and it was it was crazy
Speaker 2: how it all went down. But I think that he
Speaker 2: was he was solely convicted on circumstantial evidence, right, Like
Speaker 2: he had been cheating on his wife, and he had
Speaker 2: told the woman he was cheating on her with that
Speaker 2: his wife had died previously, and I mean, no happily
Speaker 2: married man says that stuff, right, So that starts to
Speaker 2: make him look a little bit shady. And then I
Speaker 2: guess her body and his unborn son's body washed up
Speaker 2: right around where he goes fishing and stuff. So he
Speaker 2: got convicted. And the first time he was convicted and
Speaker 2: put they gave him the death penalty, and then they
Speaker 2: dropped I think in twenty twenty they dropped the death
Speaker 2: penalty and put it to life in prison. And now
Speaker 2: there's this group called the Los Angeles Innocent Project who's
Speaker 2: trying to get him free from jail because they're saying,
Speaker 2: I mean, he's been saying the whole time that he's
Speaker 2: been innocent. Right, based on what you know about this case,
Speaker 2: do you think that there's a potential that he can
Speaker 2: get out and that he is innocent? Or is it.
Speaker 3: So there's a few things that are very important to
Speaker 3: understand in this case. Just because the La Innocence Project
Speaker 3: or the Innocent Project the Nationwide Innocence Project, and those
Speaker 3: are two separate entities take a case of review, it
Speaker 3: doesn't necessarily mean that the person is innocent. Scott Petersen
Speaker 3: has always maintained his innocence. He's also claimed that because
Speaker 3: he was having an affair, because his alibi was shaky
Speaker 3: at best, they really the prosecution, the law enforcement and
Speaker 3: the prosecutors put blinders on and really only considered him
Speaker 3: as their prime suspect, and there were people that should
Speaker 3: have been interviewed. There was a burglary that occurred across
Speaker 3: the street, and so he has always said, look, you
Speaker 3: solely focused on me, and you neglected to follow any
Speaker 3: and other any other leads that could have found the killer.
Speaker 3: In terms of why the death penalty, why he was
Speaker 3: given life in prison or not the death penalty, was
Speaker 3: because one of the jurors did not fully disclose an
Speaker 3: area that was really a conflict of interest for her.
Speaker 3: So during va dayer, she did not disclose that she
Speaker 3: had taken out a restraining order against somebody and she
Speaker 3: was pregnant at the time, so the California Supreme Court
Speaker 3: reversed and although the conviction stood, he was converted to
Speaker 3: life in prison. With the invent of DNA testing, which
Speaker 3: has really become sort of the new frontier, and the
Speaker 3: Innocence Project as a whole, not just not just the
Speaker 3: Los Angeles Innocence Project has exonerated about two hundred and
Speaker 3: fifty seven people. Two of those exonerations was were based
Speaker 3: on DNA evidence that showed conclusively that it was somebody else.
Speaker 3: So the argument is there may be newly discovered evidence,
Speaker 3: i e. DNA evidence that will point in another direction.
Speaker 3: They have also claimed that his state and federal constitutional
Speaker 3: rights were violated and they really did not interview or
Speaker 3: follow up on many potential leads that could have sent
Speaker 3: them in a different direction. So the La Innocence Project
Speaker 3: has his appellate attorneys have filed a habeas petition on
Speaker 3: his behalf, and in conjunction with that, the La Innocence
Speaker 3: Project has also filed something saying that they will associate
Speaker 3: themselves into the case, which means that they will assist
Speaker 3: in his defense, and they have asked for a series
Speaker 3: of additional information, interviews, that may have been conducted at
Speaker 3: the time, and there's some claim that some of that
Speaker 3: evidence that was collected and should have been stored has
Speaker 3: now been destroyed. So they are asking the court for
Speaker 3: the prosecution to turn over all of that evidence and
Speaker 3: if they don't have that evidence to explain why they
Speaker 3: do not, as well as this new DNA evidence that
Speaker 3: they are testing.
Speaker 2: So is it common? Because I do, although I pretty
Speaker 2: much think that he did it, like just as my
Speaker 2: personal opinion, just because of how he was acting and stuff,
Speaker 2: and I'm sure that's why everybody else thought that as well,
Speaker 2: which is why he got convicted ultimately. But isn't it
Speaker 2: I do think it's kind of weird that they don't
Speaker 2: have any They didn't have any concrete evidence like linking
Speaker 2: him to that crime, and he was able to get
Speaker 2: the death penalty like it. It didn't seem like they
Speaker 2: had DNA or blood or anything.
