All Episodes

August 27, 2025 39 mins
Bradley Jay Fills in on NightSide

Lyle and Erik Menendez were convicted of first-degree murder for killing their parents, José and Mary Louise "Kitty" Menendez, at their Beverly Hills home in 1989. The Menendez Brothers were sentenced to life in prison. Both brothers have long said they killed their parents because they feared for their lives, and that their father had sexually abused them both for years. Both Lyle and Erik were up for parole this August and much to their family’s displeasure, they were both denied parole for 3 years. Michael Coyne, the Dean of the MA School of Law discussed the Menendez Brothers’ case and get into the debate on whether life behind bars is worse than the death penalty.

Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's NIC's Eyes with Dan Ray. I'm going easy Boston's
News Radio.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
It is Nightside with Dan Ray.

Speaker 3 (00:07):
Bradley Jay for Dan tonight and one of your favorite guests,
Dean Michael Coin. Dean a Dean of the massach of
the School of Law, is with us. It wouldn't be complete,
it wouldn't be a complete stint without you coming in,
So thank you very much.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
I'll always enjoy spending some time with you. Bradley. It's
a nice night. All right.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
Here's what we're going to focus on. Number one, there
are multiple things. Number one, the Menendez brothers. Should they
have been set free or should they be paroled in
the future. We'll go through that in detail. Number two
is life in a supermax prison worse a worse faith
than the death penalty. A lot of folks cry out

(00:45):
for the death penalty and feel life in prison is
kind of soft. But when we go through what it's like,
you might not agree. I mean, it might be tannam
out to torture. Number three, should Trooper Procta get his
job back? And actually Dean Coin popped up with the
number four. Remember the guy caught on the kiss cam

(01:06):
at the coldplay concert, there was talk that he was
going to make my file suit against co players, I guess,
or at.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
Least being shown on the kiss.

Speaker 3 (01:14):
So the details of that are not important. It's the
question is can you We'll give you the details again,
but can you sue somebody for taking a picture of
what you're doing in public?

Speaker 4 (01:26):
Basically, that's that's it, when you're doing something incredibly stupid,
anything at all.

Speaker 3 (01:33):
And I guess I guess related to that is because
since we'll have plenty of time and we'll see what
you think about it. On the way in tonight, I
like to make things local and immediate. On the way
in tonight, on the Orange Line, pulling up to the
Wellington Street stop, before I got my hot dog at
the hot dog stand, I saw this really well dressed,

(01:54):
dapper old man with a cool straw hat and a
really cool suit, just looking so great. I wanted to
take a picture of them and post it. Then I thought, wait,
is that legal? And further, is it okay to post
things at post photos you take of someone without asking them?

Speaker 2 (02:10):
Do you have to ask them? Can I post your photo?
In this case? I couldn't.

Speaker 3 (02:15):
The train was pulling away, I couldn't but when I'm traveling,
I take pictures and if someone's caught in it, they'll say.

Speaker 2 (02:25):
You can't take my picture, and I'm like, ken, are
you sure?

Speaker 3 (02:30):
And you may not want me to, but uh, And
here's a quick story. I guess I maybe could save
it till later, but why bother. I was in Colorado
a few years back, riding around in these small, strange
towns of Colorado, and I went into a bar. It

(02:50):
was a really dreary little town. I only had one
legit looking bar it was. I wanted to take pictures.
I do videos, So I'm taking pictures in this bar.
A woman comes up, maybe sixty five years old, kind
of rugged looking, sinewy woman, long gray hair, and she said,
excuse me, I'm the I'm the owner of this place,

(03:11):
and you cannot take pictures in here. There are people
that are very upset.

Speaker 2 (03:16):
And I said wow.

Speaker 3 (03:17):
And so she stood there and made me show her
my camera and watched me delete all the pictures.

Speaker 2 (03:25):
So there's that.

Speaker 3 (03:26):
I mean, I don't think I had to legally, but
you know, I'm way out west. I'm this city guy
from Boston in liberal Boston. I don't want to be
making these folks angry.

Speaker 2 (03:37):
So that's the kind of a debate too.

Speaker 3 (03:39):
So we'll start with the Menanda's brothers. Recently, each of
them had their shot at parole and.

Speaker 2 (03:44):
Each of them denied correct. Correct. Well, let's go through.

Speaker 3 (03:48):
And I want to know what you think as well
on this six one, seven, two, five, four, ten, thirty folks,
do you feel the Menendez brothers should.

