October 8, 2025 • 15 mins
It's Spooky season! Tune in for analysis of Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, with grave robbing, police led mobs, conspiracy to commit suicide, attempted murder, and domestic terrorism.
No part of this recording should be considered legal advice.
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok @TheLegalGeeks
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Josh Gilliland (00:05):
Hello everyone, it is October and thus spooky
season.
It gives us an opportunity tolook at classic horror movies
from the 20th century.
First up is Frankenstein Meetsthe Wolfman.
This was the first time moviecharacters had a crossover event
(00:26):
in a connected universe.
The film has brought togethermany legal issues that lawyers
have enjoyed and howled at fordecades.
First up is the issue of graverobbing.
And for those not familiar withThe Wolfman, it's a movie that
was made in the early 1940s, souh spoilers ahead if you are not
(00:49):
caught up with The Wolfman.
So Lawrence Talbot was dead atthe end of the first movie, put
down by his own father.
Frankenstein Meets the Wolfmanbegins with two men who entered
the Talbot family tomb andopened Lawrence's crypt four
(01:10):
years after his death to stealoff of Larry's corpse cash, a
ring, and a watch off of hisbody.
This is the literal definitionof grave robbing, but there are
some historical twists.
Nineteenth century casespertaining to grave robbing
(01:32):
centered on the removal of abody with the purpose of selling
the remains for medicalexperimentation.
In the case of Larry Talbot,the robbers clearly trespassed
into the crypt with theintention of committing a crime,
but it would not be the ancientview of grave robbing.
These older laws would clearlyprohibit the conduct by any of
(01:54):
the doctor Frankensteins who dugup body for medical experiments
in the other universal monstermovies.
Cause if you watch the originalFrankenstein, it's one of the
doctors, and then we're dealingwith like brothers taking place.
It's it's weird.
So it goes like father, son,son.
(02:17):
A lot there.
But that we'll talk about thatanother time.
Modern laws clearly prohibitthe conduct of the men who tried
to rob a dead body.
Idaho prohibits the desecrationof a place of burial.
Entering the tomb and openingthe crypt would qualify as
(02:38):
desecrating the grave ofLawrence Talbot.
Nevada specifically includesthat anyone who removes an
article interned with a body isguilty of a felony.
Talbot's watch, ring, and cashwere clearly interned uh with
the intention of its stayingwith his corpse, as those items
(03:01):
were buried with him.
Which I get the watch and ring.
I I understand that.
Burying someone with cash seemsa little weird, unless you're
expecting them to come back.
Like this isn't like they needto pay the boatman to cross the
river into the underworld.
It's it's just weird.
However, the two grave robbersdo not get arrested and
(03:27):
prosecuted, uh, but they dosuffer extrajudicial punishment
from a reanimated corpse thatturns into a wolf.
Fun observation later in thefilm, when the doctor and uh
police officer from aneighboring town go and visit
the crypt to find out if itindeed contains the corpse of
(03:50):
Larry Talbot, they do find thebody of one of the grave
robbers.
And the police chief makesmention of don't touch it, it's
evidence.
Which is nice to actually seesome semblance of criminal
procedure taking place, eventhough it's before an era of
rubber gloves and chalk outlinesand all the other elements that
(04:12):
we're used to in policeprocedurals.
Police-led mobs are bad forsociety.
So let's jump to the villagefrom Frankenstein.
We see a distraught fatherwho's carrying the body of his
dead daughter killed by the wolfman to the town square, and the
(04:37):
public's following him, verysimilar to the father of Little
Maria following that father withthe corpse of Little Maria in
the original Frankenstein.
This is not how things shouldshould operate, because that
(04:58):
automatically enrages people,you know, that a police
investigation should be done toensure justice takes place, not
an angry mob running through thevillage and countryside.
So Vasick, the dad, uh, goesthrough the town square, and the
public response was to form amob led by the chief of police.
(05:21):
The angry mob quickly foundMalva, the uh gypsy, who is
racially profiled as a gypsy,and she was told to speak up old
witch, and then is thrown in ajail cell for an extended period
of time.
So the idea of a probablecause, or appearing before a
(05:46):
magistrate to have charges readagainst her, any semblance of
the Fourth Amendment is out thewindow.
She's held indefinitely.
The angry villagers startchasing after the wolf man,
which at best would be anunlawful assembly, which is when
two or more people do anunlawful act or do a lawful act
(06:09):
in a violent, boisterous, ortumultuous manner.
