October 29, 2024 • 38 mins
Anatomy of a Murder (1959)
- Wine Pairing: Cabernet Sauvignon
- Overview: Directed by Otto Preminger, this courtroom drama stars James Stewart as a lawyer defending a man accused of murder. The film is known for its realistic portrayal of the legal process and its compelling performances.
- Why Cabernet Sauvignon: The Cabernet Sauvignon’s deep, layered flavors mirror the film’s intricate plot and complex characters. Just as the wine reveals new notes with each sip, the film unveils new twists and turns with each scene.
- Wine Pairing: 2020 Francis Ford Coppola Director’s Cut Cabernet Sauvignon
Follow and interact with us on:
- Instagram: booby.trap.podcast
- X (formerly Twitter): @BoobyTrapPodcst
- Facebook group: The Booby Trap Podcast
- Youtube videos: @BoobyTrapPodcast
- Spotify playlists: Booby Trap Podcast
The term “booby trap” comes from the seabird called a booby (the most well-known is the blue-footed booby). The name “booby” comes from the Spanish word bobo (which means "stupid", "foolish", or "clown") because the booby is, like other seabirds, clumsy on land. They are also regarded as foolish for their apparent fearlessness of humans. Boobies were easily caught by hungry sailors who would set a trap for the docile seabird, so a "booby trap" was literally a trap for a booby.
The film “Anatomy of a Murder” (1959) is not in the public domain. It was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress in 2012, recognizing its cultural, historical, or aesthetic significance. Here is a trailer of the film. You can view the film through various media platforms or here. Check out the actors in the film through IMDb. You can check the book out through your local library, purchase a copy, or view here. Learn more about the Motion Picture Production Code (Hays Code), including reviewing the code restrictions. For each episode, we curate film clips and music for the film that is featured. For this episode, we posted featured scenes from the film in the Anatomy of a Murder (1959) playlist on the Booby Trap Podcast YouTube channel. We also created an Anatomy of a Murder (1959) music playlist, featuring Duke Ellington, available through the Booby Trap Podcast Spotify profile.
For more details about the real-life court case that Anatomy of Murder was based upon, you can check out this link. It provides case transcripts and testimony. Please note that the content might be sensitive to some readers due to the nature of the crime involved. For more details about the history of the irresistible impulse test, you can check out th
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:11):
Hi, I'm Tatiana Bapps. I go by Tata.
And I am Mamie Melons.
And we want to welcome you to the new Booby Trap podcast.
Wine. Films. Murder.
Big, beautiful booby trap.
So with this podcast, we delve into the world of classic crime and murder films
(00:36):
paired with the perfect wine.
So we're just two friends that like discussing murder, watching classic films, and drinking wine together.
We thought it would be fun to mix these topics together in a podcast and hope others might also enjoy.
So first I want to bring up the...
term booby trap. Did you know that the term booby trap comes from the seabird called a booby? So
(01:00):
the most well-known is a blue-footed booby. So the name booby comes from the Spanish word
baobab, which means stupid, foolish, or clown. So because the booby is, like other seabirds,
very clumsy on land, they're also regarded as foolish for their apparent fearlessness of humans.
So boobies were easily caught and eaten by shipwrecked sailors. You know, these hungry
(01:25):
sailors would set a trap for the docile seabird. So booby trap was literally a trap.
for a booby the term booby trap now is defined as a harmful device designed to be triggered by
its unsuspecting victim and for us an unsuspecting victim of crime and the legal system
(01:47):
so our first episode of the booby trap podcast we're delving into the iconic
courtroom drama anatomy of a murder and we're pairing it with deep layered flavors of cabernet
sauvignon that mirrors the film's intricate plot and complex characters and just as the wine
reveals new notes with each sip the film unveils new twists and turns with each scene and to mark
(02:13):
this special occasion our first episode of the booby trap podcast we're pairing a 2020
francis ford coppola director's cut cabernet sauvignon with the classic film anatomy of a
murder which is creating a rich and immersive experience blending the art of winemaking with
the art of cinema and the robust body of the cabernet sauvignon complements the film's rich
(02:37):
storytelling and dramatic courtroom scenes both the wine and the film offer a full-body
experience that engages the senses
so let's give you a little bit of background about this film so anatomy of a murder was
(03:01):
directed by otto preminger and released in 1959 the cat the main cast includes james stewart
lee remick and ben garza
Well, what's interesting about this film is that the story is based on a real-life court case from 1952.
(03:28):
The case took place in a small town of Big Bay in Michigan's Upper Peninsula
and involved a man named Coleman Peterson, who was the first lieutenant in the United States Army.
Peterson shot a tavern owner named Mike Chenoweth after Peterson's wife accused Chenoweth of rape.
(03:50):
The defense attorney for this case was John D. Volker, who later became a Michigan Supreme Court justice.
Now, Volker wrote the novel Anatomy of a Murder under the pen name Robert Traver, based on this case.
In the trial, Volker evoked the defense of irresistible impulse,
(04:11):
which is a version of a rarely used temporary insanity defense.
After a spirited trial,
and two hours of deliberation,
the jury of 11 men and one woman returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
(04:33):
So let's talk about some of the characters.
So this was quite the courtroom drama.
We had major actors in this film, including Jimmy Stewart,
who plays Paul Bilger, the attorney who's defending a man accused of murder.
be a target
(04:53):
And Jimmy Stewart's been in After the Thin Man, Shop Around the Corner, Philadelphia Story, others that I'm sure you've seen like Rear Window, etc.
So many to do.
discuss right yeah a lot so uh so there you have ben gazzara now he stars as lieutenant frederick
(05:17):
frederick manion the defendant the man defendant who's the man accused of the murder now you'll
remember him from more recent films which is the big lebowski by the coen brothers and um as the
supervillain in uh roadhouse opposite patrick swasey
Um, some other notable pictures, but obviously, uh, more recognizable in those two.
(05:44):
And then we have Lee Remick.
And again, you might remember her from something more recent, which is, uh, The Omen.
And she stars as Laura Mannion, the wife of the accused murderer and the woman who accused the murdered man of raping her.
Then we have the big guy.
Uh, George, we're George C. Scott as Claude Dancer, who supports the prosecution.
(06:11):
Now we all know that we have Dr. Strangelove, um, again, a more recent film.
You'll have Firestarter, his Academy Award winning performance and, and Patton.
