May 17, 2024 • 49 mins
Lyle and Erik Menendez, two Beverly Hills brothers, were convicted of murdering their parents in a tabloid case that captivated the nation in the 1990s. But in recent years, they have captured the attention of a new generation, becoming unlikely social media stars despite being in prison for the last 34 years. In this episode, Susie and Jess look at the dedicated fan accounts advocating for a new trial and the new evidence that might actually free them.
FOR MORE:
- The New Menendez Defenders (The New York Times)
- Ex-Member of Menudo Says He Was Raped by Father of the Menendez Brothers (The New York Times)
- New evidence may back Menendez brothers’ sexual abuse claims. But can it free them? (The Los Angeles Time)
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hey everyone, it's susy. Since we originally published this episode
in May of twenty twenty four, there have been significant
developments for Lyle and Eric Menendez, brothers, who were convicted
of murdering their parents in the early nineteen nineties. The
brothers do not deny the killings, but they say they
endured years of sexual and emotional abuse from their father,
and a recent documentary and a docudrama on Netflix have
(00:24):
reignited interest in their case. A number of their family
members have come forward with impassion pleas for their release,
saying that they believe them about the abuse, and on
October twenty fourth, in a studying development, the Los Angeles
District Attorney said that he would request that the Menendez
brothers be resentenced.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
I believe that they have paid their debt to society,
and the system provides a vehicle for their case to
be reviewed by a parole bar and the role concurs
with my assessment, and it will be their decision. There
(01:07):
will be released accordantly.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
If you're looking for contacts. This episode explains how we
arrived at this extraordinary moment, and how kids on social
media played an important role, and how new evidence may
impact whether they are ultimately released, and as a warning,
we discuss the sexual and emotional abuse of children in detail.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Are we with the stands here?
Speaker 4 (01:32):
I mean maybe like the romantic stands? Yeah, But now
you tell this in the light of twenty twenty four
makes it sound like the TikTokers are actually onto something.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
I'm Susie BANACHERM and I'm Jessica Bennett. And this is
in Retrospect, where each week we revisit a cultural moment
from the past that shaped.
Speaker 4 (01:52):
Us and that we just can't stop thinking about.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Today, we're talking about Lyle and Eric Menendez, two Beverly
Hills brothers convicted of killing their parents in a case
that captivated the nation in the early nineteen nineties. But
we're also talking about how in recent years they have
become unlikely social media stars despite being in prison for
thirty four years.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
Susie, I remember so vividly this era of a number
of years, when I think I was in high school,
the Menanda's brother's case just being constantly, constantly on the
air and on television. But it was with some surprise
only recently I noticed it was trending on TikTok.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Is that why you wanted to talk about.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
This, Yes, So I also have this memory of this
being in the zeitgeist. Like I vaguely knew about this case.
I wasn't someone who read all the details or watched
the trial as it was happening. But the story about
them was always the same story, which was they were
these two spoiled rich kids from Beverly Hills who had
(02:58):
everything they wanted. They killed their parents because they wanted
their inheritance and they wanted the parents out of the way.
And after they killed them, they went on this wild
spending spree. So I hadn't really thought about the Menendez
brothers in a long time. I mean, that's a pretty
salacious story, and I remember being kind of fascinated by
the concept of killing your parents for money that you
(03:20):
already had access to, right right, And I think I
saw one of the TV movies at the time, although
I don't remember it that well. But a few years
ago I did start noticing this on TikTok that occasionally
in my feed i'd see a video about these brothers.
Speaker 4 (03:36):
Why did the Menandez brothers kill their own parents?
Speaker 3 (03:39):
This is part three of this chilling case.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Did you hear the latest news about the Menandez brothers.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Four facts about the Menendez brothers.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Menandez brothers and Menendez brothers, Menendez, these two brothers should
be out of prison by now. I sort of just
took a mental note. I was like, why is there
renewed interest in this? But I sort of chalked it
up to how obsessed everyone is with true crime now.
But then a couple of years ago, Ezra Marcus wrote
a piece for the New York Times. Did you read
(04:07):
this piece? Yes? It was called the New Menendez Defenders,
and it was about how, seemingly out of nowhere, suddenly
hundreds of accounts on TikTok and Instagram were dedicated to
the Menendez brothers and how they didn't receive a fair
trial and how the abuse they suffered during their childhoods
led to this crime.
