Karmelo Anthony Found GUILTY, Michael Jackson’s Verdict, and Revisiting the Scott Peterson Case

Summary

MK True Crime Podcast — Episode Summary “Karmelo Anthony Found GUILTY, Michael Jackson’s Verdict, and Revisiting the Scott Peterson Case”
Positively Legal | Hosted by Janice Filbor and Mark Iglars
Air date: June 10, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode of "Positively Legal" dives into three major true crime developments: the murder conviction of Texas teen Karmelo Anthony, a critical revisit of Michael Jackson’s child abuse trial reflecting on the new Netflix docuseries Michael Jackson: The Verdict, and a fresh look at the controversial conviction of Scott Peterson. Hosts Janice Filbor and Mark Iglars provide legal insight, debate defense strategies, dissect jury behavior, and discuss public reactions, blending legal acumen with candor and occasional humor.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Karmelo Anthony Murder Verdict

[01:17-20:09]

• Case Summary: Seventeen-year-old Karmelo Anthony, a Texas high school track athlete, was found guilty of murder after fatally stabbing a peer during an altercation at a school track meet.
• Jury Deliberation:
  • The jury returned a guilty verdict after only three hours, signaling overwhelming consensus.
  • “As soon as I heard that, I said it’s a guilty verdict. I mean, unless you’re O.J., when you come back that quick, it usually is not good for the defendant.” – Janice Filbor [03:37]
• Defense Approach:
  • The defense argued self-defense but struggled, especially since the victim was unarmed.
  • Questionable defense tactics included calling a witness who was contradicted by video evidence, and putting only Anthony’s mother on the stand during sentencing.
  • “You don’t bring a knife to a push fight and you certainly don’t plunge it into somebody’s chest.” – Mark Iglars [02:53]
• Texas Sentencing Procedures:
  • Unlike other states, Texas jurors move immediately to sentencing after the verdict, with sentences ranging from 5 to 99 years for murder in this case.
  • Both the prosecution and defense called minimal witnesses during sentencing.
  • “In Texas, it’s like, dang, bang that gavel and off you go.” – Janice Filbor [06:22]
• Jury Composition & Racial Issues:
  • All-white jury after the prosecution struck three Black potential jurors. The defense’s appeal will likely challenge this, though the prosecution cited “race-neutral” reasons.
  • “That’s going to be issue number one on appeal for this kid, you know.” – Janice Filbor [10:23]
• Why Not Testify?
  • Debate on whether Anthony should have testified; Janice argues testimony was essential for the self-defense claim, while Mark suggests it could have backfired.
  • “You cannot present a self-defense defense without putting the defendant on the stand at all.” – Janice Filbor [12:05]
  • “My guess is the kid… is probably not the most articulate guy and… what he’s going to say is going to harm him.” – Mark Iglars [13:45]
• Sentencing Philosophy:
  • Both hosts agree youth is a mitigating factor; harsh punishment is warranted, but neither calls for life imprisonment.
  • “I would not give him life… but a period of years.” – Janice Filbor [18:58]

---

2. Michael Jackson: “The Verdict” Docuseries & Legal Reflections

[21:11-30:57]

• Netflix Docuseries:
  • Michael Jackson: The Verdict revisits the 2005 trial and the under-explored molestation allegations, presenting from multiple perspectives.
• Civil Settlements and Guilt:
  • $23 million settlement with one accuser is seen as ambiguous—potentially a business decision rather than an admission of guilt.
  • “When you’re that rich and you’re that famous... it's easier to write the check than to deal with the bullshit.” – Janice Filbor [22:32]
  • Mark emphasizes that a settlement is not a conviction: “You go to trial and… you win, you still lose because you’re killed in the court of public opinion.” [23:58]
• Physical Evidence:
  • Discussion of the accuser’s description matching a specific physical feature, yet Janice counters credibility with arguments about transference and adult influence on child testimony.
  • “That was brilliant… you started… accusing me of looking at people in the men’s room… but you’re damn right, with a bow tie.” – Mark Iglars, complimenting Janice’s legal logic [27:15]
• Trial Verdict and Legacy:
  • Michael Jackson was acquitted on all 10 counts, but the hosts distinguish between “legal innocence” and “factual innocence.”
  • “For me, for example, O.J. Simpson’s acquittal doesn’t mean that he’s innocent. Legally, he’s innocent.” – Mark Iglars [28:58]
• Public Reaction & Documentary Impact:
  • Mark recommends viewers watch the docuseries to decide for themselves, noting its balanced approach.

---

3. Revisiting the Scott Peterson Conviction

[32:46-54:30]

• Background:
  • Scott Peterson was convicted in 2004 for the murder of his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn son. He was originally sentenced to death (later commuted to life).
• Did the Jury Get It Wrong?
  • Janice believes there was reasonable doubt, especially after the judge disallowed a “third-party culpability” defense.
    • “I am saying you’re saying yes, Yes, I believe the Scott Peterson jury got it wrong.” – Janice Filbor [38:53]
  • Media portrayal and Peterson’s affair with Amber Frey heavily swayed public and possibly jury opinion.
  • “At that point, they didn’t care… he was guilty in the court of public opinion of being an asshole.” – Janice Filbor [35:43]
• Jury Bias:
  • The possibility of stealth jurors seeking notoriety is highlighted, especially referencing “Strawberry Shortcake,” a controversial juror.
    • “When you lie to get on a jury… your judgment is now just as tainted in our system of jurisprudence as you think Scott Peterson’s was.” – Janice Filbor [42:21]
• Prosecution’s Circumstantial Evidence (and Janice’s Counterpoints):
  • Bodies Found Where Peterson Fished: Plausible coincidence; “If somebody… did something horribly sadistic, one… way… is dumping in the nearest body of water.” [44:39]
  • Affair and Lies: Indicative of cheating, not murder.
  • Secret Boat and Cement Anchors: “He bought a boat. People like to fish by boats.” [46:19]; cement anchors explained as frugal fisherman’s habits.
  • Laci’s Hair on the Boat: “It is so easy for that type of evidence to… transference.” [47:15]
  • Suspicious Behavior: “When you are under suspicion… your brain starts doing weird stuff, and you… might make up a lie because you’re like, dang, if I tell the truth, I’m gonna really look guilty.” [48:55]
  • No Motive Proven: Mark concedes, “I don’t have that [motive]… prosecutors never have to prove motive.” [52:03]
• Both Acknowledge Circumstantial Nature:
  • No confession, no murder weapon, no eyewitness, no definitive forensics.
  • “I embrace most of the arguments that you made… This is a circumstantial case. There are no eyewitnesses…” – Mark Iglars [53:15]
• Public & Legal Reappraisal:
  • Ongoing efforts by his counsel (Mark Geragos) based on possible new forensic techniques.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Defense Tactics (Karmelo Anthony):
  “They put up a defense witness who claimed the victim had people surrounding him… on cross-exam… the witness was eviscerated by the prosecution and showed him a video… there was no one around.” – Mark Iglars [04:24]
• On Racial Makeup of Jury:
  “The state struck three potential black jurors and the defense challenged it… the state was able to get them off for a race neutral reason.” – Mark Iglars [09:08]
• On the Burden Faced by Jurors:
  “You guys are the closest thing to God in a way. You decide where this kid should be and for how long… That’s a big [responsibility].” – Mark Iglars [19:32]
• On Michael Jackson’s Settlements:
  “He wrote a big fat check to shut somebody up. And they’re not all guilty.” – Janice Filbor [28:24]
• On Legal vs Factual Innocence:
  “He’s legally innocent, because you’re innocent until proven guilty. Right. But that doesn’t mean he’s factually innocent.” – Mark Iglars [28:58]
• On Jury Manipulation (Scott Peterson):
  “There are people who try to get on the jury… because… they think [there’s a] pot of gold… [and] that pot of gold might be bigger if the person… is found guilty.” – Janice Filbor [41:29]
• On Circumstantial Evidence:
  “Give me the… why? Why would a man murder his wife? As opposed to divorcing his wife… Why would he go to the length to kill Lacy Peterson?” – Janice Filbor [51:00]
• On Prosecutors and Motive:
  “Prosecutors never have to prove motive because oftentimes you don’t know… You don’t know why.” – Mark Iglars [52:03]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Karmelo Anthony Verdict & Sentencing: [01:17 – 20:09]
• Discussion of Michael Jackson Docuseries and Trial: [21:11 – 30:57]
• Scott Peterson Case Revisited ('Did the Jury Get it Wrong'): [32:46 – 54:30]
• Off the Record – Societal Commentary/Personal Reflections: [55:41 – 62:51]