Such assembly is an unlawfulassembly.
That's California Penal CodeSection 407.
The plausible argument forunlawful assembly is the
villagers were seeking adangerous animal that killed a
human being, yet we're doing soin a violent manner.
(06:30):
The villagers pursuing the wolfman could arguably be a riot,
which is when there is an use offorce or violence, disturbing
the public peace, or any threatto use force or violence if
accompanied by immediate powerof execution, by two or more
persons acting together andwithout authority of law, is a
(06:53):
riot, and that's CaliforniaPenal Code Section 404.
There is an argument that thevillagers were acting under the
authority of the police.
Moreover, in times of publiccalamity, a governor could call
for volunteers to act in anunorganized militia.
There is a colorable but notstrong argument that the mayor
(07:15):
did call for volunteers, and thevillagers acted as an
unorganized militia in responseto the public calamity of a wolf
that killed a girl and thus wasnow stalking villagers.
There are multiple instances ofriots being urged, and those
calling for a riot could beprosecuted, and that's
(07:37):
California Penal Code Section404.6.
Moreover, when there are two ormore people who make an attempt
to riot, if they had actuallycommitted the act, they could be
prosecuted for committing arout.
And that's California PenalCode Section 406.
And actually, the crimes ofurging riot and rout were
(08:01):
committed in a town bar byindividuals drinking alcohol.
So, like this is not informeddecision making.
This is angry people at a barwho decide, let's go out and
kill whatever is out in thewoods, which is not the best
decision-making process.
(08:22):
Let's talk about medicalethics.
So early in the film, whenLarry Talbot's uh awakened in a
hospital far from home, he'sbeing treated by a doctor named
Mannering.
Now, this doctor chases downLarry Talbot across Europe by
(08:42):
looking at newspaper reports ofpeople killed by a large animal.
Dr.
Mannering confronts LarryTalbot at the new wine festival
in this European town.
And through a chain of events,Dr.
Mannering agreed to help thevillagers by killing
(09:05):
Frankenstein's creature withscience.
And after reviewing the diaryof Dr.
Frankenstein, Mannering agreedto help Larry Talbot commit
suicide.
There's a lot of medical ethicsat play here, because this is
super problematic for anydoctor.
The Hippocratic Oath states dono harm and that a doctor would
(09:29):
not administer a poison toanyone who asked to do so, nor
will I suggest such a course.
And that's from the HippocraticOath that's quoted in case law
and a variety of other sources.
Medical ethics states thatdoctors participating in
state-ordered executions violatetheir duties as doctors.
(09:51):
In the case of Dr.
Mannering, this is especiallyproblematic because he is
helping Talbot kill himself anda promise to kill Frankenstein's
creature.
That's two differentconspiracies at play.
Now, by way of comparison,California has an end-of-life
(10:11):
law that allows a person with aterminal illness who has mental
capacity to request aprescription for them to
self-administer for an aid indying drug if they meet specific
residency requirements.
Residency requirements aside,Talbot does not meet the
(10:32):
requirement of having a terminaldisease.
If anything, the curse of thewerewolf brought Talbot back
from the dead, so it's difficultto call it a terminal illness
if you can't die.
Turning into a werewolf is ahorrible physical condition, but
not one that could be calledterminal.
(10:52):
Now, California has had a lawin the book since 2019 that
makes it a felony todeliberately aid, advise, or
encourage another to commitsuicide.
And that's California PenalCode Section 401.
Dr.
Mannering, Baroness ElsaFrankenstein, and Malva all
aided in Talbot's goal to commitsuicide.
(11:14):
While the plan was notsuccessful, Dr.
Mannering violated medicalethics and engaged in conduct
that would be a felony.
The issue of Dr.
Frankenstein's creature is moreblack and white.
Murder is the unlawful killingof a human being or a fetus with
malice aforethought, and that'sCalifornia Penal Code Section
(11:34):
187.
Draining all of the life out ofthe creature would have been
murder if Dr.
Mannering had gone through withit.
Instead, the doctor could notrisk resist going all mad
scientist and opted to make thecreature stronger because he
wanted to see what it'd be like.
Now some might wonder, like,hey, didn't the doctor have a
fiduciary duty to those in thisjoint venture to r kill the
(12:00):
creature?
And the answer is no, that'snot a joint venture, that's a
conspiracy.
A joint venture could be goingout to find Dr.
Frankenstein's diary.