And again, way too many, uh, uh, pictures to, to name because as we know, he was a prolific actor for many, many years.
(06:34):
We also have Eve Arden.
She stars as Maida Rutledge, so Mr. Beigler's legal secretary.
She's been in movies such as Artemis Brooks, but more recently you probably have seen her in Grease.
I believe she plays the principal within that film.
Yes, yes, yes.
(06:54):
um we also have arthur uh o'connell he stars as uh farnell mccarthy and essentially my understanding
he was the kind of the alcoholic legal partner but i'm not exactly positive on that it's a little
But, you know, you've seen him if you've watched some older films and like Bus Stop with Marilyn Monroe, Picnic with William Holden.
(07:19):
Operation Petticoat
which is my favorite because it has
Cary Grant in it of course which we both love
of course, which we both love.
Also, last but not least, Duke Ellington.
So he actually had a cameo as Pai, so a bar piano player.
But also he created the jazz score for the film.
So, you know, like I said, an amazing group of people that are playing not only as actors and actresses, but also the music itself.
(07:49):
well um so we wanted to share just a few pieces of trivia related to the film and one did you
know that the film was controversial for its explicit handling of sexual passions and the
crime of rape right the film contained words never heard in american films with the motion
(08:09):
picture production code which it was known as the haze code and such controversial terms used
included contraceptive um sexual and climax uh not my personal favorite but bitch um panties
(08:29):
penetration rape slut sperm spermatogenesis and other terms related to the legal technicalities
And the film was so controversial at the time that, so Jimmy Stewart's father, you know,
so the main actor was so offended by the film that he deemed it a dirty picture.
(08:53):
And he actually took out an ad in his local newspaper telling people not to see it.
The film was also banned initially in Chicago, Illinois, upon its release,
stating that the film was immoral and obscene.
And eventually a federal judge overturned the ban because although some of the words and phrases used were stronger
than what audiences were used to, the court decided that the terms weren't being used offensively
(09:20):
and you would actually hear such terms in a courtroom setting,
which would be, you know, similar to, you know, what you would see in the real world.
So, you know, something that you would hear within, you know, regular communities around the country.
right and also did you know that filming was done entirely at michigan and that the interior
(09:42):
of barney quill's bar in the movie is not a movie set but the actual interior of the thunder bay
in savernon big bay michigan located in upper michigan also known as the up and youp go youpers
yep it's a gorgeous area which we can attest to right absolutely
(10:03):
um where you first live it is approximately 324 excuse me 325 yards down the road from the
lumberjack tavern where the actual murder on which the novel and filmer base took place in 1952
Yeah, we hadn't watched the film prior to our road trip,
(10:24):
so, you know, maybe if we had, we would have stopped and checked that out.
But that didn't happen.
Thank you.
We would have definitely have added that to the...
the adventure absolutely so um we aren't lawyers but both of us have worked in the legal field at
one point or another in our careers um and we both highlighted some frustrating and even very
(10:49):
inappropriate activities happened that were happening as part of the legal process that
was being depicted in the film um and there were a total of like four major areas of interest that
we wanted to briefly discuss and this includes the rape allegation the legal discovery procedure
irresistible impulse impulsivity and witness witness coaching
(11:13):
That's a, that's a whole lot of word there, right?
The first area of interest was obviously, and the big one, is the rape allegation itself.
So the film Anatomy of a Murderer was controversial for its explicit handling of sexual passions and the crime of rape, as we previously mentioned.
However, during the trial, it took a while for the topic of rape to be focused on.
(11:35):
In the film, the prosecution's reluctance to discuss the alleged rape of Laura Mannion, which is played by Lee Remick, is a significant plot point.
This hesitation adds to the complicity of the case and highlights the challenges faced by the defense attorney, Paul Bigler, played by James Stewart, in proving the client's motive for the murder.
(11:59):
The prosecution tries at every instance to block any mention of Mannion's motive for killing Quill.
Bigler works diligently to bring the topic into the courtroom, arguing that it is essential to understanding the motive behind the murder.
Eventually, he manages to get the rape of Laura Mannion into the record, and Judge Weaver agrees to allow the matter to be part of the deliberations.
(12:23):
When Bigler finally manages to get the rape allegation into the record, it significantly impacts the jury's perception of the case.
The inclusion of this information allows the jury to consider the emotional,
emotional, and psychological state of Lt. Frederick Mannion, played by Ben Gazzara, at the time of the murder, which is central to his defense of the temporary insanity.
(12:47):
The jury's deliberations become more complex as they weigh the credibility of Laura Mannion, played by Lee Remick, testimony, and the implications of the alleged assault.
This development adds depth to the courtroom drama and highlights the challenges of achieving justice.
During a cross-examination, Dancer insinuates that Laura openly flirted with other men, including the man she claimed raped her,
(13:16):
except in the courtroom, Laura dresses provocatively and is flirting with men, despite her husband in jail.
Psychiatrists give conflicting testimony to Mannion's state of mind at the time that he killed Quill.
Dancer says that Mannion may have...
suspected laura of cheating on him because he asked her a catholic to swear on her rosary
(13:43):
that quill raped her this debt raises doubt as to whether the act was consensual
so i guess we're victim shaming here right or victim blaming
The film delves into the intricacies of legal strategy and the moral ambiguities involved in such cases.
It also reflects the social attitudes at the time towards discussing sensitive topics like sexual assault in a public forum.
(14:11):
And I think this is probably the biggest area that, well, one of the biggest areas that we were.
truly like upset about,
to take it personally
they would not talk about the rape in any context.
And you're just kind of like,
but that's the whole point of this.
And I think right as being a woman,
how can you just totally ignore that piece?
(14:33):
And it also, I think it also shifts that now the trial becomes about her.
she's not on trial yeah she's not the defendant but
somehow another she becomes the defendant right right
So the second area of interest that I guess we kind of saw as being inappropriate was
the depiction of the legal discovery procedure.
(14:54):
So during a criminal case, prosecutors must provide the defendant copies of materials
and evidence that the prosecution intends to use at trial.
And this process is called discovery and continues from the time the case begins to the time
And the prosecutor, prosecutor, I'm having a hard time saying that word.