---

Overall Tone

Candid, analytical, and at times playful; Filbor and Iglars blend in-depth legal expertise with sharp commentary, using real-world insights and personal anecdotes to scrutinize trial outcomes, defense choices, and public opinion on high-profile cases.

---

For listeners and true crime followers seeking substantive legal breakdowns and provocative debate, this episode delivers comprehensive analysis and balanced skepticism on three cases that continue to spark national intrigue.

Transcript

[Commercial Announcer]

When it comes to what your family eats and drinks, you know your choices matter. You're the expert because you know what fits your life. And getting it right starts with good information. That's why America's beverage companies are sharing more information about our [e-mail] no spin, no judgments, just the facts straight from the experts. For more than 140 beverage ingredients, visit goodtonowfacts.org Oregon Parks make an Oregon summer. But what makes an Oregon park? Well, Oregon Lottery gameplay helps no matter the game. Megabucks, video lottery or keno funds from lottery games help support parks projects across the state, ensuring they stay safe, accessible, and open for all. In fact, Discover State Park Scratches are in stores now. It's the perfect way to put a little bit of Oregon's parks in your pocket. The Oregon Lottery. Together we do good things. Must be 18 or older to play. Lottery games are based on chance and should be played forever entertainment only.

[Janice Filbor]

Hey, everybody, and welcome to Positively Legal. I'm Janice Filbor, criminal defense attorney, founder of Johnny Spilboard Law. I am here with my esteemed co host, Mark Iglar, who I did just catch powdering his nose.

[Mark Iglars]

Why?

[Janice Filbor]

Because we have a big lineup, starting with some big news about Carmelo Anthony. Mark, you just came from a little tiny show called the Megyn Kelly show, right? What happened? What is going on with the Carmelo Anthony verdict?

[Mark Iglars]

So, breaking news. Although this will air Wednesday, it's Tuesday. Today the jury went back and said they had a verdict after three hours of deliberation. This is the Texas teen. Texas teen. Let's set this up. He's the Texas teen who. God depends what the facts are. But we do know that he's charged with murder. The verdict just came back. They found him guilty of murder even though they could have acquitted him and found it to be self defense, which I thought was never going to happen, or manslaughter, which I thought was more likely. And they went with murder. And the facts generally are that he was on the track team and it started to rain and he went into the tent of an opposing team, which they equate some people do to sitting on the bench of the opposing team during a basketball game. You're not supposed to go under another team's tent. Apparently that caused one of the persons in the tent, a white twin, also a teenager, to come over and yell to the defendant, Carmelo Anthony, get the hell out of the tent. And ultimately, there was testimony that the victim pushed Carmelo Anthony, who then took a Knife out of his bag and stabbed one time, the victim in his heart, killing him. He threw the knife in the bleachers, he ran away, which I didn't think was good for him. You know, consciousness of guilt, flight, not good. Never denied that he did it. But the defense argued self defense. And all along I've been saying proportionality is going to be the issue. And even if you believe that the defense, you know, his theory that he was pushed, you don't bring a knife to a push fight and you certainly don't plunge it into somebody's chest. And I think that the jurors focused on that. Is it really, is it fair to bring a knife when your ego was bruised and not necessarily your face?

[Janice Filbor]

You know, Marv, this. First of all, the jury came back in record time. They came back in three hours. Which as soon as I heard that, I said it's a guilty verdict. I mean, unless you're OJ when you come back that quick, it usually is not good for the defendant. But I have to admit something, I didn't pay as much attention to this trial. And I'm wondering how the defense even thought that a self defense defense would fly. It typically doesn't when the other person is not armed. Why do. Why does a teenager bring a knife to attract me? I mean, I have a lot of questions here. Did you get any insight into why the defense thought self defense would rule the day when the other, when the other child, when the other teen was not armed?

[Mark Iglars]

No. I mean, first of all, I have real questions about this defense team. A lot of things they did. They put up a defense witness who claimed that the victim had people surrounding him. And so that increased the threat. And then under. Yeah, hold on, hold on. Then on cross examination, that witness was eviscerated by the prosecution and showed him a video which from far, but at least you could see there was no one around the victim. And the defense should have known that. And they put him up there too quickly without really knowing what his testimony would be. That coupled with the fact that we are hearing that the jurors right now are deliberating as to what the appropriate sentence should be. Yes, in Texas, they go right from verdict right away to sentencing. The jurors are deciding what his fate will be. And the defense, the only witness they called is his mother. To their credit, they called the mother to say that he regrets doing it and he cries and all that type of stuff. I think that'll resonate. But they didn't call anybody else. No other family Members to help the defendant. No one. He ever said, God bless you, too, when he sneezed. No other track team members, not the coach, not any teachers. It was he really that hated that they couldn't find one other person. He's facing five to 99 years, Jona. That's a really big range.

[Janice Filbor]

But wait a minute. Let me get clear on this. Are you saying the defense didn't call any witnesses in the guilt phase of this, or was there a quickie sentencing hearing that happened on the heels of this verdict?

[Mark Iglars]

That the second thing you just said. So now I'm talking about this. I, I criticized them a little bit already for the actual trial where they're calling at least one witness that hurt them badly. They should never have called that witness. But now we're talking about sentencing, and I'm raising the concern that I have about their abilities when at sentencing, they call one person the mother. That's it.

[Janice Filbor]

But Mark, I mean, first of all, that's really rough. This is kind of a strange way that Texas does it normally, like where I'm from, probably where you're from, yes. Have to send somebody, especially if they're convicted of murder, something that could put them away from life. You get time to prepare, if there is an option. Sometimes there's an option. The option could be no jail at all. The option could be the rest of your life in jail. You get time to prepare a sentencing memorandum. You get time to call your witnesses. You get time to do all that. But in Texas, it's like, dang, bang, that gavel and off you go.

[Mark Iglars]

That's crazy sounding like crazy. What I just said on Megan's show was, look, I'm thinking about it from everybody's perspective, right? I feel for the victim's family. I feel for the defendant, who I'm sure does regret what he did, but he did a very serious act. I mean, the prosecution, by the way, they didn't call any witnesses at sentencing either, which I find to be very unusual. We thought maybe they'd call the twin brother. Oh, God, can you imagine the grave, like from the grave. But they didn't call anybody. I'm really curious about that. I can't wait to hear what.

[Janice Filbor]

Why?