Speaker 3: Circumstantial evidence is just as strong as a physical evidence,
Speaker 3: and you don't need a confession. So once there are
Speaker 3: two phases in a trial in California, there's the guilt
Speaker 3: phase and then there's the sentencing phase. Once guilt has
Speaker 3: been established, the phase that focuses on sentencing, whether you
Speaker 3: get life in prison without the possibility of parole, which
Speaker 3: we call elwomp, or the death penalty does not re
Speaker 3: litigate the circumstances of the conviction. It talks about and
Speaker 3: it focuses on the person's childhood in mitigation, did they
Speaker 3: suffer trauma, and then the circumstances in aggravation, and the
Speaker 3: circumstances in aggravation after they determined his guilt. Right, so
Speaker 3: you can no longer focus on whether or not he
Speaker 3: was guilty or the strength or weaknesses of their case.
Speaker 3: You're now talking about the methods by which the person
Speaker 3: was killed, and the fact that she was with child
Speaker 3: and she was about to give birth was a factor
Speaker 3: in aggravation. The lying in wait, the planning of it,
Speaker 3: the heinous nature of it. All of those things were
Speaker 3: used by the jury to determine whether or not he
Speaker 3: should have been given the death penalty. So it's not
Speaker 3: something where you are allowed to sort of look back
Speaker 3: and say, well, it was only based on circumstantial evidence,
Speaker 3: because in a court of law, circumstantial evidence is just
Speaker 3: as strong as physical evidence in terms of a burden
Speaker 3: of proof.
Speaker 2: Interesting, Okay, we're going to talk about another case. This
Speaker 2: one happened a long time ago but is still ongoing,
Speaker 2: The butcher of Bella Rose. I don't know if you're
Speaker 2: familiar with that case, but this happened in We talked
Speaker 2: about this on other knows that this started. In nineteen
Speaker 2: sixty eight, a teenage boy named Vincent DeRosa kidnapped and
Speaker 2: murdered a four year old girl and stuffed her beaten
Speaker 2: body in a suitcase, and it was she was missing.
Speaker 2: They thought she was kidnapped, and then he admitted that
Speaker 2: he killed her and put her in the attic or
Speaker 2: in his addict in the suitcase. There was no actual
Speaker 2: evidence or that he didn't They didn't have to find
Speaker 2: any evidence. But there was no evidence of sexual assault.
Speaker 2: So I don't really know why. He never really said
Speaker 2: why he did it, because she apparently she was sitting
Speaker 2: on the stoop with her mom, and her mom went
Speaker 2: in the house to go to the bathroom and left
Speaker 2: the kid outside for a couple of minutes, and he
Speaker 2: just did that, and he was he was a teenager though,
Speaker 2: so he was charged with manslaughter, served sometime in prison,
Speaker 2: and was released in nineteen seventy five, when he was
Speaker 2: twenty three years old. And then in nineteen eighty three,
Speaker 2: he was drinking with any eighteen year old exchange student
Speaker 2: who went missing, and that later on his bones were
Speaker 2: found in the garden of de Roses house. His brother
Speaker 2: actually found them when he was gardening. So he got
Speaker 2: sentenced to twenty five years to life for in prison
Speaker 2: for that murder. And since then he served thirty five years.
Speaker 2: And now the guy's seventy two years old and he's
Speaker 2: getting released from prison again. So there's a lot going
Speaker 2: on with this story. But I guess the first thing
Speaker 2: is like, what's the difference with the with murder charges?
Speaker 2: You hear first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter? What
Speaker 2: are what do all those terms mean?
Speaker 3: Okay, so I think it's important to understand that in
Speaker 3: a murder charge, right, that there's an issue of especially
Speaker 3: first degree murder is premeditation, but an intent to kill,
Speaker 3: So there is an intent to kill. There's some subsets
Speaker 3: of second degree murder where your actions our sex that
Speaker 3: you have a willful you have a knowing and willful
Speaker 3: disregard for human life. But when he was a juvenile,
Speaker 3: and remember this is many many years ago, I consulted
Speaker 3: with a friend of mine who practices criminal defense in York,
Speaker 3: and he said, look, the laws have changed substantially since
Speaker 3: the seventies, so at the time and if you're tried
Speaker 3: as a juvenile, if you're tried as a juvenile, there
Speaker 3: is an age for which you must be released, no
Speaker 3: matter what the crime that you caused, that you committed.