(15:16):
um has a continuing obligation to provide the defendant documents and other information
which may reflect upon the case and a failure of the prosecutor to do so can expose the prosecutor
to fines uh sanctions by the court uh further the prosecutor is um required to provide the
defense with evidence that may hurt it hurt their case um so this is called um actually i might need
(15:41):
help on this one oh i this is harder the prosecutor i'll tell you uh exculpatory there
you go well thank you you're welcome so this evidence could show that the defendant's actually
innocent and if the prosecution doesn't provide it to the defense it actually may require a new
trial so throughout the film it was clear that the discovery process wasn't being followed
(16:02):
um one of the examples um of this actually was um the witness list um one of the um
and essentially introducing new witnesses without the other party being aware of this new witness
um the perfect example was when the defense brought in mary uh pilant to witness without
(16:25):
to the witness stand without previous knowledge um from the prosecution and additionally she came
to the court with new evidence like a pair of women's panties stating she found them in the
laundry room um and it was at this point that that's now
exhibit one for the defense um that's being submitted in to the court at that moment um
(16:49):
however you know we don't see this you know this is indeterminate the legal procedure
you know wasn't you know it's not being followed properly but obviously they're doing for the drama
yeah it's not a documentary
I mean, otherwise it's boring.
Because otherwise it's boring.
I don't want to watch this movie,
that part of the movie a second time because it's a mistrial.
(17:09):
And discovery is not a very interesting area.
If you think about, like, I mean, I used to work in a law firm.
I, you know, I've gone through thousands of documents just for one single case.
And what adding Bates labels to each of those, you know, documents.
Like it's, and it's also a little bit of a game too, right?
(17:30):
You don't want to just show here's all the information that's going to be helpful for the case.
They're going to try to hide things.
Hide it in the sense of, well, okay, it's only two pages of a document that you really, like, most key.
But let me give you 500 boxes.
other documents and you know in in the movie's defense too you know this is my the one point
(17:50):
where i get very caught up on
But it is 1952, you know, it's not, you know, at that period of time, you know, we're all familiar because it's the age of information, of the whole rules of evidence, discovery, all this type of thing.
But in 1952, people were a lot less curious, right?
(18:11):
They go to a movie to immerse themselves in the experience.
We're more critical.
We turn a more critical eye to movies now, I think.
But so, you know, whether or not in 1952 they were walking out and going, well, that was like, that was a crock of a crock.
(18:31):
Maybe, maybe not.
1952, they got a lot more better things.
Thank you for watching.
working in the law
too i would assume i would assume yeah you know and so yeah i mean so now but in hindsight it's
like that but again if you want to see a documentary you go see a documentary you want to
(18:52):
see a fictional film this is what you go do you know you want the gotchas and the kind of you want
a little bit of a mess yeah
Which, so, leads us into the third area of interest.
which was the topic of irresistible impulse,
which I'm assuming is what's called a crown of passion now.
I'm assuming they're interchangeable,
which is a type of insanity, temporary insanity defense.
(19:16):
The defendant argued that they should not be held criminally liable
for their actions that broke the law
because they could not control those actions
even if they knew them to be wrong.
So the irresistible impulse test is a component of many tests
for the insanity defense.
Under this rule, the defendant cannot be found guilty
if they prove that as a result of mental illness,
(19:39):
they were unable to control their impulses at the time of the crime
even if they knew that committing that crime was illegal or morally wrong.
This test emerges as a response to criticisms
directed at the McNaughton rule.
Unlike the McNaughton rule,
the irresistible impulse test goes beyond
looking at a defendant's awareness of right and wrong,
(20:03):
evaluates the capacity to resist impulses to unlawful acts.
The irresistible impulse test dates back to the 19th century,
even before my time.
It was first applied by the Alabama Supreme Court
in the landmark case of Parsons v. State.
(20:24):
Thank you.
And this decision...
The court introduced a new perspective on criminal responsibility.
The court held that due to the overpowering influence of a mental defect,
a defendant could be competent enough to discern right from wrong
(20:47):
and still be exempt from culpability.
At the time of the alleged crime,
the defendant's free agency had been obliterated by the profound impact of a disease of the mind.
The court linked the criminal act and the mental disorder.
This established a cause-and-effect relationship
(21:11):
where the mental disease was the cause of the offense.
It also recognized that the influence mental disorders exerted over a defendant's decision-making process.
the court's decision in Parsons v. State set a precedent that,
the defendant could not be found guilty by reason of insanity.
(21:34):
This marked a significant departure from traditional assessments of criminal responsibility,
and it also paved the way for a more nuanced understanding of mental illness,
and culpability in criminal cases.
In jurisdictions where it's recognized,
(21:54):
meaning that,
it shifts the burden of proof to the defendant rather than the prosecution.
are generally required to demonstrate two key elements.
One is going to be the existence of mental illness.
The first element involves proving the presence of mental illness.
The second being causation of inability to control actions.
(22:18):
The second element involves establishing a causal link.
This link, the diagnosed mental illness and the defendants in capacity to control their actions.
This requires a proof to show how mental illness directly contributes to the inability to exercise control.
Now, proving that a defendant lacked control over their actions poses a formidable challenge.
(22:44):
In present day, it's rarely successful.
Um, because I think it goes without saying when you kill somebody, you're probably a
little, a little kind of touched in the head anyway, right?
Um, but the process can include medical evaluation, expert opinions from specialists and mental
Um, the evidence presented must affirm the existence of a diagnosed mental condition.
(23:08):
It must also show a specific impact on the defendant's behavior.
The evidence should note the environmental factors that may have triggered the condition.
Um, the irresistible impulse test was an important corrective to McNaughton cognitive
However, it still came under some criticism of its own.
(23:29):
For example, some argued it made it easier to fake insanity.
I don't doubt that.
Um,
A recent use of the irresistible impulse argument was in 1994 when, and I know our listeners
will know this one, Lorena Bobbitt, who had cut off her husband's penis, was acquitted
(23:51):
of assault by reason of insanity, right?