[Mark Iglars]

Maybe by the time this airs, we'll, We'll. We'll know. We'll all know why. Maybe they just said, you know, like, like Charlie Kirk's wife, you know, we'll leave it in. In the, in the government's hands or whatever. Maybe they just said, we don't want to play A role in, in what they give him. I don't know. I don't know.

[Janice Filbor]

I wish we could hear from our viewers because the other thing that strikes me in cases like this when it doesn't appear to us that there was a really strong defense, if there was any plea bargaining going on behind the scenes at all, like anything at all. And of course we don't really know that unless somebody wants to disclose that there was. But that's another thing. Like you know, if you're got a 19 year old client and you've got an iffy self defense defense, you're going to be doing everything you can to minimize the damage. I wonder if nothing was offered.

[Mark Iglars]

So here's in the best case scenario to justify what the defense did, here's my theory. One, they probably didn't offer anything they could live with, right? That's number one. So the defense here, we'll offer you first, but it'll have to take 50 years. And they're like, well that's an ultimatum, it's a declaration of war, it's not a plea bargain. Okay, so that's number one. So then you go to trial and the thought is, okay, maybe self defense works. So we'll stack the jury with people who we think might help us. Now I don't want to bring up race, but the Supreme Court has addressed this issue and they found that both prosecutors and defense engage in getting rid of and trying to put on jurors who have the right color for them so that there's laws against it.

[Janice Filbor]

Right.

[Mark Iglars]

You cannot systematically exclude jurors of color, for example. So the defense would have liked people who look both in, I mean in every way possible, like the defendant. And they were unsuccessful. The state struck three potential black jurors and the defense challenged it and the state was able to get them off for a race neutral reason. So now you have an all white jury. Strike one in Texas, strike two with unbelievable sympathy. I mean he stabbed somebody 18 in the prime of their life. Right? Right in the heart. Over what? Over words? Over a push. It's just a really bad situation. So wait, back to what I was saying. So the defense is saying, okay, I've got no alternative but to go to trial. Maybe, maybe we can find someone who will think it's self defense or get a hung jury. Alternatively, maybe they'll do manslaughter, which would be better than what the state's offering. Or if he's found guilty of the main charge, maybe the jurors having heard the circumstances and the Facts may give him a much lower sentence than what the prosecution was maybe offering as a plea bargain.

[Janice Filbor]

Well, I guess we will find out. And you know what? You're probably right. Sometimes you end up going to trial because you haven't been offered anything that's livable. You haven't been offered a manslaughter with a 5 years plus probate. Like you haven't been on offered that. But the fact that there was an all white jury and that the prosecution was able to bounce three black potential jurors, that's going to be issue number one on appeal for this kid, you know.

[Mark Iglars]

Yes, but they said that those black, at least to one, if not all of them. But I read something about the race neutral reason was at least one of them was a teacher. So they're around young students. That's a race neutral reason. It might be more sympathetic to the defendant. That's enough. That's enough.

[Janice Filbor]

Legally, you know what, but that's also bull because both of these kids, the victim and the defendant are teenagers. So a teacher who. You don't know what side of it,

[Mark Iglars]

but I defend the prosecution's right to strike a teacher who tends to be a little bit more on the liberal side, more, you know, let's teach kids a lesson. Children are our future. Like at least listen privately all day long they might say we need to get rid of black jurors because they'll be more favorable for the defense. But legally the issue is, legally, is that enough? And all day long I think it's enough for the appellate court if it's a teacher and who has students around the same age, I think it's enough. Jona, here's my question to you though. Here's my question to you. A lot of criticism for the defense in this case for not putting the defendant on the stand in a self defense case. Your thoughts? Your thoughts?

[Janice Filbor]

You. In my opinion, you cannot present a self defense defense without putting the defendant on the stand at all. Out getting his, his mental impressions, what he was going through. Maybe he would have also garnered some sympathy with this jury. Like how can self defense depends on whether you had a reasonable belief that you were in fear of great bodily injury or death. Right? Right. Well, we want to say that reason and a reasonable belief is an objective standard. You know, I know it's different for everybody, Right. So you're a man, you might, if you're walking down the street and some kook is following you, you might not be as afraid as say me walking down the street and having a Kook. Following. Following me, even though I'm pretty tough.

[Mark Iglars]

But you're probably tougher than I. Let's just say this. You. That was very sweet of you. Thank you. Thank you for making me out to be the tough, you know, a. A list guy here. But trust me, I'd be weak.

[Janice Filbor]

I got you. So. But you know what I mean, because it's a different. We have different filters, we have different backgrounds, we have different experiences. So what's reasonable to me might not be reasonable to you and vice versa. And when you don't hear it from the horse's mouth, the jury can not process. All they can see is what was shown on the video and from the other testimony, et cetera. So that was, in my opinion, a mistake. And the question. So my question back to you is total supposition. Why do you think they didn't put him on the stand?

[Mark Iglars]

The same reason why I wouldn't have.

[Janice Filbor]

And that is.

[Mark Iglars]

And before I. Hold on, tease, but let me go back to what you're saying. I don't disagree with what you said earlier, and I would say most of the time you must put the person up there to testify as to why they reasonably fear death or great bodily harm. I'm with you. However, the exception would be in a case like this when you're not dealing with Martin Luther King, who can speak eloquently and capture how he felt. My guess is the kid who ran track is probably not the most articulate guy and. Or what he's going to say is going to harm him. For example, why were you carrying a knife to begin with? He probably doesn't have a good answer to that. But if he says nothing, at least there's speculation that maybe he carried the knife every day and it wasn't there for that particular. I don't know. But my guess is the reason they didn't put him on is because they knew he wouldn't do well and he'd be eviscerated by the prosecution. You have a better chance of arguing your position rather than putting him up there to be slaughtered by the veteran adult, smart prosecutors.

[Janice Filbor]

Well, it was a tough case. I think it was a tough defense to try to put on, especially if you've got a client who's not going to be able to speak persuasively enough. That's just rough all around. So it's sad. So I guess we'll find out soon enough what the fate of this kid is going to be. But you.

[Mark Iglars]

Well, what do you think? What do you Think. I mean, what a range. Most of the time you hear, first

[Janice Filbor]

of all, what is the range?

[Mark Iglars]

5. Well, technically, he can get life, but he's 17, so legally he can't under the law. So the question is five to 99 years. What a range. What I was going to say is, typically, number one, when somebody's convicted of murder, it's only like life without parole or life with parole. And you see it, and then the judge decides, this is so different. I can't believe the jurors are going back there to decide his fate. But also, isn't this extraordinary? He could get as little as five years with probably all the credit served in Texas. It's not like here where they're doing 85% of their time. My guess is they do a fraction of that in Texas. So he could get as little as that up to, essentially life, if you're doing 99 years or whatever. I mean, something close to that.

[Janice Filbor]

You're now making me wonder, since this is so different than the way we do it here.

[Mark Iglars]

Yeah.

[Janice Filbor]

I can't help but wonder if back in that deliberation room, the jury foreman or somebody said, look, we're going to convict him of this murder.

[Mark Iglars]

Keep going.

[Janice Filbor]

We're going to give him a chance to redeem himself.

[Mark Iglars]

That's what I'm thinking.

[Janice Filbor]

Away for life, right?

[Mark Iglars]

Yeah.

[Janice Filbor]

Wow.

[Mark Iglars]

And listen, you go watch Megyn Kelly's appearance that we just did. It was me against, you know, three people. Dave Amberg, the former prosecutor, Phil Holloway, who's still a prosecutor even though he claims he's a defense lawyer, and Megyn Kelly. Oh, boy. I mean, it was show them. Well, it was three against one.