Speaker 2 (03:55):
Be set free?

Speaker 3 (03:57):
You will have Dean co and sort of spell out
the case for each position.

Speaker 4 (04:01):
Well, the problem really originates when they were significantly younger,
one was eighteen and one was twenty one when they
killed their parents in what is clearly a premeditated homicide.
They say that it's because their father had sexually abused
them for ages and the only avenue out they saw

(04:23):
was to kill both their father and mother, and so
for that, originally they were sentenced to life in prison
without the benefit of parole, as relatively obviously very young men.
And what they've argued over the years is that that's
not an appropriate punishment. We were just kids. You shouldn't
tell us that we never have an opportunity to be

(04:45):
out in public again and meet people and have a
regular life. We've served decades now in prison, and so
what they've argued is that they should have the benefit
at some point of a potential release. So what happened
ultimately then is the judge re sentenced them and instead
of releasing them, made them eligible for parole if the

(05:10):
parole board decided that they were appropriate now and sufficiently
rehabilitated that they should be able to re enter society.
The parole board in both cases said that they should
not be released yet. They can petition again in three
years and actually with time good time served, it'll probably
be about eighteen months. But because they violated a number

(05:32):
of prison rules over the last decades while they were
in prison, So it's not that you've lived since the
serious crime, that you've lived such a good life that
you should benefit from it, they said, Even while in
prison they continue to violate prison rules. Their argument is, yeah,
well that was to survive. You do what you have
to do when you're in prison. But at this point

(05:53):
in time, they're still staying in prison. And the question
now really is as will Governor Newsom commute the sentence.

Speaker 2 (06:00):
So that they could be released.

Speaker 4 (06:03):
I'm not sure that's going to happen with the parole
board having seen that they made a determination that they
continue to violate prison rules.

Speaker 2 (06:10):
Nonetheless, politically that might not be wise. I don't think
it would at all be wise for him.

Speaker 4 (06:14):
It appears that he's setting up for a presidential campaign
and these days is taking Trump directly on on a
number of fronts.

Speaker 3 (06:22):
He'll have enough problems with people accusing him of being
soft on crime without that.

Speaker 2 (06:26):
Well, I think that's right, isn't it.

Speaker 4 (06:27):
I mean, I do also think despite their young age
and their immaturity at the time they did it, there's
a lot of people who normally would feel sympathetic, they
still killed both their parents. And the real question I
think a lot of folks have is why kill the mother?
If the father was abusing you, did you really have
to kill the mother? And then of course they receive

(06:50):
all this money and they immediately start spending it.

Speaker 2 (06:53):
So there's there's no questions.

Speaker 3 (06:55):
We'll go through all that about the motivation, all that
in detail.

Speaker 2 (06:58):
Six one, seven, two five.

Speaker 3 (07:00):
We want to know how you feel if you were
in charge, if you were on the parole board. That's
how we want you to think. You know you have
the power, you're on the parole board. How are you
going to vote that these guys go, I shouldn't. I
shouldn't say it that way. Grant them parole or not?
And oh yes, one technicality regarding something you said. There

(07:23):
were sentenced to life without parole, yet they have parole hearing,
So there's really no sense if you can have a
parole hearing after life without parole, there's no real such
thing as life without parole.

Speaker 4 (07:35):
No, they because they raised a number of issues with
respect to the evidence introduced at trial and what else
should have been introduced. The judge recently re sentenced into
fifty years, and so that's how they became eligible for.

Speaker 3 (07:51):
What was the new info that had the sentence reduced.

Speaker 4 (07:55):
The argument was that evidence should have been introduced to
support their claims of sexual abuse by the father. The
biggest one since you've been doing music this week, is
that one of the band members of Minudo claimed that
the father also had sexually abused him, and there was
additional evidence to support that, and so in essence, we've

(08:18):
got some newly discovered evidence and so therefore that should
be taken into account. And also there's a significant new
evidence then as they see it, that corroborates the father's
sexual abuse of the two at that time young boys.
So you know, they had now additional support that they
felt the trial judge unfairly limited their ability to make

(08:42):
that defense, And there is some support that the judge
did not give them the latitude that the judge certainly
could have. But judges have a great deal of discretion
in admitting and excluding evidence at any rate. But I
think we're also a lot more sensitive to these issues
than we might.

Speaker 2 (08:59):
Have been three decads.