Speaker 3: In California, it's essentially twenty five years old. So if
Speaker 3: you commit a crime when you're sixteen, you can be
Speaker 3: held up to age twenty five. And in that case
Speaker 3: he served. He served seven years on his sentence. He
Speaker 3: was sixteen. I believe at the time of the crime
Speaker 3: manslaughter is is that you are pleading to something where
Speaker 3: it was not an intentional killing. So you cause enough,
Speaker 3: you cause sufficient harm to result in the death, but
Speaker 3: you did not intention You did not intend to kill
Speaker 3: that person.
Speaker 2: Okay, So that makes sense, I guess because he had said,
Speaker 2: I don't know exactly why he took the child, which
Speaker 2: is alarming to me. Why would why did you even
Speaker 2: take her? Kidnap her? But he did say that she
Speaker 2: wasn't she wasn't being quiet, so he stuffed a socker
Speaker 2: or something in her mouth. So maybe that's.
Speaker 3: So that would that would be that would be an
Speaker 3: explanation that he did not intend to kill her. It's
Speaker 3: an unlawful killing, but without the intent to kill, okay,
Speaker 3: So so that would explain a manslaughter charge. As to
Speaker 3: the second charge, it's a very interest And again the
Speaker 3: laws are different now. But when you are given an
Speaker 3: indeterminative sentence, you must serve twenty five years. So if
Speaker 3: you're given a twenty five year to life sentence, you're
Speaker 3: then eligible for parole after you serve the twenty five
Speaker 3: year sence. New York now requires that you serve at
Speaker 3: least eighty five percent of the sentence before you're released.
Speaker 3: When he was released or now the parole board has
Speaker 3: determined that he is fit to be released. They generally
Speaker 3: look at your behavior while you've been in custody, how
Speaker 3: long you've served, your age now, your health, and what
Speaker 3: is the probability of recidivism. Now, what's interesting here is
Speaker 3: that the family claims that they were not given prior
Speaker 3: notice of his release and that they really didn't have
Speaker 3: the opportunity to object to be him being released. So
Speaker 3: although he's going to be in his seventies when released,
Speaker 3: in a lot of states under these type of circumstances,
Speaker 3: they may be held a lot longer than twenty five years,
Speaker 3: specifically in California. If you're given an indeterminative sentence, the
Speaker 3: likelihood that your paroled is relatively low. You do serve
Speaker 3: much more than the base term of the twenty five years.
Speaker 2: That's good to know because I'm just thinking, for well,
Speaker 2: so the child that got kidnapped and murdered her brother
Speaker 2: is still alive, and it's terrible that the family has
Speaker 2: to go through this and know that this guy is
Speaker 2: walking around yet again. But it's good to know that
Speaker 2: this is kind of a rare thing that it doesn't
Speaker 2: happen as much that you would have a person that
Speaker 2: killed two people that's walking around on the street. Now,
Speaker 2: it's just scary for me, even just or any person.
Speaker 3: And I think the fact that this is making headlines
Speaker 3: and that there's a spotlight on this case, attention needs
Speaker 3: to be brought to the fact this is somebody who
Speaker 3: has proven not once but twice their ability and willingness
Speaker 3: to kill people. So and there's no doubt that when
Speaker 3: he's released, it's not as though he's released and freed,
Speaker 3: he is released and placed on parole. There will be
Speaker 3: somebody monitoring it. There are conditions of parole. If you
Speaker 3: violate those, they return back to prison. But here a
Speaker 3: parole bird determined that he had served thirty five years
Speaker 3: of a twenty five year life to sentence, that he
Speaker 3: must have he must have his conduct must have been appropriate,
Speaker 3: that he didn't have a lot of violations or write ups,
Speaker 3: that he probably took some classes while he was incarcerated,
Speaker 3: and they felt that he had served sufficient amount of time.
Speaker 3: That does not bring relief and satisfaction to most victims' families,
Speaker 3: and so I'm sure this case will be highly scrutinized.
Speaker 3: I'm sure that the parole board had a detailed explanation
Speaker 3: as to why they believed he should be released. But
Speaker 3: in my experience, this is the anomaly. This is not
Speaker 3: common course.