[Janice Filbor]

Three against you.

[Mark Iglars]

Oh, it was brutal. And I wasn't saying that he shouldn't be convicted. I was just saying that we can make the argument for manslaughter. Okay. That it was a reckless disregard for human life or property, that he didn't necessarily intend to kill him. It was just reckless indifference. I was trying to make that argument. Nobody would let me. No one would embrace it. They let me make it. But then the second thing is, after the verdict came in, we were talking about what he should get, and Megan was like, I'm okay if he gets life. I think she said. And others were saying, oh, yeah. And I said, hold on. I do think the penalty should be harsh. He took a life. It's horrible. I get that. But I threw out, and nobody would take the bait. Don't we start with the concept that since he's 17, his brain's not fully formed. Hold on. Stop with the hate mail. I'm just saying mitigators, right? I mean, even. I think the Supreme Court came out with the ruling. I forget what it was. That anyone under 18 cannot legally be given life with no possibility of parole. So even the Supreme Court has made that finding. So now the question becomes how much time should he get? Right. And I think jurors will consider the facts and circumstances surrounding what did occur. We do know he didn't go into the tent, look for somebody and then stab him in the heart. And I'm not justifying what he did. I'm saying we're now looking in the form of mitigation. He's not 27. He's 17. He was pushed right before and then came out with a knife. That should have some relevance. It should be a factor. As should what he did and what he took from the family. Should be a factor. All that should be balanced.

[Janice Filbor]

Well, we're going to find out. And I think if this jury comes back and they give them something other than life, you get to go back on Megan's show and go, I told you. And if they don't, then I'm going to go on Megan's show and be like, can you believe that Mark Iguar's guy? What on earth was he thinking? I'm not.

[Mark Iglars]

I'm not advocating. I'm just saying I'm raising the issues. Do you have a time? I mean, you have a sense of what you might want to give this kid? I'm just curious.

[Janice Filbor]

My. So I would not give him life. And the only reason I would not. I think he was wrong. You don't bring a knife to a trap. I get all that. But because of his age, to me, that is a mitigating factor. I would want him severely punished. And God knows, if it were my kid who got stabbed. Stabbed at a. At a track meet. Right. It wasn't like he was in somewhere he wasn't supposed to be.

[Mark Iglars]

Right.

[Janice Filbor]

You know, that that person, that. That family has to be feeling like justice was served. So it would have to be a period of years, but not life, but a period of year.

[Mark Iglars]

I probably can't nail you down with a number. The reason why is it shows you how difficult it is for these jurors right now. They can't just say, we think you should be punished. No, no, no. You guys are the closest thing to God in a way. You decide where this kid should be and for how long. And you decide right now, you decide. You have to come up with a number, right?

[Janice Filbor]

So you come up with a number. You sentence this 17 or this 19 year old kid to whatever you're going to do. Then you go home and you know, get ice cream with your own kids or have dinner or whatever and you move on. That's a big right. And you move on.

[Mark Iglars]

Well, it's a serious crime. Crazy serious. Time for serious crime.

[Janice Filbor]

Yep.

[Mark Iglars]

Okay.

[Commercial Announcer]

Oregon parks make an Oregon summer. But what makes an Oregon park? Well, Oregon lottery gameplay helps no matter the game. Megabucks video lottery or keno funds from lottery games help support parks projects across the state, ensuring they stay safe, accessible and open for all. In fact, Discover State Park Scratches are in stores now. It's the perfect way to put a little bit of Oregon's parks in the Oregon lottery together. We do good things. Must be 18 or older to play. Lottery games are based on chance and should be played for entertainment only.

[Choice Hotels Jingle Singer]

Choice hotels get you more of what you value. Here's a little tune to help you remember. Same drive, different day don't you wish you were getting away? Pack your bags and come on through Texas, Ohio, Alaska we're up there too Comfort Inn, it's calling your name Save on the stain oh, and free waffles are yours to claim well, I hope you like my little song book [e-mail]

[Janice Filbor]

did you want to pivot real quick and talk a little? Michael Jackson or. Cause we could do that on your recommendation.

[Mark Iglars]

Yes.

[Janice Filbor]

So what is it called? The Verdict. Michael Jackson the Verdict is the new two part series.

[Mark Iglars]

Correct. It's especially important for people to watch it because so many of us saw the Michael Jackson movie, which was quite good. But what was completely missing from this episode and likely missing for the sequel, where they're going to make another billion dollars is any even mention of molestation allegations. So you go to Michael Jackson the Verdict, which is now a top show on Netflix and you watch that three part series and then you make your conclusions. It was intense. Now I, I began doing TV analysis during the Michael Jackson trial in 2005 where every day I'd be on in the morning with Katie Fang and we would debate, you know, what the evidence meant to either the prosecutor or the defense. I, I was on the defense side, she was on the prosecutor side. We would just debate. It was a very, it was interesting segment called Insider's Edge. But what do you make of the fact that he spent $23 million on one settlement alone?

[Janice Filbor]

That does not sway me, Mar. And here's why. When you're that rich and you're that famous. And we see this time and time again when people come out of the woodwork looking for money. I'm not. My opinion. When people. When you're a target, it's easier to write the check than to deal with the bullshit. And. And when you have the kind of money that you can do that, you do that. Which is. Which is also a shame because it invites other people to do it too. Not all the time. There are some legitimate victims out there. I'm not so sure that Michael Jackson's accusers were legitimate victims. This show, even though I hear you, it did shine a light on a lot of things and did not change my mind. I've had the same opinion about this since 2005.

[Mark Iglars]

What is it? What's your mind?

[Janice Filbor]

So my mind is Michael Jackson was extremely eccentric.

[Mark Iglars]

Agreed.

[Janice Filbor]

Flat out weirdo. Wonderfully, wonderfully talented. Had a rough upbringing.

[Mark Iglars]

Yes.

[Janice Filbor]

A one of a kind. Stupid in the sense that when you're that big, you cannot invite. You cannot invite what he invited into his life. But I don't think he crossed the line.

[Mark Iglars]

Wow. Okay.

[Janice Filbor]

Yeah.

[Mark Iglars]

So I will answer it this way, even though you didn't ask me, but I'm going to give my opinion.

[Janice Filbor]

I was going to.

[Mark Iglars]

Thank you. I. I don't know. Let's start with that. Nobody knows.

[Janice Filbor]

Nobody knows.

[Mark Iglars]

In fact, that's what made it so bizarre. All these people out there protesting. We know he's innocent. Well, you don't. What do you know? What do you know? You like his music, you like his moonwalk. That was just bizarre that people who weren't even watching the trial, don't even know what the evidence is, are just picking sides. That to me is just silly. Okay. Okay. So I agree with you that if you got 23 million, which is more that to us is like $1,000 or $2,000 here it's a. Here, nothing to him. And even if you say no and you go to trial and. And you win, you still lose because you're killed in the court of public opinion. So I understand why they pay off that I get. So I wanted to know more about that particular case. And I believe that I heard the facts correctly as to this particular victim or alleged victim. First, we start with 23 million is a lot of money, right? A lot. A lot.

[Janice Filbor]

Not to Michael Jackson, but. Okay, I know.