Speaker 3 (09:00):
So we're all on the parole board tonight. I'm gonna
hold my decision until I hear from y'all out there,
uh in New England. And when you call six one
seven two five four ten thirty and give me your input,
make your case, I will weigh what you say, and
I'll make my decision after. I don't know what Dean
Coin feels on this, and we won't find out that

(09:21):
until later. We're gonna get more information from Dan Coin,
and I want to get your opinions. Six one seven
two five four ten thirty. Write that down so I
don't have to keep saying it so much.

Speaker 2 (09:32):
Six one seven.

Speaker 3 (09:33):
Two five four ten thirty. Other bzy call in refrigerator magnets.
They should be they.

Speaker 2 (09:40):
Should be correct.

Speaker 3 (09:41):
Okay, quick break and we'll continue with Dan Coin on WBZ.

Speaker 1 (09:46):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's
news Radio.

Speaker 3 (09:51):
We continue on night Side with Dean Michael Coin, and
we're going to try to decide tonight if the menandas
brothers should be released. And there are some extent there
are some circumstances where someone might say that they should.
On the other hand, maybe not. So Dean Coin is
gonna go cut, remind us, refresh us of the details

(10:13):
of what happened that faithful night when the men Anda's brothers.
I don't have to say allegedly. It's been established, right.

Speaker 4 (10:20):
They were convicted. I don't have to say allegedly again.
So they were relatively young, I think one's eighteen, one's
twenty one. And what they did, and there's really no
doubt about this, there was a premeditated homicide of both parents.
They went and purchased a shotgun, then went and got

(10:41):
the shot shotgun, and then brought it into the house
and in a pretty cold blooded fashion, first shot the father,
then shot the mother, and then instead of calling the
police to say we've done away with our tormentors. They
in part went on a spending spree of their parents' money.

Speaker 2 (11:02):
The police. Yeah, exactly. They rose for about a week
to ten days actually.

Speaker 3 (11:07):
With their parents' bodies in the living room.

Speaker 4 (11:09):
I assume that's where they were left, because it wasn't
ultimately discovered for a week or so more. When the
boys were ultimately found to have been spending the money,
they were arrested, and that's when all of this then
flowed from there.

Speaker 3 (11:25):
So you almost make it and insanity defense because leaving
your parents on the floor I don't.

Speaker 2 (11:32):
Like a horror movie it is.

Speaker 4 (11:34):
I don't know exactly where they left them, but there
was plenty of time that that went by where they
could have at this point no longer felt in fear
of their father. And that's what they said, is that
they feared him. He had a very violent temper, as
they described it, and they and the mother had protected
him all these years, so they feared her as well.

(11:55):
The problem is that's where a lot of people don't
buy into the story. If the father was this monster,
once he's gone, then your mother wouldn't be subject to
that influence.

Speaker 3 (12:07):
Okay, there's a problem right there. You don't really fear
the mother. You might hate the mother for allowing that.

Speaker 2 (12:12):
It's kind of sexist, isn't it. You're not fearing fearing.
Did you ever see Tony Soprano's mother?

Speaker 3 (12:17):
No, I mean I probably did. I can't remember, but you.

Speaker 4 (12:21):
Know what I mean, I do. But there are some
women who are pretty brutal. But in this all right,
this is the In this case, it doesn't appear that
she is the perpetrator of any of these sexual abuse.

Speaker 2 (12:32):
Thank you very much.

Speaker 3 (12:34):
All right, So I will run through a couple of
problems that I see, and you, you, being the professional,
tell me if I'm on the mark or not. They're
above sixteen of the eight there of majority, and they
could have left. They could have instead of committing double homicide, patricide,

(12:59):
they could have left, could have just walked away, gotten
a job washing dishes, gotten an apartment somewhere, or whatever.
They didn't need to take that step. The thing number two,
they are related. They weren't in imminent danger. And I
think that's probably something that makes a difference in court.
You you weren't defending yourself directly. They you weren't cowering

(13:23):
in the corner with your fother coming after you at
the moment. Then you tack on premeditation, which again goes
to not an imminent danger and premeditation, and then that
weird spending the money the next day business? If that's
if that's I guess that's true. I see guilty absolutely

(13:43):
for me. I guess I've decided prematurely.

Speaker 4 (13:47):
I thought you were holding your Yeah, so they did it,
and it's not good.

Speaker 3 (13:51):
But are they're extenuating circumstances. And I guess you'd have
to ask the question, even if they had been molested,
or one or both of them molested for years, does
that matter?