It was what made it such a, well.
besides the penis made it such a big big case but um yeah so it's a hard one to prove
but so having a having james stewart as your attorney would sure help right absolutely
so the fourth area of interest is witness coaching and so a controversial legal issue
(24:18):
in this film is related to possible witness coaching which is a violation of legal canons
the only plausible legal defense lieutenant manning um has is the insanity defense which
is virtually spelled out to a befuddled manion by his prospective counsel so mr uh bugler
(24:40):
who essentially he kind of temporarily suspends the conversation that they're having
and suggests to manion to rethink his factual slash legal position and it suggests that the
defendant may be concealing the truth and manipulating his story in order to obtain
the best possible verdict
(25:01):
and so by witness coaching by the prosecution it's even more blatant as they call in other
jail inmates awaiting sentencing to testify against manion and this is portrayed uh to an
extent as some sub i'm gonna say sub ordination of prudery did i say it right i think so okay
(25:25):
now can you explain to me what it means
So it's a crime of persuading or permitting a person to commit perjury.
which is a swearing of a false oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding.
And this suggests that the prosecution dangled the possibility of like a lighter sentence through plea bargain as an incentive to perjury.
Yeah, and we all know that those are completely unreliable witnesses
(25:49):
and the defense would tear them apart in the present day
if you offer something in exchange and that's their motivation.
They immediately, besides the fact that criminals are immediately not a reliable witness anymore.
Easy to disprove that one.
Cause I think nowadays, like when you hear about people going on onto the stand, even
(26:13):
if, you know, they're there as a witness of some kind, um, there is coaching, I guess
in a sense, but maybe not quite the same type of coaching, right?
Like it's more of just ensuring that the person doesn't change their story, their facts.
So there's coaching in the sense of just making sure that you're like,
testing them like you know it's like doing a presentation right you perform that multiple
(26:37):
times to make sure that you know you aren't changing things here and there every time you
provide that presentation um so different coaching but at the same time you know right maybe a hint
of it right well definitely not as blatant as what these where's the bottom line between
Where's the fine line between that and getting disbarred?
Exactly, exactly.
You know, or getting sanctioned by the court or having the testimony thrown out.
(27:00):
So, like I say, where is that line?
So, now that, you know, we know he, as we said in the beginning, he was found not guilty.
But as the jury deliberates, Bigler, McCarthy, and Rutledge wait around in their office.
Rutledge, now remember she's the Eve Arden character, I believe the secretary, right?
(27:24):
smarty pants yep secretary okay just i remember it right what's to be told that they will win the
case she is counting on the promissory note from uh the uh lieutenant manion to borrow money on as
it helps to buy a new office typewriter as the pnf don't strike arty of the erst art rather than
(27:47):
party of the first part okay already i can just imagine
I can just imagine
you
getting into those
Yeah, getting into those legal documents, you know, at the court.
Well, I'm kind of hung up on the typewriter.
Well, yeah, to be typing, you know, typewriter, oh gosh, just all the extra work to do.
So McCarthy, who's Arnold, I'm sorry, Arthur O'Connell, he contemplates 12 people go off into a room, 12 different minds, 12 different hearts, and 12 different walks of life, 12 sets of eyes, ears, shapes, and sizes, and these 12 people are asked to judge another human being as different from them as they are from each other.
(28:33):
And when they judge him, they must be of one mind, unanimous. That's one of the miracles of man's disorganized soul, that they can do it. And in most instances, they will do it well. God bless juries.
So, the jury finds the defendant, Lieutenant Mannion, as being not guilty by reason of insanity.
(28:58):
When heading over to the client to get the client's signature on the promissory note.
A lawyer that's getting paid by a promissory note.
Yeah, that's how it goes.
I mean, you've got to keep your secretary happy.
Bigler and McCarthy Fah, Lieutenant and Mrs. Mannion, have left the area.
(29:20):
In the note that this left for Bigler, the Lieutenant Mannion apologized for leaving so suddenly,
but he was seized by an irresistible impulse.
What a nice little neat little bow, right?
that was not a yeah i guess but it was i and so i think we talked about this when we saw the movie
(29:44):
is that you and i spent a lot of time during that movie waiting for that like was there a red herring
was there a surprise twist and there were some you know there were some it made you wonder a lot of
you wonder a lot of things right you're like oh was she cheating was it like a rape like
you know you know yeah i mean just she was very flirty on lots of different
(30:06):
occasions and it was like you got to wonder right yeah what's the scenario here
And so there was a lot, you know, I think there was some purposeful that it was to leave
you thinking and making some of your own conclusions, but I'm not going to lie.
(30:27):
It was a little, I was waiting for that.
Like, you know, you've seen those movies where it's like you find out like Ed Norton and
Primal Fear or something like that, that the whole time they've been guilty and they've
been fooling their attorney.
And I kept waiting for that to happen.
No, it's just, you know, she's not getting her typewriter, I don't think.
(30:51):
She's going to have to start doing, still doing, what, Artie of the Earthspark.
right yeah no absolutely and you know and it was one of those things too like right i think for her
it it caused the most complexity or like kind of confusion as to how this was going to end
because it seemed like she wanted her husband to go to jail but maybe not and like it was just
(31:16):
very confusing as as it continued and you're like kind of going oh this is going to be the thing
that's that turns it into a different approach right like this is now
the new information that comes, that comes, uh, in front of them. And yeah, he's guilty. She's guilty.
or what the
Or what they're saying is totally off the wall.
(31:38):
well she's an imperfect person
She's, she's trying to get.
she's trying to get
the James Stewart, the Bigler to the lawyer, the defending attorney to sleep with her.
Why, who knows, just because she's just a very flawed human being.
But I think the reason that I personally expected all that,
(32:00):
and I think we're doing one of, if I'm not mistaken,
somewhere in the series we're going to do an Agatha Christie movie.
And Agatha Christie, of course, wrote most of her things with the aha.
And I'm always looking for the aha.
And I got to lower my expectations that, you know, like, I think.
I mean, it was still exhilarating, right?
(32:22):
Because you didn't know when it was going to happen.
And I think it was more maybe.
feeling a little, like, let down towards the end.
But it held me to the end.
But during the, to the very end, right?
It was still kind of, what's going to happen, right?
it's going to happen oh yeah and it held me to the end yeah and and then it makes it a little
easier to again to be critical of the the rules of evidence and some of the legal procedures and
(32:44):
That would never happen, but you're just like, okay, that's the aside,
and I don't think the director.
That's really where they were going with this.
And I think it's what, auto premature with this?
And he wanted you to think.
And, you know, not get caught up in what the legal procedures were.
So it held me to the end.
(33:04):
But, you know, when I got to the credits, I'm like, remember the look on my face?
I was like, no, no, no gotchas?
But I think the note was kind of the gotcha.