Speaker 2: Okay, because that was one of my questions. I'm just
Speaker 2: thinking about the Lacy Peterson case. Like I told you,
Speaker 2: I was really attached to it, and I just remember,
Speaker 2: I'll never forget her mom on the news crying about
Speaker 2: her daughter getting murdered and how chilling that was to
Speaker 2: hear her, and then thinking about Okay, so at least
Speaker 2: she got the satisfaction that the person that she believed
Speaker 2: killed her daughter was getting the death penalty, and then
Speaker 2: she had to go through years later of it getting dropped,
Speaker 2: and now she's hearing this. It almost makes me feel
Speaker 2: that even if a sentence is given to someone, there's no,
Speaker 2: it's not always permanent. Like that's what I would have thought,
Speaker 2: that it was permanent that was happening. And it feels
Speaker 2: like victims' families kind of continuously get revictimized. I mean,
Speaker 2: think about even this guy's sister that was killed in
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty eight, it's twenty twenty four and he's still
Speaker 2: getting victimized by this guy. It's just really sad, right, I.
Speaker 3: Mean, in many of these cases, they have to relive
Speaker 3: the story over and over again. But in our system,
Speaker 3: they do have parole and people are entitled to a
Speaker 3: parole hearing. And on the flip side of that, there
Speaker 3: are people who have made such great rehabilitative steps while
Speaker 3: they've been incarcerated that keeping them there in debt definitely
Speaker 3: would also be injust And I'm thinking about Leslie van Houghton,
Speaker 3: I'm thinking about the Manson case. Oh yeah, that has
Speaker 3: been very, very controversial to people for many years, and
Speaker 3: she had been repeatedly denied parole over and over again,
Speaker 3: despite the fact that she was a modern parole for,
Speaker 3: you know, for decades and decades. And so there were
Speaker 3: people that came out on both sides that said, you know,
Speaker 3: she is rehabilitated, she should be allowed to walk free.
Speaker 3: And then you have Sharon Tate's sister who said, my
Speaker 3: sister will never ever again be able to walk free.
Speaker 3: She you know, the but for her criminal actions. I
Speaker 3: don't care how old she was at the time. We
Speaker 3: will never see my you know, our loved one again.
Speaker 3: So there are arguments on both sides. One of the
Speaker 3: things that is happening is some of these cases where
Speaker 3: people were convicted as a juvenile in a in a
Speaker 3: gang related case, or or where they were a conspirator
Speaker 3: but they weren't the shooter and they were juveniles. Some
Speaker 3: of those cases are getting revisited because the the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court has ruled that it's cruel and unusual punishment for
Speaker 3: a juvenile to get the death penalty. And they're also
Speaker 3: revisiting these cases where women shot their abusive spouse and
Speaker 3: after years and years of abuse, they they shot them,
Speaker 3: and they're they're reconsidering those cases and releasing some of
Speaker 3: those women because under today's standards they may have been
Speaker 3: able to use a self defense argument or a battered
Speaker 3: woman syndrome argument.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I hate to think that people are sitting in
Speaker 2: jail that, like, especially a woman that would be an
Speaker 2: abuse by her husband. I feel that way that they shouldn't.
Speaker 2: They shouldn't be in jail. It's just continuing the abuse
Speaker 2: in a sense. It's just not fair to them. So
Speaker 2: I'm glad that they are revisiting some cases like that.
Speaker 2: So on your gig on Access Hollywood, which is super
Speaker 2: cool by the way, I'm sure you talked about Alec
Speaker 2: Baldwin case because that's all the rage with the Hollywood. Now,
Speaker 2: what are your thoughts on that. I have a couple
Speaker 2: questions because I think this happened in October twenty twenty one,
Speaker 2: and right away they said that he was going to
Speaker 2: get charged with the manslaughter charge. I think he actually
Speaker 2: did get charged with it, and then they drop the
Speaker 2: charges because they weren't able to determine exactly if the
Speaker 2: gun was malfunctioning or not. And now they're saying that
Speaker 2: new evidence has come to late and they said that
Speaker 2: a grand jury has decided that they were indicting him.
Speaker 2: What are all those words mean?
Speaker 3: Okay, Now this is a very interesting case, right. So
Speaker 3: initially a special prosecutor was assigned to the case, and
Speaker 3: the charges that were filed were not in existence at
Speaker 3: the time that the act was committed, so you have
Speaker 3: to so one of the one of the initial attacks
Speaker 3: from the defense was one that was a legal one,
Speaker 3: which was, you cannot charge someone with a crime that
Speaker 3: wasn't in existence at the time. Okay. There also was
Speaker 3: a question of the special prosecutor posing a conflict of
Speaker 3: interest because she was, I believe involved in some political position.