Speaker 2 (14:04):
Is that a not out here? Is that a defense? Not? Really?
In this case, it might.

Speaker 3 (14:09):
It might make you insane, That might cause an insanity,
a PTSD kind of thing. That might be a defense.
But you could have walked away, you pre met it
over time instead of buying the gun. You could have
kept on going, passed the gun store and left the
state and started a new life.

Speaker 2 (14:28):
Didn't have to murder them. Well, and that's right.

Speaker 4 (14:30):
Let's remember, I mean, we've talked about it over the years,
the use of deadly force to defend yourself.

Speaker 2 (14:37):
Is it possible? Right?

Speaker 4 (14:38):
We have a standard ground law in many states where
you don't have to retreat if in fact you fear
in danger of your life and safety. That's not the
case here. They were outside the house when they decided
to go in, where again they claimed monster was so
they weren't under any type of immediate threat whatsoever. I
think what they argue at times is, well, we had

(15:00):
a very we were very young, Our brains were immature.
But at twenty one and eighteen, you can make you
can make informed decisions and then ultimately be held accountable
for those decisions.

Speaker 3 (15:12):
If you don't know what the right, right or wrong,
murdering your parents is wrong by twenty one, you're going
to get to twenty three and go, oh right, oh yeah,
I just learned the other day murdering my parents is wrong.

Speaker 2 (15:25):
That's right.

Speaker 4 (15:26):
So they're using deadly force to kill the people that
should be the closest to them if they would do that,
shouldn't they shouldn't they know at the minimum, you know
that that's likely wrong and gonna be punished very severely
as it was. I mean, they've already been in jail
though thirty five years. That's a long time for anything.
But again, it's a premeditated in essence of first degree

(15:49):
homicide that a lot of people won't excuse.

Speaker 3 (15:52):
Christ and chelms Ford, thanks for being with us. What
are your thoughts on this Mennda's parole business.

Speaker 5 (16:00):
I believe it, and I just want to correct you.
It's it was a mother. It is a step brother.
Say again, it's his mother, real brother. It was a
step brother.

Speaker 3 (16:11):
Oh so you're correcting some fact. I don't know if
you could be wrong? Does that matter?

Speaker 2 (16:17):
Yeah? Is that that does that?

Speaker 6 (16:19):
If?

Speaker 2 (16:20):
How does does that make it better in some passion?
Because it sounds like that, right?

Speaker 5 (16:27):
I understand that, Surah.

Speaker 7 (16:28):
But you just what I'm saying, Just what the great
great Bradley or you that I heard for a fact
that I heard that it was a step brother. I'm
not sure what happened to the real brother, but when
I heard it was a step brother, I thought to myself,
what happened to the real brother?

Speaker 5 (16:46):
That's what I've tried to get at all.

Speaker 2 (16:48):
Right, Well, thanks for that.

Speaker 3 (16:49):
I can't neither confirm nor don't I that I can
look it up later and we we can do that.

Speaker 2 (16:55):
That would be my my mistake if it is.

Speaker 4 (16:57):
But I thought Kitty Melendez Menenda was in fact their
their natural mother. I'm not sure it changes much because
at the end of the day, she's the one that
would have been raising them along with the father for
many years, at the minimum for many years.

Speaker 2 (17:12):
Yeah, it depends on how long she was there. Step
I don't know. I don't think.

Speaker 3 (17:16):
Maybe we shouldn't entertain this until we find out the
fact on it that.

Speaker 2 (17:19):
Thank God for Google, right, Google, and then the enhanced
he I Google, which I don't know, I trust, I
don't know.

Speaker 4 (17:27):
You have to still think independently, but it does I find.
I'm finding it gets you a lot closer to an
accurate answer sooner. It's a good place to start your research,
but it's not the last place to look.

Speaker 2 (17:40):
That's the point. People have to realize.

Speaker 4 (17:42):
You can't let it think for you, but it does
give you a little more direction.

Speaker 3 (17:46):
There's one other aspect of this that I hadn't addressed,
and that is this didn't they know they'd get caught? Well,
that's didn't they know there would be consequences.

Speaker 2 (17:57):
They didn't seem to get that right, You would have had.

Speaker 4 (18:00):
To think that. Sooner or later, this gets uncovered. It
always does, so that's.

Speaker 3 (18:04):
Again I don't understanding what's wrong with you guys?