Having found it, and you decideto re-end somebody's life,
that's now a conspiracy tocommit murder.
You have no fiduciary duties toeach other because that goes
(12:22):
against public policy, becausewe don't want people to have
conspiracies to commit murderand then start suing each other
when they don't try murderingsomeone.
No, that goes against publicpolicy.
Now let's go back to thedistraugd, who spends most of
the movie trying to get othersto agree with him to go out and
(12:44):
kill the creature and all ofthose associated with the wolf
man.
So Vazik sought revenge on theDoctor, Talbot, the Baroness,
Melva, and the creature, becausehis daughter died.
His logic is not based onreason, but prejudice.
In order to kill everyone atCastle Frankenstein, the
(13:07):
distraught father decided toblow up the dam that provided
hydroelectric power to thecastle and flood the area.
He tries to recruit othersnaturally at the bar, including
the mayor, to blow up the dam.
Domestic terrorism is any actthat is dangerous to human life
(13:28):
that is a violation of the law.
Blowing up dams is not likeillegal parking.
Society cannot survive whenindividuals leverage self-help
means for their grievances.
Blowing up a dam to murdermultiple people is a reckless
action that could endanger thelives of everyone in town.
While the death of Vazic'sdaughter is tragic, murdering
(13:52):
multiple people would not bringher back.
This is eye for the eyejustice, and at the end of the
day everyone ends up blind.
Because blowing up the dam,what if you take out the town?
And now you've killed otherpeople and you have more people
seeking revenge.
It's it's just bad policybecause it's based on revenge,
(14:18):
not one of thoughtfulness.
Frankenstein meets the wolfman.
It's fun.
And it's not a versus movie.
It's the two meet.
They they could have had abarbecue, hung out, had drinks,
(14:41):
because both know what it's liketo be chased by an angry um r
mob trying to kill them.
So on one level, it's like, dowill these two get along because
they have common experiences,they can relate to each other,
because they're used to beingthe other and having due process
thrown out the window uh withpeople trying to commit harm
(15:05):
upon them instead of anysemblance of due process, equal
protection under the law, and atrial.
Like that's that's what societyis based upon, so we don't
devolve into rioters trying toharm each other.
That said, it's a fun film.
(15:26):
I encourage you to watch it orre-watch it if you haven't seen
it since childhood.
And stay tuned for more funcoverage of classic horror
movies for October.
Stay safe, stay healthy, andstay geeky.
Hello everyone, it is October and thus spooky
season.
It gives us an opportunity tolook at classic horror movies
from the 20th century.
First up is Frankenstein Meetsthe Wolfman.
This was the first time moviecharacters had a crossover event
(00:26):
in a connected universe.
The film has brought togethermany legal issues that lawyers
have enjoyed and howled at fordecades.
First up is the issue of graverobbing.
And for those not familiar withThe Wolfman, it's a movie that
was made in the early 1940s, souh spoilers ahead if you are not
(00:49):
caught up with The Wolfman.
So Lawrence Talbot was dead atthe end of the first movie, put
down by his own father.
Frankenstein Meets the Wolfmanbegins with two men who entered
the Talbot family tomb andopened Lawrence's crypt four
(01:10):
years after his death to stealoff of Larry's corpse cash, a
ring, and a watch off of hisbody.
This is the literal definitionof grave robbing, but there are
some historical twists.
Nineteenth century casespertaining to grave robbing
(01:32):
centered on the removal of abody with the purpose of selling
the remains for medicalexperimentation.
In the case of Larry Talbot,the robbers clearly trespassed
into the crypt with theintention of committing a crime,
but it would not be the ancientview of grave robbing.
These older laws would clearlyprohibit the conduct by any of
(01:54):
the doctor Frankensteins who dugup body for medical experiments
in the other universal monstermovies.
Cause if you watch the originalFrankenstein, it's one of the
doctors, and then we're dealingwith like brothers taking place.
It's it's weird.
So it goes like father, son,son.
(02:17):
A lot there.
But that we'll talk about thatanother time.
Modern laws clearly prohibitthe conduct of the men who tried
to rob a dead body.
Idaho prohibits the desecrationof a place of burial.
Entering the tomb and openingthe crypt would qualify as
(02:38):
desecrating the grave ofLawrence Talbot.
Nevada specifically includesthat anyone who removes an
article interned with a body isguilty of a felony.
Talbot's watch, ring, and cashwere clearly interned uh with
the intention of its stayingwith his corpse, as those items
(03:01):
were buried with him.