Speaker 3: So on those basises, the charges were dismissed. As to
Speaker 3: Alec Baldwin, a grand jury was the unless a case
Speaker 3: has been adjudicated by the by jury and the person
Speaker 3: is found not guilty, double jeopardy does not apply. So
Speaker 3: even though they dismissed, they dismissed without prejudice, meaning that
Speaker 3: they could refile the case at a later date. A
Speaker 3: grand jury was convened and this grand jury found at
Speaker 3: least eight members had to agree that Alec Baldwin should,
Speaker 3: in fact sheate face charges of involuntary manslaughter. And what's
Speaker 3: interesting here is. If convicted, he faces a maximum of
Speaker 3: eighteen months in prison. Is that Alec Baldwin has always
Speaker 3: maintained that he never pulled the trigger. So not only
Speaker 3: did he was he not in charge of the firearms.
Speaker 3: Not only did he was he told repeatedly that there
Speaker 3: were no live rounds on set. Not only was he
Speaker 3: not he wasn't the one who loaded the firearm. He's saying,
Speaker 3: I didn't even pull the trigger. So they then have
Speaker 3: a new ballistics expert go and retest the gun, but
Speaker 3: in order to do that, they had to disassemble the gun.
Speaker 3: And this person has opined that there must have been
Speaker 3: at least two pounds of pressure on the trigger and
Speaker 3: therefore he must have pulled the trigger, and on that
Speaker 3: basis they have filed this case against him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I mean, of course he did. He's not
Speaker 2: going to say. I just keep saying like he's going
Speaker 2: to say whatever he could say to cover his ass.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's I'm sure he feels terrible about it.
Speaker 2: But do you do you think that he will actually
Speaker 2: serve this eighteen months in prison if he ever, if
Speaker 2: he ever really gets convicted, do you think that that
Speaker 2: would actually happen?
Speaker 3: If he gets convicted, I do not believe that he
Speaker 3: will serve any time. I think he'll be placed on probation.
Speaker 3: He has no criminal history, and given the facts of
Speaker 3: the case, this is certainly not an intentional or wilful act.
Speaker 3: Was it a reckless act?
Speaker 1: Maybe?
Speaker 3: I think that there'll be a battle of the experts
Speaker 3: and what's common in the community and was this in
Speaker 3: fact reckless or was there a wilful disregard for human life.
Speaker 3: We have to remember that there were concerns about the
Speaker 3: safety on the set. We also know that these guns
Speaker 3: were taken out and used as firing practice. I think
Speaker 3: Hannah gutierres Reeds, who is the armor on the set,
Speaker 3: has a much more difficult case because she was in
Speaker 3: charge of the weaponry. But al Baldwin was also the producer,
Speaker 3: so he does he does have some responsibility to ensure
Speaker 3: that that was a safe set that everybody was working on.
Speaker 3: But I do believe that in a case like this,
Speaker 3: the prosecution does have an fpill battle convincing twelve jurors
Speaker 3: beyond a reasonable doubt that Alec Baldwin, who didn't load
Speaker 3: the firearm, who someone handed him the gun, reassured them
Speaker 3: there was no lie bullets, that he acted in willful
Speaker 3: disregard of the safety of others negligence, which is a
Speaker 3: lesser included charge potentially, but in terms of the more
Speaker 3: serious felonious act, I'm not sure they'll get a conviction.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I don't like him and his wife.
Speaker 2: They're just kind of annoying people. But I think this
Speaker 2: it's just I go back and forth because my husband's
Speaker 2: a firearm person and he always says, you know, you
Speaker 2: should never point it out a person unless you're ready
Speaker 2: to kill them. You just don't. And whenever he's shown
Speaker 2: me how to shoot, when we go to range or something,
Speaker 2: he always shows me where to put my finger on
Speaker 2: the side, and he's like, you just there's no reason
Speaker 2: to ever put your finger on the trigger, and you
Speaker 2: just don't do that, even if it's with a fake
Speaker 2: gun or any It's just it's etiquette when you're holding
Speaker 2: the weapon. So I understand that he shouldn't have been
Speaker 2: doing that, But if he was doing a shot where
Speaker 2: he was supposed to look like he was shooting the gun,
Speaker 2: then his finger would obviously be on the trigger. That's
Speaker 2: not unusual, and that's why I think it will cut.