Speaker 4 (18:09):
Well, yeah, but remember, insanity defense is a very difficult
defense to raise and to be successful at. It is
rarely successful before a jury. We may well see an
example where it will be is in the Clancy case
down in Duxbury where the mother killed her three young children.
That's probably got as strong a chance as any for

(18:29):
an insanity defense to be successful, because it seems to
me you have to be crazy to kill your own
children in that manner. But it's almost never successful, and
it isn't enough to excuse their behavior without significant psychiatric support.
And then you've got to convince.

Speaker 2 (18:47):
The jury that it was that not greed and not.

Speaker 4 (18:51):
Revenge as to why they died in the fashion they did.

Speaker 3 (18:55):
And something that we haven't really considered as just out
and out evil, just bad and evil.

Speaker 4 (19:03):
That's another possibility, absolutely, I mean, especially if the motive
was to inherit the parent's money and uh to use
that for their personal benefit. Sure, that's there's a that's
a significant motivating factor.

Speaker 3 (19:18):
So the money is that was the prosecution's key motivation.

Speaker 4 (19:23):
Yeah, because almost immediately they started spending the money on
extravagant items. You know, very expensive watches and things like that.

Speaker 3 (19:30):
It wasn't so how could they, How could anybody that
all be that dumb?

Speaker 2 (19:35):
Right?

Speaker 4 (19:36):
Well, or just self absorpmentacularly dumb, just self absorbed. What
you want is more important than anything else, and you're
going to do whatever it takes to satisfy that. And
it's probably not that unusual when you think about the
criminal mind generally.

Speaker 3 (19:51):
All right, so we've kind of fleshed this out. Now,
what do you think? Six one seven, two five four PAROLEA,
no parole. This is important because who knows. Maybe we'll
send the results to the parole board and you guys
can have an effect. Maybe not, but we'll see. But
at least get us a give us a call. Six
one seven, two, five four ten thirty more. In a

(20:12):
moment on w b Z, it's Night.

Speaker 1 (20:15):
Side with Dan Ray on WBZZY, Boston's news radio.

Speaker 3 (20:20):
That's right, Bradley Jay in for Dan tonight with guests
Michael Coyn. We're talking about whether or not the Menendez
brothers should be set free on parole or not. And
we did get one color saying that we were incorrect,
saying that Mary Kitty Louise Menendez was their mother. He
said she's their stepmother. But after an exhaustive two minutes

(20:43):
two minutes of research.

Speaker 2 (20:45):
We find that that is not the case.

Speaker 3 (20:47):
And our sources, our sources say that Mary Louise Menendez
and Jose were married in nineteen sixty three. The murders
took place in nineteen eighty nine, and so that would
make her their actual mother. And it says no, the
Menanda's brother's mother, Mary Kitty Louise Menandas was not the

(21:09):
step mother. Father Jose mends were the mother and father
were their biological parents. So if anyone else can come
up with some really knockout evidence that is contrary to that,
let us know. In the meantime, we go too, Alex
and Midliss. Good to hear from you, Alex on wb Z, Hi.

Speaker 8 (21:30):
Gentlemen, how are you believing?

Speaker 7 (21:32):
So?

Speaker 9 (21:34):
I think, uh, you know, at this point they probably
should be paroled. And I was going to ask if
this happened in another state like Massachusetts, do you think
the outcome would be different? And then to wagh the uh,
they said that they had some you know, they committed
some offenses in prison which weren't too too you know, serious,

(21:56):
you know, versus what they did a lot more, you know, rehabilitation.
So that's what I wanted to ask you.

Speaker 4 (22:04):
It's a really good question question because it's still it's
a premeditated murder. So that would be murder one in Massachusetts,
and in a murder one situation in Massachusetts, you are
sentenced to life without the benefit of parole. But we've
got a couple of things. But the judge can even
though that's the sentence, the judge can determine eligibility either

(22:28):
at fifteen or twenty years, certainly if it was a
second degree murder conviction. The other part of it is
here in Massachusetts. A few years back, the Supreme Court
took or look at the cases and said, you know, listen,
when you're sentencing young men, especially men, for life in prison,

(22:49):
if you're going to say about no benefit of parole,
then you really got to take into consideration that that
brain may.

Speaker 2 (22:56):
Not be fully formed.

Speaker 4 (22:57):
So if in fact you're less than two twenty five,
then that judges need to revisit that situation.

Speaker 2 (23:04):
So I think you're right.