Which I get the watch and ring.
I I understand that.
Burying someone with cash seemsa little weird, unless you're
expecting them to come back.
Like this isn't like they needto pay the boatman to cross the
river into the underworld.
It's it's just weird.
However, the two grave robbersdo not get arrested and
(03:27):
prosecuted, uh, but they dosuffer extrajudicial punishment
from a reanimated corpse thatturns into a wolf.
Fun observation later in thefilm, when the doctor and uh
police officer from aneighboring town go and visit
the crypt to find out if itindeed contains the corpse of
(03:50):
Larry Talbot, they do find thebody of one of the grave
robbers.
And the police chief makesmention of don't touch it, it's
evidence.
Which is nice to actually seesome semblance of criminal
procedure taking place, eventhough it's before an era of
rubber gloves and chalk outlinesand all the other elements that
(04:12):
we're used to in policeprocedurals.
Police-led mobs are bad forsociety.
So let's jump to the villagefrom Frankenstein.
We see a distraught fatherwho's carrying the body of his
dead daughter killed by the wolfman to the town square, and the
(04:37):
public's following him, verysimilar to the father of Little
Maria following that father withthe corpse of Little Maria in
the original Frankenstein.
This is not how things shouldshould operate, because that
(04:58):
automatically enrages people,you know, that a police
investigation should be done toensure justice takes place, not
an angry mob running through thevillage and countryside.
So Vasick, the dad, uh, goesthrough the town square, and the
public response was to form amob led by the chief of police.
(05:21):
The angry mob quickly foundMalva, the uh gypsy, who is
racially profiled as a gypsy,and she was told to speak up old
witch, and then is thrown in ajail cell for an extended period
of time.
So the idea of a probablecause, or appearing before a
(05:46):
magistrate to have charges readagainst her, any semblance of
the Fourth Amendment is out thewindow.
She's held indefinitely.
The angry villagers startchasing after the wolf man,
which at best would be anunlawful assembly, which is when
two or more people do anunlawful act or do a lawful act
(06:09):
in a violent, boisterous, ortumultuous manner.
Such assembly is an unlawfulassembly.
That's California Penal CodeSection 407.
The plausible argument forunlawful assembly is the
villagers were seeking adangerous animal that killed a
human being, yet we're doing soin a violent manner.
(06:30):
The villagers pursuing the wolfman could arguably be a riot,
which is when there is an use offorce or violence, disturbing
the public peace, or any threatto use force or violence if
accompanied by immediate powerof execution, by two or more
persons acting together andwithout authority of law, is a
(06:53):
riot, and that's CaliforniaPenal Code Section 404.
There is an argument that thevillagers were acting under the
authority of the police.
Moreover, in times of publiccalamity, a governor could call
for volunteers to act in anunorganized militia.
There is a colorable but notstrong argument that the mayor
(07:15):
did call for volunteers, and thevillagers acted as an
unorganized militia in responseto the public calamity of a wolf
that killed a girl and thus wasnow stalking villagers.
There are multiple instances ofriots being urged, and those
calling for a riot could beprosecuted, and that's
(07:37):
California Penal Code Section404.6.
Moreover, when there are two ormore people who make an attempt
to riot, if they had actuallycommitted the act, they could be
prosecuted for committing arout.
And that's California PenalCode Section 406.
And actually, the crimes ofurging riot and rout were
(08:01):
committed in a town bar byindividuals drinking alcohol.
So, like this is not informeddecision making.
This is angry people at a barwho decide, let's go out and
kill whatever is out in thewoods, which is not the best
decision-making process.
(08:22):
Let's talk about medicalethics.
So early in the film, whenLarry Talbot's uh awakened in a
hospital far from home, he'sbeing treated by a doctor named
Mannering.
Now, this doctor chases downLarry Talbot across Europe by
(08:42):
looking at newspaper reports ofpeople killed by a large animal.
Dr.
Mannering confronts LarryTalbot at the new wine festival
in this European town.
And through a chain of events,Dr.
Mannering agreed to help thevillagers by killing
(09:05):
Frankenstein's creature withscience.
And after reviewing the diaryof Dr.
Frankenstein, Mannering agreedto help Larry Talbot commit
suicide.
There's a lot of medical ethicsat play here, because this is
super problematic for anydoctor.
The Hippocratic Oath states dono harm and that a doctor would
(09:29):
not administer a poison toanyone who asked to do so, nor
will I suggest such a course.