I'm
I mean, I will say it for me, it kind of wrapped it up a bit like it not in the sense of.
that physical wrapping it up
(33:27):
they've now run off
and it's like
they're never going to get paid
but I think just the note itself
was just a very cutesy
like way to end that
and bring it all back
And bring it all back.
I enjoyed that part, I guess.
Yeah, and bring it all back.
And when he says irresistible impulse,
then maybe you're supposed to think,
it's like, was that all just...
(33:49):
And remember, the irresistible,
that was the attorney's idea to do that.
He had to pretty much, as we mentioned,
So it's like, I guess he's like,
I did it because, you know,
ha-ha, wink-wink.
Of, you know, you told me you're not getting paid because of the reason you gave me, which is kind of, maybe it's a little twist and I didn't catch it at the time, but just as we're talking it through right now.
(34:12):
Maybe that was the twist.
And I got you at the attorney.
It's like, thanks for everything.
And thanks for giving me a defense on not paying you.
Well, you know what?
That is all for today's episode.
This was super fun.
(34:32):
Thanks for joining us.
Next time, we're going to explore another classic crime film with its perfect wine pairing.
Hi, I'm Tatiana Bapps. I go by Tata.
And I am Mamie Melons.
And we want to welcome you to the new Booby Trap podcast.
Wine. Films. Murder.
Big, beautiful booby trap.
So with this podcast, we delve into the world of classic crime and murder films
(00:36):
paired with the perfect wine.
So we're just two friends that like discussing murder, watching classic films, and drinking wine together.
We thought it would be fun to mix these topics together in a podcast and hope others might also enjoy.
So first I want to bring up the...
term booby trap. Did you know that the term booby trap comes from the seabird called a booby? So
(01:00):
the most well-known is a blue-footed booby. So the name booby comes from the Spanish word
baobab, which means stupid, foolish, or clown. So because the booby is, like other seabirds,
very clumsy on land, they're also regarded as foolish for their apparent fearlessness of humans.
So boobies were easily caught and eaten by shipwrecked sailors. You know, these hungry
(01:25):
sailors would set a trap for the docile seabird. So booby trap was literally a trap.
for a booby the term booby trap now is defined as a harmful device designed to be triggered by
its unsuspecting victim and for us an unsuspecting victim of crime and the legal system
(01:47):
so our first episode of the booby trap podcast we're delving into the iconic
courtroom drama anatomy of a murder and we're pairing it with deep layered flavors of cabernet
sauvignon that mirrors the film's intricate plot and complex characters and just as the wine
reveals new notes with each sip the film unveils new twists and turns with each scene and to mark
(02:13):
this special occasion our first episode of the booby trap podcast we're pairing a 2020
francis ford coppola director's cut cabernet sauvignon with the classic film anatomy of a
murder which is creating a rich and immersive experience blending the art of winemaking with
the art of cinema and the robust body of the cabernet sauvignon complements the film's rich
(02:37):
storytelling and dramatic courtroom scenes both the wine and the film offer a full-body
experience that engages the senses
so let's give you a little bit of background about this film so anatomy of a murder was
(03:01):
directed by otto preminger and released in 1959 the cat the main cast includes james stewart
lee remick and ben garza
Well, what's interesting about this film is that the story is based on a real-life court case from 1952.
(03:28):
The case took place in a small town of Big Bay in Michigan's Upper Peninsula
and involved a man named Coleman Peterson, who was the first lieutenant in the United States Army.
Peterson shot a tavern owner named Mike Chenoweth after Peterson's wife accused Chenoweth of rape.
(03:50):
The defense attorney for this case was John D. Volker, who later became a Michigan Supreme Court justice.
Now, Volker wrote the novel Anatomy of a Murder under the pen name Robert Traver, based on this case.
In the trial, Volker evoked the defense of irresistible impulse,
(04:11):
which is a version of a rarely used temporary insanity defense.
After a spirited trial,
and two hours of deliberation,
the jury of 11 men and one woman returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
(04:33):
So let's talk about some of the characters.
So this was quite the courtroom drama.
We had major actors in this film, including Jimmy Stewart,
who plays Paul Bilger, the attorney who's defending a man accused of murder.
be a target
(04:53):
And Jimmy Stewart's been in After the Thin Man, Shop Around the Corner, Philadelphia Story, others that I'm sure you've seen like Rear Window, etc.
So many to do.
discuss right yeah a lot so uh so there you have ben gazzara now he stars as lieutenant frederick
(05:17):
frederick manion the defendant the man defendant who's the man accused of the murder now you'll
remember him from more recent films which is the big lebowski by the coen brothers and um as the
supervillain in uh roadhouse opposite patrick swasey
Um, some other notable pictures, but obviously, uh, more recognizable in those two.
(05:44):
And then we have Lee Remick.
And again, you might remember her from something more recent, which is, uh, The Omen.
And she stars as Laura Mannion, the wife of the accused murderer and the woman who accused the murdered man of raping her.
Then we have the big guy.
Uh, George, we're George C. Scott as Claude Dancer, who supports the prosecution.
(06:11):
Now we all know that we have Dr. Strangelove, um, again, a more recent film.
You'll have Firestarter, his Academy Award winning performance and, and Patton.
And again, way too many, uh, uh, pictures to, to name because as we know, he was a prolific actor for many, many years.
(06:34):
We also have Eve Arden.
She stars as Maida Rutledge, so Mr. Beigler's legal secretary.
She's been in movies such as Artemis Brooks, but more recently you probably have seen her in Grease.
I believe she plays the principal within that film.
Yes, yes, yes.
(06:54):
um we also have arthur uh o'connell he stars as uh farnell mccarthy and essentially my understanding
he was the kind of the alcoholic legal partner but i'm not exactly positive on that it's a little
But, you know, you've seen him if you've watched some older films and like Bus Stop with Marilyn Monroe, Picnic with William Holden.
(07:19):
Operation Petticoat
which is my favorite because it has
Cary Grant in it of course which we both love
of course, which we both love.
Also, last but not least, Duke Ellington.
So he actually had a cameo as Pai, so a bar piano player.
But also he created the jazz score for the film.
So, you know, like I said, an amazing group of people that are playing not only as actors and actresses, but also the music itself.