Speaker 3: That's why I do think it'll come down the battle
Speaker 3: of the experts. I think that the prosecution is going
Speaker 3: to show that this that this was very reckless, that
Speaker 3: this was it was standard in the community to never fire,
Speaker 3: to never point the gun at somebody, that it was
Speaker 3: his duty, not just as an actor, as a producer.
Speaker 3: And then you're going to have the defense arguing, first
Speaker 3: of all, the gun that they gun, that this expert tested,
Speaker 3: has been substantially deconstructed, and so it is impossible to
Speaker 3: opine that this is exactly what happened on that day
Speaker 3: because the gun has been modified, and not only that
Speaker 3: it is not standard in the community for the actor
Speaker 3: who has already been assured that there are no live
Speaker 3: bullets and was not the one that loaded, and was
Speaker 3: assured by the people who are supposed to be the
Speaker 3: experts this is fine, and told to point at the
Speaker 3: person that he did in willful disregard. Was it negligent?
Speaker 3: I don't know, but I think that this is going
Speaker 3: to be a very interesting question for the jury if
Speaker 3: it ever gets there. But I don't foresee him doing
Speaker 3: any jail time on a case like this.
Speaker 2: Do you do you think it's weird and maybe this
Speaker 2: has come up and I just haven't heard it, But
Speaker 2: there was a couple of cameras in front of this
Speaker 2: dude when this happened. None of the film was rolling,
Speaker 2: and just they could just go back and say, Okay,
Speaker 2: he did have his finger on a trick, or we'll
Speaker 2: look at because he was pointing right at the camera
Speaker 2: when when this happened.
Speaker 3: That's a great question. I don't know the answer. I
Speaker 3: have not read anywhere that they actually have video footage
Speaker 3: of the actual incident. But that's something and of course
Speaker 3: both sides will want to know if there's anything like that,
Speaker 3: because you want to you want to you know, slow
Speaker 3: it to frame by frame. That's you know, that may
Speaker 3: be very helpful the prosecution or the defense. So I'm
Speaker 3: sure they've looked into it.
Speaker 2: Well before we wrap up today, I just are you
Speaker 2: working on any other projects? I know that you're a mom,
Speaker 2: you have a practice, you're a legal correspondent, you do
Speaker 2: all this stuff. Are you working on anything else that
Speaker 2: you want to share with us? You know?
Speaker 3: I I thankfully, I'm super busy. I have a very
Speaker 3: active criminal practice. Our firm probably has about sixty open cases,
Speaker 3: so I I love doing that. I have worked for
Speaker 3: Access Hollywood for a number of years. I have a
Speaker 3: segment called Trending with Triso with Mario Lopez. I work
Speaker 3: for KTLA and Next Star. And you know, I'm honored.
Speaker 3: I'm honored that people like yourself asked me to come
Speaker 3: on and get my legal thoughts about things. I think
Speaker 3: that true crime is something that we can all appreciate
Speaker 3: and enjoy and try and understand. And you know, thank
Speaker 3: you for having me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thanks for being here. You really explain things in
Speaker 2: a way for me to understand, which is awesome because
Speaker 2: I think a lot of people hear these words on
Speaker 2: the news all the time and we're like, what the
Speaker 2: hell does this mean? So yeah, thank you, Thank you
Speaker 2: so much.
Speaker 3: Pleasure, so nice. Thank you, have a great.
Speaker 2: Day, you too. Thank you for listening to Mother Knows Death.
Speaker 2: As a reminder, my training is as a pathologist's assistant.
Speaker 2: I have a master's level education and specialize in anatomy
Speaker 2: and pathology education. I am not a doctor, and I
Speaker 2: have not diagnosed or treated anyone dead or alive without
Speaker 2: the assistance of a licensed medical doctor. This show, my website,
Speaker 2: and social media accounts are designed to educate and inform
Speaker 2: people based on my experience working in pathology so they
Speaker 2: can make healthier decisions regarding their life and well being.
Speaker 2: Always remember that science is changing every day and the
Speaker 2: opinions expressed in this episode are based on my knowledge
Speaker 2: of those subjects at the time of publication. If you
Speaker 2: are having a medical problem, have a medical question, or
Speaker 2: having a medical emergency, please contact your physician or visit
Speaker 2: an urgent care center, emergency room, or hospital. Please rate, review,
Speaker 2: and subscribe to Mother Knows Death on Apple, Spotify, YouTube,
Speaker 2: or anywhere you get podcasts. Thanks