And that's from the HippocraticOath that's quoted in case law
and a variety of other sources.
Medical ethics states thatdoctors participating in
state-ordered executions violatetheir duties as doctors.
(09:51):
In the case of Dr.
Mannering, this is especiallyproblematic because he is
helping Talbot kill himself anda promise to kill Frankenstein's
creature.
That's two differentconspiracies at play.
Now, by way of comparison,California has an end-of-life
(10:11):
law that allows a person with aterminal illness who has mental
capacity to request aprescription for them to
self-administer for an aid indying drug if they meet specific
residency requirements.
Residency requirements aside,Talbot does not meet the
(10:32):
requirement of having a terminaldisease.
If anything, the curse of thewerewolf brought Talbot back
from the dead, so it's difficultto call it a terminal illness
if you can't die.
Turning into a werewolf is ahorrible physical condition, but
not one that could be calledterminal.
(10:52):
Now, California has had a lawin the book since 2019 that
makes it a felony todeliberately aid, advise, or
encourage another to commitsuicide.
And that's California PenalCode Section 401.
Dr.
Mannering, Baroness ElsaFrankenstein, and Malva all
aided in Talbot's goal to commitsuicide.
(11:14):
While the plan was notsuccessful, Dr.
Mannering violated medicalethics and engaged in conduct
that would be a felony.
The issue of Dr.
Frankenstein's creature is moreblack and white.
Murder is the unlawful killingof a human being or a fetus with
malice aforethought, and that'sCalifornia Penal Code Section
(11:34):
187.
Draining all of the life out ofthe creature would have been
murder if Dr.
Mannering had gone through withit.
Instead, the doctor could notrisk resist going all mad
scientist and opted to make thecreature stronger because he
wanted to see what it'd be like.
Now some might wonder, like,hey, didn't the doctor have a
fiduciary duty to those in thisjoint venture to r kill the
(12:00):
creature?
And the answer is no, that'snot a joint venture, that's a
conspiracy.
A joint venture could be goingout to find Dr.
Frankenstein's diary.
Having found it, and you decideto re-end somebody's life,
that's now a conspiracy tocommit murder.
You have no fiduciary duties toeach other because that goes
(12:22):
against public policy, becausewe don't want people to have
conspiracies to commit murderand then start suing each other
when they don't try murderingsomeone.
No, that goes against publicpolicy.
Now let's go back to thedistraugd, who spends most of
the movie trying to get othersto agree with him to go out and
(12:44):
kill the creature and all ofthose associated with the wolf
man.
So Vazik sought revenge on theDoctor, Talbot, the Baroness,
Melva, and the creature, becausehis daughter died.
His logic is not based onreason, but prejudice.
In order to kill everyone atCastle Frankenstein, the
(13:07):
distraught father decided toblow up the dam that provided
hydroelectric power to thecastle and flood the area.
He tries to recruit othersnaturally at the bar, including
the mayor, to blow up the dam.
Domestic terrorism is any actthat is dangerous to human life
(13:28):
that is a violation of the law.
Blowing up dams is not likeillegal parking.
Society cannot survive whenindividuals leverage self-help
means for their grievances.
Blowing up a dam to murdermultiple people is a reckless
action that could endanger thelives of everyone in town.
While the death of Vazic'sdaughter is tragic, murdering
(13:52):
multiple people would not bringher back.
This is eye for the eyejustice, and at the end of the
day everyone ends up blind.
Because blowing up the dam,what if you take out the town?
And now you've killed otherpeople and you have more people
seeking revenge.
It's it's just bad policybecause it's based on revenge,
(14:18):
not one of thoughtfulness.
Frankenstein meets the wolfman.
It's fun.
And it's not a versus movie.
It's the two meet.
They they could have had abarbecue, hung out, had drinks,
(14:41):
because both know what it's liketo be chased by an angry um r
mob trying to kill them.
So on one level, it's like, dowill these two get along because
they have common experiences,they can relate to each other,
because they're used to beingthe other and having due process
thrown out the window uh withpeople trying to commit harm
(15:05):
upon them instead of anysemblance of due process, equal
protection under the law, and atrial.
Like that's that's what societyis based upon, so we don't
devolve into rioters trying toharm each other.
That said, it's a fun film.
(15:26):
I encourage you to watch it orre-watch it if you haven't seen
it since childhood.
And stay tuned for more funcoverage of classic horror
movies for October.
Stay safe, stay healthy, andstay geeky.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.