Speaker 4 (23:05):
I think if they were in mass they would be
looking at even though it's still a premeditated murder, the
eligibility for parole, And then the question would be, with
the parole board in Massachusetts look at it differently than California.
Thirty five years is what they've presently served. We have
released murderers serving less time than thirty five years in

(23:29):
mass And I also think that you'd see, you know,
the argument about rehabilitation and the ability and having done
good works while in prison being given significant consideration.

Speaker 2 (23:41):
They very well might be out.

Speaker 4 (23:43):
If this same event had happened in Massachusetts.

Speaker 2 (23:46):
Good question.

Speaker 9 (23:48):
Yeah, So I was going to say, sometimes it makes
me love animals more than humans.

Speaker 8 (23:54):
I mean, you know, I hate to say that, but
you know, I don't know.

Speaker 4 (23:58):
Now, my friend, my friend, hello, Professor Diane Sullivan at
the mass School of Law. That's what she spent her
professional career doing is protecting the rights of animals and
advocating for them. So, my guy, I have no Actually,
I was going to say, my guest, I have no
doubt that with Visa the most people, she much prefers
animals and especially her own uh to the companionship of

(24:21):
of me and Bradley and anyone else.

Speaker 3 (24:24):
All the horrific things that humans have done and add
up all the horrific things animals have done, and I
think the humans lose on.

Speaker 8 (24:32):
That, especially Golden Doodles. He's my favorite.

Speaker 2 (24:36):
I like my schnauz.

Speaker 8 (24:39):
Well, okay, they're good too.

Speaker 2 (24:42):
I'm gonna hang in there for the docks.

Speaker 4 (24:43):
And I was gonna say, you're a little slower that.

Speaker 2 (24:47):
How many do you have? Now? Well? Only one? Oh,
I'm sorry.

Speaker 3 (24:56):
So now it's Billy in New Hampshire. How do you
billion great Granite State live for or die? Except when
it comes to cannabis?

Speaker 8 (25:06):
Hi, Billy, Well, hey, let me go back up.

Speaker 2 (25:11):
I can't hear you. You're in and out.

Speaker 3 (25:13):
Is there anything you can do to improve your signal immediately?

Speaker 6 (25:17):
Yeah? Okay, I had just walked.

Speaker 10 (25:21):
In this store because I didn't know how long it
was going to be waiting, So sorry about that. I
have a different perspective and I woke them unto abuse
in family step him. Actually, my died when I was three, and.

Speaker 6 (25:36):
My mother married a real mean guy when when I
was four, and uh he had four kids. It was
just me and my little brother, who was two years
old at the time, and and uh I I she
actually told me years later, I begged her not to
marry him. But but the thing is is, uh, this

(26:00):
stuff happens, and it's victims of victims making victims. So
I'm sure that the father learned that behavior from someone else,
and probably that person learned it from someone else too.
It took me forty years to recover. And the difference
between rape, let's call.

Speaker 1 (26:21):
It what it is.

Speaker 6 (26:21):
It's rape, it's not sexual abuse. The difference between it
is is that when you get murdered, you don't have
to live with it, but when you get raped, you
have to live with it. And if you get repeatedly raped,
shame is terrible. Now, my perpetrator was the oldest stepbrother, Okay,

(26:46):
but I didn't recover and understand this enough until I
was forty years old. So I just think that, you know,
you you folks are talking about common sense, but sometimes
you don't have it. I mean, I've known people in therapy,

(27:07):
because I did a lot of group work. I've known
people in therapy that like they can barely function because
they're they're you know, they're so they were so brutally abused,
So you know what they did after. I mean, I
can't explain it, and I can tell you then the

(27:27):
whole scenario what the mother is her job was to
protect them, and she didn't, so.

Speaker 2 (27:32):
That was that would be punitive really particular.

Speaker 6 (27:38):
I'm just telling you that that's what it is like.
I was angry. I knew this now I learned this.
I was angry at my mother because she didn't protect me.

Speaker 3 (27:48):
Is the difference is though that you did not commit
murder and and.

Speaker 6 (27:52):
That but I just as well could have.

Speaker 4 (27:58):
And I can fully understand that, And I can fully
understand and appreciate exactly what you're saying. I've represented victims
of sexual violence in both the church cases and at
other times, and the damage is lifelong, and the survivors
are carrying all sorts of baggage with them. I mean,

(28:22):
appreciate exactly what you're saying. The problem is the manner
here for them, because, for instance, if it was done
closer in time to a rape, then the likelihood is
they would have a much stronger argument saying that it
wasn't premeditated and it was in self defense.