[Mark Iglars]

But it's a lot. A lot. And so that suggested to me they got something on the other side. And what we learned in that documentary was that the Person who received the $23 million alleged, very specifically that there was something unusual about Michael Jackson's penis that only someone, if he had seen it, would be able to describe. And he drew it out and he wrote down things. And then they got a search warrant for the total body of Michael Jackson, which is absolutely humiliating, right? I mean, Michael Jackson was like. This was the most humiliating thing. I get it. Unless you did something wrong, in which case, who gives a crap? And they photographed his unit. There are photographs in some file of Michael Jackson's penis. And then they compared and it matched whatever unusual things were there. It was actually present on his body. And they risked all that coming out. And that $23 million bought the silence. I'm just saying, Jonna. And there were other things that matched. So we don't know. We don't know.

[Janice Filbor]

Hang on a second. And this is not. I'm not really meaning to be flinted, flippant, but it might come out that way because it wouldn't be that first time.

[Mark Iglars]

Wouldn't be the first time with you, darling. Go ahead.

[Janice Filbor]

All right, hang on. So you guys, guys. When you go to the bathroom, for example, you're standing at a urinal. Don't tell me, Mar Guy Glarsch, that you haven't seen somebody else's junk innocently. Because of the way you guys are built. Unlike we girls who like doors and we don't let people watch us when we go and all that stuff. Men are different.

[Mark Iglars]

Neither confirm nor deny. Plead the fifth. Go on. Next.

[Janice Filbor]

You do not think that somebody in his house, if they were. If they were using a public bathroom or whatever, whatever Michael Jackson was doing with these at his Neverland Rancher.

[Mark Iglars]

Wow.

[Janice Filbor]

He couldn't accidentally see this changing into a bathing. Whatever that. That there couldn't be an innocent explanation for that.

[Mark Iglars]

You are a damn good lawyer. I really mean that because I didn't know where. But you're damn right but. However, with a bow tie. All right, so listen, that was brilliant. I mean, I didn't know where you were going with that. You started like, you know, accusing me of looking at people in the men's room. And then you went with that. A child somehow not only looked, but studied it so closely that he found to be something so unusual that he later on, at some point can do an original etching so specific that prosecutor said it matches. And he did that at, I guess, the direction of himself because he knew he'd make millions. Or a family member who said, make sure you see Michael Jackson's pp and make sure you see if there's anything unusual because maybe you can draw it out later and that'll help our case. I'm not buying a Jonah Mark.

[Janice Filbor]

You know that a child is so easily pulled into whatever the adults in the room want that child to say, especially when there's big, big money at stake.

[Mark Iglars]

That could happen. I agree.

[Janice Filbor]

It very well could happen. So. But going back to the original point, Michael Jackson is not the only celebrity to write a big fat check to shut somebody up. And they're not all guilty. Some of them might be, but they're not all guilty. It's a cost benefit analysis that you make. And when you have FU money like Michael Jackson, I could see it happening. And look, I mean, he went to trial.

[Mark Iglars]

Yes. Years later on a different victim.

[Janice Filbor]

10 counts.

[Mark Iglars]

Yes.

[Janice Filbor]

Not guilty across the board.

[Mark Iglars]

Yes. And what that means, just so we're clear, is that he's legally innocent. Because you're innocent until proven guilty. Right. But that doesn't mean he's factually innocent. And the court of public opinion, they don't have to presume or believe that he's innocent. Only jurors who start off a case deciding the facts have to feel that way. The court of public opinion can have their own opinion. So for me, for example, O.J. simpson's acquittal doesn't mean that he's innocent.

[Janice Filbor]

I agree.

[Mark Iglars]

Legally, he's innocent. I agree. Okay. Okay. So that's why this documentary is very significant. I think they do a really nice job. Unlike the crash, where they completely left out evidence and intentionally wanted to make it more even. I don't think they did that here. You hear from the prosecutor, you hear from the defense lawyer, you hear from everybody. I think it was really well done, and I encourage people to watch it. Make up your own mind and then come back to us and. And put your comments so we can read them. Yeah.

[Janice Filbor]

And, you know, can you. One last. One last thing about that. So, you know, here we are debating this, and it really matters not right to anybody about anything. He's dead. He's got his catalog, a catalog of music. We all kind of grew up listening to it. And. And we don't change anything whether he did or whether he didn't. At this point, we don't change anything.

[Mark Iglars]

But I disagree. For me, you know why? Because when I hear, I love his music, but when I Hear, hell, I DJed. When Thriller came out, I was a DJ. I did every bar mitzvah wedding. I played three or four cuts from Thriller. So let's start the party with wannabe starting something. And I still think in my mind, does he want to be starting molestation? What is he talking about? So for me, I'd like to believe in his innocence, but you watch this documentary and all I'm saying is, oh, boy, makes you think, that's all.

[Janice Filbor]

All right, so we're going to have our.

[Mark Iglars]

Speaking of Mark Garagos, speaking of Mark Garagos, who represented Michael Jackson, how about this segue?

[Janice Filbor]

You go, that was a great segu. I like to call it sigu. Okay, so when we come back, remember the case of Scott Peterson? In 2004, a jury convicted Scott Peterson of first degree murder of his pregnant wife, Laci Peters and the second degree murder of their unborn son, Connor. We are doing a little segment today called did the jury get it wrong? Mark and I will get into it when we come back. Don't go away.

[Commercial Announcer]

Oregon parks make an Oregon summer. But what makes an Oregon park? Well, Oregon Lottery gameplay helps. No matter the game Megabucks, video lottery or keno funds from lottery games help help support parks projects across the state, ensuring they stay safe, accessible and open for all. In fact, discover state park scratches are in stores now. It's the perfect way to put a little bit of Oregon's parks in your pocket. The Oregon Lottery. Together we do good things. Must be 18 or older to play. Lottery games are based on chance and should be played for entertainment only.

[Choice Hotels Jingle Singer]

Choice hotels get you more of what you value. Here's a little tune to help you remember. Same drive, different day don't you wish you were getting away? Pack your bags and come on through. Texas, Ohio, Alaska, we're up there too. Comfort Inn, it's calling your name Save on the stain. Oh, and free waffles are yours to claim. Well, I hope you like my little song book direct@sourceville tales.com.

[Mark Iglars]

Welcome back to Positively Legal. Scott Peterson. We're going to talk about not Mike Klein, who has one T in Scott. We're going to talk about Scott Peterson out in California who was convicted of killing his wife Lacey and their unborn child, Connor. Mark Garagos champions his effort. He has said repeatedly how he believes Scott Peterson is innocent, that there's no evidence that points to his guilt. He's passionate about it. Today we're going to talk about whether the jury got it wrong. That's our new segment. Thanks to Jonna And Jonna, I ask you, did the jury get it wrong?

[Janice Filbor]

So as you know, this case was probably another one that you covered. I Know, I remember I did back in the day.

[Mark Iglars]

Yes.

[Janice Filbor]

And back in the day, I was odd man out. So many of my colleagues, you know, people like you and probably you. And.

[Mark Iglars]

Oh, yeah.

[Janice Filbor]

And thought, oh, my God, Scott Peterson, the worst kind of maniacal, cold blooded killer, how dare he? And the whole time I was like, you know, when you have an opinion but you don't want to say it out loud because you don't want to be tarred and feathered, you know?

[Mark Iglars]

Yes.

[Janice Filbor]

I was one of those people like, oh, well, I don't know. I mean, I kind of think the third party culpability thing would go okay, okay, okay. So I thought I was not ever convinced that there was not reasonable doubt. So that was a double negative. I thought I remained true that there was reasonable doubt. What I also remember, though, and where I knew he was going to sink. And our great friend Mark Ergos did a magnificent job defending him, despite when the revelation came out that he wasn't just a murderer in some people's eyes, but he was a cheater. He was dunsky. Yeah, done. And that was the thing that I think he was not going to recover from because the jury thought he was a liar. The jury.