Speaker 5 (04:28):
This became a trial by media, completely sensationalized, many believing
that these two preppy, good looking, rich young men had
killed their parents for money, and in reality, their motive
for murder was far more heartbreaking and dare I say understandable.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
I honestly had such a vague memory that there had
been some abuse allegations. I'm not sure I had ever
really paid attention to that, so I thought that was
really interesting. And even the way Ezrah describes these accounts
as fascinating, right, Like a lot of them are just
endless clips from the original trials or news were parts
of the time. But some of them are literal fan
(05:03):
accounts that are dedicated to how hot the brothers are
or were.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
I guess is wild. It is the wildest.
Speaker 4 (05:12):
How old were the Menanda's brothers at the time this
took place.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
They were twenty one and eighteen, and they were very attractive,
kind of like Beverly Hills preppies at the time. Right,
A lot was made of their looks. One of the
reporters who covered them at the time talked about how
they received thousands of letters a week at the Los
Angeles County jail when they were on trial. Some of
(05:36):
them contain nude photos and ropes would line up to
see the trial. Yes, but these very specific stand culture accounts.
They have a certain kind of like dreamy, soft focus vibe,
and there's like music and often with the Menanda's brothers,
it's stills of them stitched together, often from the trials,
(05:57):
very weird things. It is amazing like my love Eric
Menendez or Lyle Menendez, and one of them had a
video that was captured Happy Birthday King for Eric Menende's birthday,
and then just like had pictures from his childhood, which
I also found creepy, Like I was like, what are
you posting pictures of him when he was like six
or seven, especially because what we know now of his
(06:19):
childhood is not great. The other thing that the New
York Times piece identified was that they're mostly gen z right,
and that it's a very international crowd.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
Oh, it's an international.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Crowd, but almost entirely teenagers who have looked at the
details of this case and have wondered how the stories
of abuse and we'll get into them were not more
front and center in the coverage. And it is a
good question, Like I have now gone back and fallen
(06:52):
into this rabbit hole, and there's a lot of things
to think about with this case.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Okay, So just to take as a step back for
a minute. I know that these things crop up on
TikTok and people become obsessed with new subjects from the past,
and you don't ever really know why. In this moment,
we are talking again about the menandas brothers. So do
you know anything about what caused this sudden renewed interest.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Well, as you say, it's very hard to pinpoint exactly
why something sort of returns. So the Zeidis, there's a
couple theories about why. Okay, this has become kind of
a popular case again, if that's the right way of
framing it. Any did a documentary about them in twenty seventeen,
and that didn't get posted on Hulu until twenty nineteen.
So there's some sense that when that was posted in
(07:41):
twenty nineteen, Blue, where you know a lot of gen
z gets their content, they watched this documentary and it
renewed their interests. That's sort of where it began. And
one of the social media fans in the New York
Times piece did talk about watching that A and E documentary,
So that might have reintroduced this case to a new
generation of true crime. Yeah, but I think the thing
(08:02):
that likely had the bigger impact is that during the pandemic,
Court TV, which aired this trial, Gabble to Gabble, as
they called it. This was one of the first trials
where that happened, posted the entire trial to YouTube.
Speaker 6 (08:17):
And we have both jury panels back in the courtroom
and everyone else is present, the defense may call its
next witness.
Speaker 5 (08:23):
Thanks, he just blowman Inus.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
And so you know, at a time, oh, when we're
all at home in the pandemic.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Yeah, at a time when everyone's at home and desperate
for like interesting content, I think a lot of kids
just would have this on all day. And so a
lot of TikTok and Instagram accounts start posting videos after that,
and Google searches for the Menanda's brother Spike. In May
of twenty twenty one, right after Court TV started putting
(08:50):
the videos on YouTube of the trial. So I suspect
that had a lot to do with it. And another
one of the social media supporters from the New York
Times piece, a twenty something student from London named Jordan Wynn,
talked about how he watched the entire trial during the
pandemic and that inspired him to start his Instagram account
at Menendez supporter got it. But I went through some
(09:11):
of these accounts last week because it had been a
while since I looked at them, and I was curious. Yeah,
and by the way, rip my algorithm. Obviously, I'm just
going to be served Menendez brother's content from.