Speaker 2 (28:41):
And I think that's.

Speaker 4 (28:42):
Where that's where people have questions about the case. But
from the standpoint of the damage and the trauma and
the long lasting mental injuries that are inflicted as a
result of it, people like you deal with it, but
it's incredibly I was lucky.

Speaker 6 (29:04):
That I I you know, I encountered the right people,
and you know, I was able to learn about it
and understand it and express it and get it out.
But the only you know, that's the thing. And a
lot of times you won't get this any kind of
talk therapy. You know, you've got to express it. It's
body memory and it's hard. I've little literally seen other

(29:27):
men like essentially reliving the trauma because they got you know,
brought back to that place. The good thing is that
afterwards you get some relief. But it's to me, it's
about breaking the cycle. And however they say no more.
You know, they didn't do a good thing. I'm not

(29:49):
saying they didn't, but I think they've I think they've
done their time.

Speaker 4 (29:56):
There is a perspective that says, it's understandable if this
at some point, this is you feel this is the
only way out from repeated sexual violence.

Speaker 6 (30:06):
I mean, it had to be for them or why
would they have dined?

Speaker 8 (30:09):
You know, I don't know.

Speaker 6 (30:10):
I left my house as soon as I could get out.
I left my house.

Speaker 8 (30:15):
And I had a job.

Speaker 6 (30:16):
I was working, and when I was in high school,
and when I was seventeen years old, I was living
in an apartment with a friend and still in high school.
For like, I was a junior in high school then,
so I still had now the whole year of school
to go when I finished, but I never went back.
I had to get out of there. I'm telling you
that my whole life, my house wasn't safe. And there

(30:41):
was actually a guy across the street. Now this sounds crazy,
but he was an older guy. His kids were like
probably you know, maybe like seven years old than me
or whatever, and they would have gone out of the
house and he had no one to play with anymore.
He used to take me to and his boat and
take me snowmobile and fishing and stuff like that. It

(31:03):
was great. I actually said this in therapy wants. It's like,
because I gave in the realization that Roger was a man,
his house in him, that was my safe place from
my own home.

Speaker 2 (31:21):
Wow.

Speaker 3 (31:21):
You know, I'm glad you called to give this other perspective.
So you're gonna, definitely, I believe you're probably going to
say you understand the situation and you would grant them parole.

Speaker 6 (31:32):
I think I would consider it. Honestly, I really believe
that you know that there's more than came out, and
most certainly, you know, some kind of other evidence should
have been brought and then to talk about it, because
you know, it's I mean a lot of times in
people that do this stuff. You know, if you're an

(31:53):
attorney or a judge or whatever, it's you deal common sense,
but you know, the mind, it it's damage and in
so many situations, and some people just do better than others.
Some people are just luckier than others to you know,
to land in the right spot. Unfortunately, I had a
friend that uh, you know, had lived across the street,

(32:18):
and he was nice to me, and he you know,
honest to God, I mean, and never a bad thing happened.
I remember going to and I'll just stand with us.
I was raised French Catholic, and in the city that
I grew up in in Massachusetts, they had two churches,

(32:38):
a French one because of all the Acadians that lived
there and uh, and an English one. The French one
closed down, but before it did, a good friend of
mine from high school, his mother's funeral was there funeral mass,
and so I went to that, and it was in
the same church, but many many years after I left.

(33:00):
I left in eighth grade. I said, I got confirmed.
I'm done with this stuff. And when I walked in
that church, I was shaken. I had a body memory.
I was, and my wife would at the time. So
what's wrong with you? And there's no core scene or
anything like that. I don't have any memories of any kind.

Speaker 3 (33:20):
Of But you still while he was still extremely affected
by that, and I hear you saying that maybe the
brothers were still affected like that as well. That's very
interesting and a really solid call. Even though there was
no imminent danger, they could have been so deeply affected
that their mind and body could have still been operating

(33:41):
under with the fear as if they were.

Speaker 2 (33:47):
And we say that.

Speaker 4 (33:48):
They should have reached out and contacted the police. But
incidents of men reporting sexual violence and abuse is far
less than women. And it's not because it doesn't happen.
It's because as even a greater difficulty in coming forward as.

Speaker 2 (34:03):
To how they perceive they'll be treated and the like.

Speaker 3 (34:06):
That's a great and important call, and I'm not gonna
require an answer to this. It is just interesting that
he pointed out Why don't they call it rape sexual abuse? Right,
is kind of a watered down version. Why would you
do that?