[Mark Iglars]

I mean, look, well, didn't you. I mean, how did that happen?

[Janice Filbor]

Yes, yes, he is a liar. But there was so much.

[Mark Iglars]

And a cheater.

[Janice Filbor]

Prosecution and a cheater.

[Mark Iglars]

Let's at least get that out. Let's get that out.

[Janice Filbor]

Beautiful. A beautiful victim. Eight months pregnant with her first child. Christmas. Like you could not have asked for a more sympathetic situation from a prosecutorial standpoint. Right. Look, she was gorgeous. Not that, not that, you know, that changes anything, but her face was out there. Everyone felt like they knew her, even though nobody knew her.

[Mark Iglars]

Right.

[Janice Filbor]

And. And then, and then to find out that the guy sitting next to her right there with their first child on the way was having sex with Amber Fry, really, I think, turned the world off.

[Mark Iglars]

And that was it.

[Janice Filbor]

At that point, they didn't care. Nobody cared whether he was found guilty because he was guilty in the court of public opinion of being an asshole.

[Mark Iglars]

And I don't disagree with you on that for sure. That was colossal. That was it. Or very enlightening. Meaning it showed his true colors and everything else just went along with it before the other.

[Janice Filbor]

You can be a cheater, not a murderer.

[Mark Iglars]

All right, so he's serving already. He's been in for over 20 years. He was given the death penalty, just so the audience remembers. And through legal appeals, he's now off death row. He was resentenced to life. So he'll either die in prison or maybe something's going to happen. Do you think that anything might happen, Joanna, all this attention?

[Janice Filbor]

Well, apparently there is some. And again, according to our very good friend Mark Garagos, there is some new information, new forensic evidence that has gotten renewed attention and may be subject to examination by a new court somehow, some way that might actually exonerate him. Now, this is fairly new. And look, this happens time and time again. I don't know if it's going to result in a new trial or somehow to overturn his conviction, but this was. This notion was present 20 years ago that there was some other party or people who did this. And the judge back then, and I remember being very offended by it, would not let Garagos go down that third party culpability road, which does require that you have specific instances. You can't just blank and say, well, it wasn't my client, so it had to be some other somebody else, some other dude.

[Mark Iglars]

Right.

[Janice Filbor]

The judge refused to let that in. That was also, from a legal standpoint, a pivotal moment in the Scott Peterson case. If there is now enough evidence or maybe the same evidence, though with better technique to connect it to this crime, that can reopen this case. Scott Peterson absolutely deserves it. And that's where I think it's going.

[Mark Iglars]

So I listened at CrimeCon to Garagos on a panel, and he spewed how innocent Scott Peterson was. He believes it. For what it's worth, I believe that he believes it. Okay, that's number one. But then when the moderator turned to the only other person on the panel and asked a police officer, a veteran homicide detective, okay, now tell us why Scott Peterson was convicted or why he's guilty. Nothing. That person then joined the Garagos innocence team, and I thought the 3,000 people in attendance were going to go storm the jail and let him out. So nobody talked about why Peterson may be guilty. And what I'd like to do is explore that with you. If you think the jury. Are you saying officially, on the record right now, that the Scott Peterson jury got it wrong?

[Janice Filbor]

I will say that on the record right now.

[Mark Iglars]

So I want to hear it starts with a Y, ends with an S. What are you saying?

[Janice Filbor]

What do you mean, what am I saying? I am saying you're saying yes, Yes, I believe the Scott Peterson jury got it wrong. And the reason I think they got it wrong is I think they were not permitted to hear evidence that would have perhaps provided reasonable doubt, real evidence that Somebody else that a third party was responsible for the murder.

[Mark Iglars]

So here's what I'd like to do with your permission. First, I want to hear from the jurors. I think we have a couple slots from a couple jurors. Let's get some flavor from them. And then when we come back, I want to go through, because I looked it up, and I want to confront you with some of the evidence that Garagos, during that crime con thing, never brought up.

[Janice Filbor]

Bring it on.

[Mark Iglars]

Let's just see. And I'll be open minded. How about that?

[Janice Filbor]

We will. Okay.

[Mark Iglars]

I promise. I promise. All right, so let's go play pick a sot with one of the jurors and let's hear what they have to say.

[Janice Filbor]

Well, do you want to hear from Strawberry Shortcake?

[Mark Iglars]

If that's what you're calling her, yes.

[Janice Filbor]

Yeah, let's hear. Let's do SOT number six, Strawberry Shortcake.

[Mark Iglars]

Okay, let's hear that.

[Janice Filbor]

Did I say some things after the trial that people are upset with? Yeah. I was pissed off at that point. He murdered his wife, an unborn child. He never gave Connor a chance at life, ever. He could have easily left and walked away. Lacey would have been just fine. Being a single mom, the trial,

[Mark Iglars]

it

[Janice Filbor]

took a toll on me.

[Mark Iglars]

It made me,

[Janice Filbor]

you know, here's a man that probably told Lacey he loved her every day, told her she was beautiful, and all the while he was planning to kill her. So that made me trust people less.

[Mark Iglars]

What do you make of that, Jona? What's your reaction?

[Janice Filbor]

You know what? I'm glad. I'm glad that came up because that reminded me of another reason why I think the jury got it wrong. And I think the jury got it wrong because when we. And this continues to this day, when you have high profile, usually criminal trials, there are people who tried to get on the jury. Not because we just saw this, we just saw this in the Alec Murdoch case or. Or kind of in a sense. Right. But sort of.

[Mark Iglars]

We've seen it for decades. I mean, O.J. everybody wanted on that.

[Janice Filbor]

People want to get in on the action because there's some. They think pot of gold for themselves, themselves at the end of the day. And sometimes that pot of gold might be bigger if the person that they are sitting in judgment of is found guilty. And there was allegations of stealth, at least one her stealth jury on a juror on this jury. And when you do that and when you lie to get on a jury, when you don't disclose that you had a similar circumstance when you don't disclose that you are a victim of a crime. How your judgment is now just as tainted in our system of jurisprudence as you think Scott Peterson's was. By being a cheater, you are no different than the person you are standing in judgment of. And you need to be bounced. And she was not bounced. And that's another reason why.

[Mark Iglars]

Okay, I'm about to start with the evidence, but there was another juror. Okay, not with her history. There's another one.

[Scott Peterson Juror]

Long before the body's washing up. They. It was predicted by one of the title experts that if he dropped them in this general area, this is the general area where they would wash up. And that's where they washed up his consciousness of guilt by, you know, various different things. There's very. There's a lot of things that speak to that, but one of them is driving to the marina to kind of check on what's going on and leaving right away, not being there when they're found, not coming back, not calling, not calling, nothing. And there's, like I said, it's not just one thing in this. It was circumstantial case. It's everything put together making a whole picture for me anyway.

[Mark Iglars]

Okay, so it is a circumstantial case. We all agree there's no direct evidence. No one saw him do it. No busload of nuns drove by and saw him killing his wife, an unborn child. But he does mention that the bodies were found where Scott said he went fishing. Let's start with that. That's the first thing out of the gate that I had on my list. What is your response to that? Just a coincidence, Jona.