(07:49):
well um so we wanted to share just a few pieces of trivia related to the film and one did you
know that the film was controversial for its explicit handling of sexual passions and the
crime of rape right the film contained words never heard in american films with the motion
(08:09):
picture production code which it was known as the haze code and such controversial terms used
included contraceptive um sexual and climax uh not my personal favorite but bitch um panties
(08:29):
penetration rape slut sperm spermatogenesis and other terms related to the legal technicalities
And the film was so controversial at the time that, so Jimmy Stewart's father, you know,
so the main actor was so offended by the film that he deemed it a dirty picture.
(08:53):
And he actually took out an ad in his local newspaper telling people not to see it.
The film was also banned initially in Chicago, Illinois, upon its release,
stating that the film was immoral and obscene.
And eventually a federal judge overturned the ban because although some of the words and phrases used were stronger
than what audiences were used to, the court decided that the terms weren't being used offensively
(09:20):
and you would actually hear such terms in a courtroom setting,
which would be, you know, similar to, you know, what you would see in the real world.
So, you know, something that you would hear within, you know, regular communities around the country.
right and also did you know that filming was done entirely at michigan and that the interior
(09:42):
of barney quill's bar in the movie is not a movie set but the actual interior of the thunder bay
in savernon big bay michigan located in upper michigan also known as the up and youp go youpers
yep it's a gorgeous area which we can attest to right absolutely
(10:03):
um where you first live it is approximately 324 excuse me 325 yards down the road from the
lumberjack tavern where the actual murder on which the novel and filmer base took place in 1952
Yeah, we hadn't watched the film prior to our road trip,
(10:24):
so, you know, maybe if we had, we would have stopped and checked that out.
But that didn't happen.
Thank you.
We would have definitely have added that to the...
the adventure absolutely so um we aren't lawyers but both of us have worked in the legal field at
one point or another in our careers um and we both highlighted some frustrating and even very
(10:49):
inappropriate activities happened that were happening as part of the legal process that
was being depicted in the film um and there were a total of like four major areas of interest that
we wanted to briefly discuss and this includes the rape allegation the legal discovery procedure
irresistible impulse impulsivity and witness witness coaching
(11:13):
That's a, that's a whole lot of word there, right?
The first area of interest was obviously, and the big one, is the rape allegation itself.
So the film Anatomy of a Murderer was controversial for its explicit handling of sexual passions and the crime of rape, as we previously mentioned.
However, during the trial, it took a while for the topic of rape to be focused on.
(11:35):
In the film, the prosecution's reluctance to discuss the alleged rape of Laura Mannion, which is played by Lee Remick, is a significant plot point.
This hesitation adds to the complicity of the case and highlights the challenges faced by the defense attorney, Paul Bigler, played by James Stewart, in proving the client's motive for the murder.
(11:59):
The prosecution tries at every instance to block any mention of Mannion's motive for killing Quill.
Bigler works diligently to bring the topic into the courtroom, arguing that it is essential to understanding the motive behind the murder.
Eventually, he manages to get the rape of Laura Mannion into the record, and Judge Weaver agrees to allow the matter to be part of the deliberations.
(12:23):
When Bigler finally manages to get the rape allegation into the record, it significantly impacts the jury's perception of the case.
The inclusion of this information allows the jury to consider the emotional,
emotional, and psychological state of Lt. Frederick Mannion, played by Ben Gazzara, at the time of the murder, which is central to his defense of the temporary insanity.
(12:47):
The jury's deliberations become more complex as they weigh the credibility of Laura Mannion, played by Lee Remick, testimony, and the implications of the alleged assault.
This development adds depth to the courtroom drama and highlights the challenges of achieving justice.
During a cross-examination, Dancer insinuates that Laura openly flirted with other men, including the man she claimed raped her,
(13:16):
except in the courtroom, Laura dresses provocatively and is flirting with men, despite her husband in jail.
Psychiatrists give conflicting testimony to Mannion's state of mind at the time that he killed Quill.
Dancer says that Mannion may have...
suspected laura of cheating on him because he asked her a catholic to swear on her rosary
(13:43):
that quill raped her this debt raises doubt as to whether the act was consensual
so i guess we're victim shaming here right or victim blaming
The film delves into the intricacies of legal strategy and the moral ambiguities involved in such cases.
It also reflects the social attitudes at the time towards discussing sensitive topics like sexual assault in a public forum.
(14:11):
And I think this is probably the biggest area that, well, one of the biggest areas that we were.
truly like upset about,
to take it personally
they would not talk about the rape in any context.
And you're just kind of like,
but that's the whole point of this.
And I think right as being a woman,
how can you just totally ignore that piece?
(14:33):
And it also, I think it also shifts that now the trial becomes about her.
she's not on trial yeah she's not the defendant but
somehow another she becomes the defendant right right
So the second area of interest that I guess we kind of saw as being inappropriate was
the depiction of the legal discovery procedure.
(14:54):
So during a criminal case, prosecutors must provide the defendant copies of materials
and evidence that the prosecution intends to use at trial.
And this process is called discovery and continues from the time the case begins to the time
And the prosecutor, prosecutor, I'm having a hard time saying that word.
(15:16):
um has a continuing obligation to provide the defendant documents and other information
which may reflect upon the case and a failure of the prosecutor to do so can expose the prosecutor
to fines uh sanctions by the court uh further the prosecutor is um required to provide the
defense with evidence that may hurt it hurt their case um so this is called um actually i might need
(15:41):
help on this one oh i this is harder the prosecutor i'll tell you uh exculpatory there
you go well thank you you're welcome so this evidence could show that the defendant's actually
innocent and if the prosecution doesn't provide it to the defense it actually may require a new
trial so throughout the film it was clear that the discovery process wasn't being followed
(16:02):
um one of the examples um of this actually was um the witness list um one of the um
and essentially introducing new witnesses without the other party being aware of this new witness
um the perfect example was when the defense brought in mary uh pilant to witness without
(16:25):
to the witness stand without previous knowledge um from the prosecution and additionally she came
to the court with new evidence like a pair of women's panties stating she found them in the
laundry room um and it was at this point that that's now
exhibit one for the defense um that's being submitted in to the court at that moment um
(16:49):
however you know we don't see this you know this is indeterminate the legal procedure
you know wasn't you know it's not being followed properly but obviously they're doing for the drama
yeah it's not a documentary
I mean, otherwise it's boring.
Because otherwise it's boring.