Speaker 2 (34:20):
Well, he's a guy, would I think he's absolutely right?
Why would that? Why would society do that? Okay?

Speaker 3 (34:26):
Next is Rachel and Quincy on w b Z. After this, it's.

Speaker 2 (34:31):
Night Side with.

Speaker 1 (34:35):
Boston's News Radio.

Speaker 2 (34:36):
It is Nightside Bradley J.

Speaker 3 (34:37):
For Dan with Michael Coin, dean to the Massachusetts School
of Law, discussing whether or not the Menendez brothers who
murdered their parents should be freed on parole. And my
last call from Billy was very powerful and and really
made the case that needs to be considered that that said,

(34:57):
Menanda's brothers might have been so damn it that even
though they weren't being attacked at that point, that their
brand had been so rewired that they maybe they felt
always vulnerable to attack. We have Rachel in Quincy. Hello, Rachel,
thanks for being with us on WBZ.

Speaker 11 (35:19):
Thank you for taking my call. I just have I
think it's a couple of comments, but we have heard
for the longest time that these two guys have done
nothing but doing what they were supposed to do. Why
they are in prison, and that's one and everybody, Yes,
they should get out, they should get out, and that's okay.

(35:41):
Now they go up in front of the board, they
get denied, and then we hear something about a cell
phone abuse. I mean as the decision one, the reason
for the decision, has that come out for us to know?
And two what is the cell phone thing? Is that

(36:04):
why they got denied?

Speaker 4 (36:06):
Yes, basically what they said is that the they were
violating prison rules why they while they were in prison.
So in essence, you're still not a Laura abiding person.
So therefore we're going to deny your parole.

Speaker 3 (36:20):
So you're going to make that phone thing a life
a life incarceration of event, which which it now is.
It's either you get out now or spend the rest
of your life because of a phone violence.

Speaker 4 (36:30):
What the what the uh Antite release advocates were saying
and was reported to the parole board was well, it's
not just the phone. You have to figure how they
were able to get the phone, and that requires smuggling
in bribes and encouraging others then to violate the rules.

(36:51):
And what you're doing really at the end of the
day is it's not just about a cell phone, but
you're supporting prison gangs through payment to be able to
get access to that phone. So they made it much
more sinister than just simply wanting to reach the outside world.

Speaker 3 (37:08):
As you know, we just went through how horrible it
isn't there and the psychological damage are going to occur,
and maybe if a phone helps them survive psychologically. I'm
an I, as a parole BOYD member, probably not going
to hold it against him. And after Billy's call, I'm
sort of leaning leaning into thinking, you know what, there
is some doubt in my mind.

Speaker 2 (37:27):
I mean, maybe they were, but.

Speaker 11 (37:30):
Can I just say something, Yeah, you're supposed to abide
by certain rules. And I don't know how long this
phone thing was going on, but if you're supposed to
bide by certain rules and you spent thirty years in
trying to get out by being like the primary great

(37:50):
prisoner or whatever, you don't need a phone. There are
a lot of people behind you to try to get
you out. You don't need a phone right now, we're
trying to get you out, So why do that? Like
that was kind of I mean silly and stupid on
their part.

Speaker 4 (38:07):
It is, but again, you know it may have been
so they could more easily cooperate with their lawyers reach
the outside world to get their message out. I mean,
they've had and probably likely have been involved in a
pretty significant and effective pr campaign to try and force
this issues to get more out to the public. And

(38:27):
you know, one would question whether these two aren't really
criminal masterminds. There must be some practices that are pretty
lax in this prison for people to be able to
get access to those cell phones, which then the prison
authorities should take some responsibility for that as well.

Speaker 3 (38:44):
Great point, great call, Rich, appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (38:46):
I really do.

Speaker 3 (38:47):
We're gonna we have about thirty seconds to kind of
wrap up. I'm not gonna give my answer. I'm gonna
tease it at but I'm formulating my decision and Den
going to formulate his as if we were on the
parole board. We thank you for your input on there.
Next uh kind of in a related topic, is life

(39:08):
imprisonment in this in what we're going to talk about
is in a supermax prison like Sarnaya, Is that a
fate worse than death? Is that tantamount in torture? And
is the death penalty really worse?

Speaker 2 (39:20):
It's w b Z
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!

24/7 News: The Latest

24/7 News: The Latest

The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2025 iHeartMedia, Inc.