[Janice Filbor]

Scott Peterson went fishing in a body of water. That's where the fish live. And the fact that Laci Peterson and her unborn child also washed up in this body of water, that does not sway me. Because if somebody were. Let's play devil's advocate, somebody other than Scott Peterson kidnapped her, she was out walking her dog and did something horribly sadistic. There are only a few ways that you get rid of a body. One might be dumping in the nearest body of water. Another one might be digging a hole, which one takes a lot more work, not dumping him in a body of water. So is it still plausible? And my. Some other dude did it, Some third party defense defense. Is it still plausible that those two things are true? That somebody else did it and she washed up where Scott Peterson said he was fishing? Yes.

[Mark Iglars]

If we're being intellectually honest, then we say yes, it could be a Coincidence, but it's one to me. Big piece of a puzzle that completes a picture, potentially. Let's move on to the next piece of the puzzle. We already addressed the secret affair and statements about him being single that we've already addressed. Anything more to talk about on that? You're just saying that. Well, you know, prosecutors argued he was envisioning his life without his wife.

[Janice Filbor]

You know, he's a jerk. And he's not the only man to ever have an affair on a wife who was pregnant, on a wife who wasn't pregnant, on a wife who's had cancer, on a wife who hasn't had cancer, and lie to the person that they're having affair with, that they're single. They. That doesn't mean that that person wants their wife dead. As a matter of fact, most people like that want their cake and eat it, too. They want the beautiful wife and the beautiful child, and they want to be banging some whore on the side. He's not the first. He won't be the last.

[Mark Iglars]

Got it. Okay. Number three. Evidence of planning, right? Which included secretly purchasing a fishing boat. You want to handle this one at a time, or should I pile them all up?

[Janice Filbor]

Secretly. Secretly.

[Mark Iglars]

Because he told very few people about owning it. I mean, he concealed that fact. The testimony was. Again, I'm just saying what I. I wasn't there. And I'm sure if Garagos was on this podcast, he'd jump in and say, that's not what happened. Blah, blah, blah. I'm just going by. By what people have said. The evidence showed, right? So then he. Okay, so do you want to address that? That he bought this boat?

[Janice Filbor]

He bought a boat. He bought a boat. People like to fish by boats.

[Mark Iglars]

Got it. But another piece of the puzzle. You know, convenient thing that you need to get rid of a body. All right? And then he made homemade cement anchors.

[Janice Filbor]

Too cheap to buy an anchor for the boat. When you go fishing, Mark you, sometimes you want to stay in one spot where the fish are.

[Mark Iglars]

Yes.

[Janice Filbor]

Cheap. You know, you go. Go on, tick. Well, Tik Tok wasn't around back then.

[Mark Iglars]

Right? That doesn't.

[Janice Filbor]

Again, if you're a fisherman. I'm not a fisher woman. Maybe you're not a fisherman. It's probably not an uncommon thing.

[Mark Iglars]

And they never found the cement anchors, but there was plenty of evidence that there was cement work in his warehouse and that then he created these things to help the bodies sink into the very bay that he claimed he was fishing in that the bodies were recovered from.

[Janice Filbor]

Okay, listen, this is Great. But remind me when you're done. I have one question for you, but we can continue.

[Mark Iglars]

Okay, how about this one? Lacey's hair was found on the boat. A strand of her hair consistent with Lacy's hair was found on pliers on the boat that she was never to have known to use.

[Janice Filbor]

Easy. Easy. You know what? You know how it's easy? I will bet you right now, I will bet you 10 bucks that some of the fur from any number of my cats is still on the couch at the Poodle Room from two weeks ago. Why? Because I got it on my dress right now. I got it all over. It's called transference.

[Mark Iglars]

And the way you were grinding on that couch, demonstrating your moves to us all, that would have increased the transfer. Yes.

[Janice Filbor]

All of you listening, do not listen to him right now. But I'm saying it is so easy for that type of evidence to. Easy.

[Mark Iglars]

So I agree that that is. That definitely is the argument that somehow it got. The hair got on the pliers because they share a home together. They're not strangers.

[Janice Filbor]

Right, Right.

[Mark Iglars]

All right, what about all the repeated lies, right? The lies about his affair, the lies about, you know, his activities. You know, he lied whether he'd been fishing or golfing, about various aspects of conduct after Lacy disappeared. They're showing this as consciousness of guilt. Jona. Another piece of the puzzle?

[Janice Filbor]

No, Another piece of the puzzle, but let me ask you, and I'm sure you've had clients like I have had clients. When you are under suspicion, and especially if you are under suspicion and you ain't guilty, your brain starts doing weird stuff, and you. You might not be 100% truthful. You might make up a lie because you're like, dang, if I tell the truth, I'm gonna really look guilty. And I know I'm not guilty. That's just human nature. Is it another piece of this puzzle? Yes, of course it is. And we all know most people who are having an affair don't, you know, announce it, like, hear ye, hear ye. Just letting everybody know, my wife's about to pop out our first kid, but I'm banging Amber over here. Nobody does that. It came out okay.

[Mark Iglars]

So you'll probably then argue the same thing when it comes to not just what he was saying, the repeated lies, but his conduct. For example, he showed little emotion at the loss of his wife and child. That's a thing. He appeared detached or missing from search efforts, maybe because he knew they would be futile. He continued conversations with Amber Fry while pretending to be elsewhere and finally, he discussed future plans inconsistent with a husband who expected his wife to return. How do you respond to that?

[Janice Filbor]

Again, the person who is under suspicion is not going to act like a person who is not under a spotlight. We don't know if he was in the dark of night crying a river over his missing wife and child. We do. We do not. We do not know that. And let me, if you don't mind, you have several. Listen, you're very good. You have several pieces of evidence, right, that make up this circumstantial.

[Mark Iglars]

I got more people. I got more, but go on.

[Janice Filbor]

Okay, but let me ask you the question that will undermine many of these pieces of circumstantial evidence. Not just in this case, in other cases. Okay, give me. And you can't say because he was having an affair. Give me the. Why? Why would a man murder his wife? As opposed to divorcing his wife or as opposed to neither? As opposed to just trying to carry on an affair and live a double life and have his cake and eat it too. Why would he go to the length to kill Lacy Peterson?

[Mark Iglars]

Well, it's cheaper, first of all, right? You divorce her, you got to give her half second. He wanted to move on. What. What are you doing that for, Keeper? To keep her.

[Janice Filbor]

Okay, okay, but you're joking.

[Mark Iglars]

I'm not joking. That's. That's money. Isn't most of the time the motive?

[Janice Filbor]

Right, but was there any money? Where's that piece? Do you have that piece in the circumstantial?

[Mark Iglars]

I don't have that. No fault. So I don't know. I don't. And here's the thing. I should have started off with. Prosecutors never have to prove motive because oftentimes you don't know. You don't know why, right? I don't know what's in his head. I don't know anything about it. I do know, to shift back to me, that he was found in San Diego in April 2003 with large amounts of cash, 10,000, multiple cell phones, his brother's identification, camping and travel supplies. Hey, why are you fleeing, Mr. Innocent Fella?

[Janice Filbor]

Whoop. He didn't want to go to jail. Okay, you know what we need to do one day? No. Here's what we need to do one day, Mark. We need to write a script, right? Imagine. Imagine being innocent of a crime, but looking extremely guilty. And what would we. We should get a shrink on our show. What do normal, healthy minded human beings do if they feel like they are about to be convicted of a crime they did not commit. What behaviors?