I don't want to watch this movie,
that part of the movie a second time because it's a mistrial.
(17:09):
And discovery is not a very interesting area.
If you think about, like, I mean, I used to work in a law firm.
I, you know, I've gone through thousands of documents just for one single case.
And what adding Bates labels to each of those, you know, documents.
Like it's, and it's also a little bit of a game too, right?
(17:30):
You don't want to just show here's all the information that's going to be helpful for the case.
They're going to try to hide things.
Hide it in the sense of, well, okay, it's only two pages of a document that you really, like, most key.
But let me give you 500 boxes.
other documents and you know in in the movie's defense too you know this is my the one point
(17:50):
where i get very caught up on
But it is 1952, you know, it's not, you know, at that period of time, you know, we're all familiar because it's the age of information, of the whole rules of evidence, discovery, all this type of thing.
But in 1952, people were a lot less curious, right?
(18:11):
They go to a movie to immerse themselves in the experience.
We're more critical.
We turn a more critical eye to movies now, I think.
But so, you know, whether or not in 1952 they were walking out and going, well, that was like, that was a crock of a crock.
(18:31):
Maybe, maybe not.
1952, they got a lot more better things.
Thank you for watching.
working in the law
too i would assume i would assume yeah you know and so yeah i mean so now but in hindsight it's
like that but again if you want to see a documentary you go see a documentary you want to
(18:52):
see a fictional film this is what you go do you know you want the gotchas and the kind of you want
a little bit of a mess yeah
Which, so, leads us into the third area of interest.
which was the topic of irresistible impulse,
which I'm assuming is what's called a crown of passion now.
I'm assuming they're interchangeable,
which is a type of insanity, temporary insanity defense.
(19:16):
The defendant argued that they should not be held criminally liable
for their actions that broke the law
because they could not control those actions
even if they knew them to be wrong.
So the irresistible impulse test is a component of many tests
for the insanity defense.
Under this rule, the defendant cannot be found guilty
if they prove that as a result of mental illness,
(19:39):
they were unable to control their impulses at the time of the crime
even if they knew that committing that crime was illegal or morally wrong.
This test emerges as a response to criticisms
directed at the McNaughton rule.
Unlike the McNaughton rule,
the irresistible impulse test goes beyond
looking at a defendant's awareness of right and wrong,
(20:03):
evaluates the capacity to resist impulses to unlawful acts.
The irresistible impulse test dates back to the 19th century,
even before my time.
It was first applied by the Alabama Supreme Court
in the landmark case of Parsons v. State.
(20:24):
Thank you.
And this decision...
The court introduced a new perspective on criminal responsibility.
The court held that due to the overpowering influence of a mental defect,
a defendant could be competent enough to discern right from wrong
(20:47):
and still be exempt from culpability.
At the time of the alleged crime,
the defendant's free agency had been obliterated by the profound impact of a disease of the mind.
The court linked the criminal act and the mental disorder.
This established a cause-and-effect relationship
(21:11):
where the mental disease was the cause of the offense.
It also recognized that the influence mental disorders exerted over a defendant's decision-making process.
the court's decision in Parsons v. State set a precedent that,
the defendant could not be found guilty by reason of insanity.
(21:34):
This marked a significant departure from traditional assessments of criminal responsibility,
and it also paved the way for a more nuanced understanding of mental illness,
and culpability in criminal cases.
In jurisdictions where it's recognized,
(21:54):
meaning that,
it shifts the burden of proof to the defendant rather than the prosecution.
are generally required to demonstrate two key elements.
One is going to be the existence of mental illness.
The first element involves proving the presence of mental illness.
The second being causation of inability to control actions.
(22:18):
The second element involves establishing a causal link.
This link, the diagnosed mental illness and the defendants in capacity to control their actions.
This requires a proof to show how mental illness directly contributes to the inability to exercise control.
Now, proving that a defendant lacked control over their actions poses a formidable challenge.
(22:44):
In present day, it's rarely successful.
Um, because I think it goes without saying when you kill somebody, you're probably a
little, a little kind of touched in the head anyway, right?
Um, but the process can include medical evaluation, expert opinions from specialists and mental
Um, the evidence presented must affirm the existence of a diagnosed mental condition.
(23:08):
It must also show a specific impact on the defendant's behavior.
The evidence should note the environmental factors that may have triggered the condition.
Um, the irresistible impulse test was an important corrective to McNaughton cognitive
However, it still came under some criticism of its own.
(23:29):
For example, some argued it made it easier to fake insanity.
I don't doubt that.
Um,
A recent use of the irresistible impulse argument was in 1994 when, and I know our listeners
will know this one, Lorena Bobbitt, who had cut off her husband's penis, was acquitted
(23:51):
of assault by reason of insanity, right?
It was what made it such a, well.
besides the penis made it such a big big case but um yeah so it's a hard one to prove
but so having a having james stewart as your attorney would sure help right absolutely
so the fourth area of interest is witness coaching and so a controversial legal issue
(24:18):
in this film is related to possible witness coaching which is a violation of legal canons
the only plausible legal defense lieutenant manning um has is the insanity defense which
is virtually spelled out to a befuddled manion by his prospective counsel so mr uh bugler
(24:40):
who essentially he kind of temporarily suspends the conversation that they're having
and suggests to manion to rethink his factual slash legal position and it suggests that the
defendant may be concealing the truth and manipulating his story in order to obtain
the best possible verdict
(25:01):
and so by witness coaching by the prosecution it's even more blatant as they call in other
jail inmates awaiting sentencing to testify against manion and this is portrayed uh to an
extent as some sub i'm gonna say sub ordination of prudery did i say it right i think so okay
(25:25):
now can you explain to me what it means
So it's a crime of persuading or permitting a person to commit perjury.
which is a swearing of a false oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding.
And this suggests that the prosecution dangled the possibility of like a lighter sentence through plea bargain as an incentive to perjury.
Yeah, and we all know that those are completely unreliable witnesses
(25:49):
and the defense would tear them apart in the present day
if you offer something in exchange and that's their motivation.
They immediately, besides the fact that criminals are immediately not a reliable witness anymore.
Easy to disprove that one.
Cause I think nowadays, like when you hear about people going on onto the stand, even
(26:13):
if, you know, they're there as a witness of some kind, um, there is coaching, I guess
in a sense, but maybe not quite the same type of coaching, right?