[Mark Iglars]

Just so we're clear, I played the role of the prosecutor, but I embrace most of the arguments that you made, if not all of them. I would make them as a defense lawyer. This is a circumstantial case. There are no eyewitnesses to it. There's no confession. There's no blood evidence. There's no murder weapon. There's no definitive forensic evidence tying him to it. This is a challenging case. So did the jurors get it wrong? Janna says yes, they did. And I say, like, anything, maybe. Okay. We want to hear from you, though. All right, Tell us what you think. Send us an [e-mail] I've been encouraging producers to make this email longer, but they won't do it. It's not humanly possible.

[Janice Filbor]

Again, it's spell out Megyn Kelly.

[Mark Iglars]

Okay, Right, with a Y. So then it goes to an is screwed. All right, MK True. Crimeevilmaycaremedia.com Hopefully they'll put it on the screen. Up next, Jonna and I go off the record. Stick around.

[Commercial Announcer]

Oregon parks make an Oregon summer. But what makes an Oregon park? Well, Oregon lottery. Gameplay helps no matter the game. Megabucks, video lottery or keno. Funds from lottery games help support parks projects across the state, ensuring they stay safe, accessible, and open for all. In fact, discover state park scratches are in stores now. It's the perfect way to put a little bit of Oregon's parks in your pocket. The Oregon Lottery. Together, we do good things. Must be 18 or older to play. Lottery games are based on chance and should be played for entertainment only.

[Choice Hotels Jingle Singer]

I wrote a little song to remind you. Choice hotels get you more of the experiences you value.

[Mark Iglars]

Mmm.

[Choice Hotels Jingle Singer]

The Cambria Hotel's got it all. A rooftop bar. Have a ball. Cocktails up here. Feel just right. This Cambria. Amazing. All right. Bring a date, your teen, or even your mom. Book direct. A choice.

[Mark Iglars]

See you on the roof.

[Janice Filbor]

Welcome back to Positively Legal. Now it's time for one of my favorite parts of the show, where Mark and I go off the record. Yes, I'm a New Yorker. And just when I thought there were a few sane citizens left among us after the mass exodus to Miami. Turns out I'm mistaken. The idiots in Albany are at it again. This time taking aim at the very backbone of society, without whom we would not exist. Who? Mothers and fathers. Screw the high taxes, high crime, potholes, and manholes that swallow our citizens whole, say our New York lawmakers. Let's make parental identity a problem. Last week, a bill landed on the governor's desk which would replace the words mother and father with, wait for it, gestational parent and non gestational parent in the state law. Why does the seemingly bottomless pit of woke morons running amok in our state's capital think we even need this? Most parents wear the mother or father badge proudly. The definition of mother and father embraces the very virtue of family and has since the beginning of time. Unlike sperm donor, for example, which connotes a father whose only contribution to the family is purely biological. Mothers and fathers are different. Mothers and fathers are nurturing, guiding and supportive. In addition to giving life, they give love. This is what sets any parent apart from being just any other flesh and bone with reproductive organs. But now our government wants to give mothers and fathers a demotion by forcing us to refer to them as. As gestational and non gestational parents. Utterly absurd. Think also about how ridiculous this would sound in everyday life. Like quote our non gestational parent who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Or only a face a gestational parent could love. Or one of my favorite Bruce Willis quips, yippee ki yay, gestational parent fucker. Where does it end? By insisting on fixing problems that do not exist. We create problems we did not heretofore have. Think about that. I'm in family court every day. In the hundreds of cases of custody support and family offenses I've handled. You know what parents and judges are concerned with? Where the children lay their heads, how a separated family will financially support them, and what is in the children's best interests. Stripping mothers and fathers from the zeitgeist will also strip the very soul of our society. That's what this ridiculous bill does. And for whose benefit? Look, if I'm on a diet, I don't get my own law requiring all restaurants to remove dessert from their menus. And that's not how society works. My diet, my problem. The world doesn't have to reorganize itself around my personal preferences. It's that simple. Yet here we are in a wholly concocted culture of late where every institution, every word, every tradition has to be rewritten because somebody somewhere might prefer to be recognized as a genderless blob. Or what? You'll reside in a perpetual state of offense. Again, that's a you problem. I'm sick of it. And you should be too. Not because we're against anyone, but because we are tired of being stripped of our own identities. To keep up with other people's invented identities. And because you are not the non gestational parent, as Maury Povich so famously says. Loses a little something in the translation, don't you think?

[Mark Iglars]

Nice, Jonael, as always. Solid as a rock.

[Janice Filbor]

But I know you're all about family and parenthood and fathers and mothers, so I knew you would agree with that one with me. What's on your mind?

[Mark Iglars]

Happiness. I want to talk about happiness. I feel for people who say they're having a bad day. I used to have bad days. I won't allow myself to do that anymore. See, I believe it's a choice. I'm not saying that the circumstances that you're surrounded with are things that you should be okay with. No. We all go through challenges, whether it be huge life crises or somebody cuts you off in traffic and, boy, it's on. Things happen. But I strongly believe that the antidote to that feeling that we get when we're upset and we're filled with anger, which is one letter shy of danger, is to change our thoughts, to change how we feel, to change how we show up. The average person has approximately 50,000 thoughts a day. US lawyers have about 100,000 because we've learned to bill for our thoughts. But 80% of the thoughts that we have on a daily basis are thoughts that do not serve us well. Stinking thinking. You're not good enough. You're not smart enough. You're not pretty enough. You're not fill in the blank enough. And then 90% of the thoughts that we had yesterday are the same thoughts we're having today. The same thoughts we're going to have tomorrow. So we're caught in this vicious cycle of stinking thinking. And if you want, it ends right now. Understand where the thoughts are coming from. Your brain. And like a buffet, take what you like and leave the rest. Thank you, Biff. That's what I call my brain. Thank you. But can you send me more thoughts that serve me well? And I try to embrace those thoughts. And when I'm embracing thoughts that serve me well, I'm happy. And when the opposite occurs, I'm not. Today, you gotta see where the thoughts are coming from and. And ask for different thoughts. Aristotle said, take charge of your thoughts. You can do what you will with them. Today I take charge of my thoughts, and I choose to be happy. And I hope you do the same.

[Janice Filbor]

Well, I am now forever going to call you Biff.

[Mark Iglars]

Don't call me Biff. Uh, that's my brain.

[Janice Filbor]

And you are you are kind of a brainiac, but that was always very good. Can we just remind people, just a little shameless plug for you. You did write a book. Oh, I did that on happiness.

[Mark Iglars]

Yes. Be happybychoice.com Be happybychoice.com Excellent book.

[Janice Filbor]

Highly recommended. Be Happy by Choice by our one and only Mark Iglars. This has been another great time for us. Hopefully you too. I want to thank I want to thank my fabulous co host Mark Iglosh and thank all of you for joining us. We hope you have a wonderful week and we can't wait to see you again Next time.

[Commercial Announcer]

Oregon Parks make an Oregon Summer but what makes an Oregon Park? Well, Oregon Lottery Gameplay helps no matter the game. Megabucks, video lottery or keno funds from lottery games helps support park parks projects across the state, ensuring they stay safe, accessible and open for all. In fact, Discover State Park Scratches are in stores now. It's the perfect way to put a little bit of Oregon's parks in your pocket. The Oregon Lottery Together we do good things. Must be 18 or older to play. Lottery games are based on chance and should be played for entertainment only.

[Choice Hotels Jingle Singer]

Choice hotels get you more of what you value. Here's a little tune to help you remember. Same drive, different day don't you wish you were getting away? Pack your bags and come on through Texas, Ohio, Alaska, we're up there too Comfort Inn, it's calling your name Save on the stage oh, and free waffles are yours to claim well, I hope you like my little song Book direct@storiesville tales.com.