Like it's more of just ensuring that the person doesn't change their story, their facts.
So there's coaching in the sense of just making sure that you're like,
testing them like you know it's like doing a presentation right you perform that multiple
(26:37):
times to make sure that you know you aren't changing things here and there every time you
provide that presentation um so different coaching but at the same time you know right maybe a hint
of it right well definitely not as blatant as what these where's the bottom line between
Where's the fine line between that and getting disbarred?
Exactly, exactly.
You know, or getting sanctioned by the court or having the testimony thrown out.
(27:00):
So, like I say, where is that line?
So, now that, you know, we know he, as we said in the beginning, he was found not guilty.
But as the jury deliberates, Bigler, McCarthy, and Rutledge wait around in their office.
Rutledge, now remember she's the Eve Arden character, I believe the secretary, right?
(27:24):
smarty pants yep secretary okay just i remember it right what's to be told that they will win the
case she is counting on the promissory note from uh the uh lieutenant manion to borrow money on as
it helps to buy a new office typewriter as the pnf don't strike arty of the erst art rather than
(27:47):
party of the first part okay already i can just imagine
I can just imagine
you
getting into those
Yeah, getting into those legal documents, you know, at the court.
Well, I'm kind of hung up on the typewriter.
Well, yeah, to be typing, you know, typewriter, oh gosh, just all the extra work to do.
So McCarthy, who's Arnold, I'm sorry, Arthur O'Connell, he contemplates 12 people go off into a room, 12 different minds, 12 different hearts, and 12 different walks of life, 12 sets of eyes, ears, shapes, and sizes, and these 12 people are asked to judge another human being as different from them as they are from each other.
(28:33):
And when they judge him, they must be of one mind, unanimous. That's one of the miracles of man's disorganized soul, that they can do it. And in most instances, they will do it well. God bless juries.
So, the jury finds the defendant, Lieutenant Mannion, as being not guilty by reason of insanity.
(28:58):
When heading over to the client to get the client's signature on the promissory note.
A lawyer that's getting paid by a promissory note.
Yeah, that's how it goes.
I mean, you've got to keep your secretary happy.
Bigler and McCarthy Fah, Lieutenant and Mrs. Mannion, have left the area.
(29:20):
In the note that this left for Bigler, the Lieutenant Mannion apologized for leaving so suddenly,
but he was seized by an irresistible impulse.
What a nice little neat little bow, right?
that was not a yeah i guess but it was i and so i think we talked about this when we saw the movie
(29:44):
is that you and i spent a lot of time during that movie waiting for that like was there a red herring
was there a surprise twist and there were some you know there were some it made you wonder a lot of
you wonder a lot of things right you're like oh was she cheating was it like a rape like
you know you know yeah i mean just she was very flirty on lots of different
(30:06):
occasions and it was like you got to wonder right yeah what's the scenario here
And so there was a lot, you know, I think there was some purposeful that it was to leave
you thinking and making some of your own conclusions, but I'm not going to lie.
(30:27):
It was a little, I was waiting for that.
Like, you know, you've seen those movies where it's like you find out like Ed Norton and
Primal Fear or something like that, that the whole time they've been guilty and they've
been fooling their attorney.
And I kept waiting for that to happen.
No, it's just, you know, she's not getting her typewriter, I don't think.
(30:51):
She's going to have to start doing, still doing, what, Artie of the Earthspark.
right yeah no absolutely and you know and it was one of those things too like right i think for her
it it caused the most complexity or like kind of confusion as to how this was going to end
because it seemed like she wanted her husband to go to jail but maybe not and like it was just
(31:16):
very confusing as as it continued and you're like kind of going oh this is going to be the thing
that's that turns it into a different approach right like this is now
the new information that comes, that comes, uh, in front of them. And yeah, he's guilty. She's guilty.
or what the
Or what they're saying is totally off the wall.
(31:38):
well she's an imperfect person
She's, she's trying to get.
she's trying to get
the James Stewart, the Bigler to the lawyer, the defending attorney to sleep with her.
Why, who knows, just because she's just a very flawed human being.
But I think the reason that I personally expected all that,
(32:00):
and I think we're doing one of, if I'm not mistaken,
somewhere in the series we're going to do an Agatha Christie movie.
And Agatha Christie, of course, wrote most of her things with the aha.
And I'm always looking for the aha.
And I got to lower my expectations that, you know, like, I think.
I mean, it was still exhilarating, right?
(32:22):
Because you didn't know when it was going to happen.
And I think it was more maybe.
feeling a little, like, let down towards the end.
But it held me to the end.
But during the, to the very end, right?
It was still kind of, what's going to happen, right?
it's going to happen oh yeah and it held me to the end yeah and and then it makes it a little
easier to again to be critical of the the rules of evidence and some of the legal procedures and
(32:44):
That would never happen, but you're just like, okay, that's the aside,
and I don't think the director.
That's really where they were going with this.
And I think it's what, auto premature with this?
And he wanted you to think.
And, you know, not get caught up in what the legal procedures were.
So it held me to the end.
(33:04):
But, you know, when I got to the credits, I'm like, remember the look on my face?
I was like, no, no, no gotchas?
But I think the note was kind of the gotcha.
I'm
I mean, I will say it for me, it kind of wrapped it up a bit like it not in the sense of.
that physical wrapping it up
(33:27):
they've now run off
and it's like
they're never going to get paid
but I think just the note itself
was just a very cutesy
like way to end that
and bring it all back
And bring it all back.
I enjoyed that part, I guess.
Yeah, and bring it all back.
And when he says irresistible impulse,
then maybe you're supposed to think,
it's like, was that all just...
(33:49):
And remember, the irresistible,
that was the attorney's idea to do that.
He had to pretty much, as we mentioned,
So it's like, I guess he's like,
I did it because, you know,
ha-ha, wink-wink.
Of, you know, you told me you're not getting paid because of the reason you gave me, which is kind of, maybe it's a little twist and I didn't catch it at the time, but just as we're talking it through right now.
(34:12):
Maybe that was the twist.
And I got you at the attorney.
It's like, thanks for everything.
And thanks for giving me a defense on not paying you.
Well, you know what?
That is all for today's episode.
This was super fun.
(34:32):
Thanks for joining us.
Next time, we're going to explore another classic crime film with its perfect wine pairing.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.