Speaker 4 (09:20):
Now on yeah, forever for the rest of your life.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Sorry. I found that there are still hundreds of accounts
and they have millions and millions of views, and it
is fascinating. There's one called Menendez Supporter three hours and
it has two hundred and sixty five thousand followers and
almost thirteen million likes on its videos. One of its
pinned videos has almost sixteen million views and the other
(09:45):
one has seven million, So it just gives you a
sense of how popular this content is. And the most
popular accounts tend to be mostly news clips or news
reports from the time, clips from the TV movies. There
was a Law and Order special. They did a limited
series that was just the Menendez brothers a few years ago.
Clips from that seemed to do pretty well. Another element
(10:08):
of what's happened here in terms of renewed interest is
there's a change dot org petition. It was started in
March of twenty nineteen and it has about three hundred
thousand signatures. But weirdly, it's a petition to Leslie Abramson, who,
if you don't know, was Eric's lawyer during his initial trials,
and she's kind of a big character herself. She was
(10:30):
a petition to do what well to you know, I
guess file another appeal. But she's not their appellet attorney.
She's not involved in their case anymore at all.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
Okay, So it's a petition to their former lawyer to
file a new appeal on their case.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
Yeah, which gives you a sense of how plugged in
these kids are to the reality of what's happened to
the wrong person. Okay, God, but I found this also fascinating.
There was an LA Times piece recently and they reached
out to Leslie Abramson just to get her take on
what's happening. Oh okay, and she said she doesn't discuss
the case anymore. And then there's this quote from her,
(11:07):
I am still harassed by TV producers, high school kids
and nutcases who promise to get my clients out of prison.
Oh she said it an email. I have nothing else
to say to you. But I was like high school kids, Like,
imagine how many of these TikTokers must be reaching out
to Leslie Abramson.
Speaker 7 (11:24):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
And you know, Leslie Abramson I think is in her
eighties now, Like she's probably like, who are these kids?
Speaker 7 (11:30):
Wow?
Speaker 1 (11:30):
She's like get going, literally, get all of my law,
and she probably has no way of understanding what the
fuck they're talking about. She doesn't know what stan accounts are,
So yes, it's just I do think it's kind of
a hilarious twist that she's sort of been dragged into
this and is suddenly being contacted by children all around
the world. But it's not just kids. Rosie O'Donnell the
(11:52):
actress and former talk show host. She is a big
defender of the Menanda's brothers. She recently interviewed Lyle from
prison for her podcast It's a Very Special Episode.
Speaker 8 (12:02):
I talked for the full hour to Lyele Menendez, who
has been in prison for thirty four years for the
killing of both of his parents after a lifetime of
child abuse and incest.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
And she did an interview with cour TV, and she
said that she felt like the brothers didn't deserve to
still be in jail, and that she grew up in
a family with an abuse dynamic and that she believed
that they had been abused and really believed that their
lives were in danger.
Speaker 4 (12:34):
Okay, so for people who don't remember, remind us what
was the situation with the brothers and their trials and
how long have they been in prison.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
They've been in prison for thirty four years, and there
are just a lot of wild twists and turns to
the story. I actually do think it's fascinating. I understand
why it captured the imagination of the country then and
why it's capturing the imagination of all these kids now.
In a lot of ways, felt like a story made
for the tabloids. Right he was in LA there was
(13:05):
immediate interest in it. It felt like a TV movie
from the start. So here are the particulars of the crime.
(13:25):
Two brothers, Lyle and Eric Mendez. They were twenty one
and eighteen at the time of the murders, whose parents,
Jose and Kitty Menendez, were brutally murdered in the family
home in August of nineteen eighty nine. And initially this
seemed just like a random crime. The boys called it
in to nine one one. The father, Jose, who was
(13:47):
this very successful, wealthy and powerful Hollywood executive who had
sort of lived the American dream. He had immigrated to
America from Cuba with very little money and he'd made
all his own money. There was some set that maybe
this was a mob hit or somehow related to his business.
Because he was this big wig executive.
Speaker 8 (14:07):
It's not supposed to happen in Beverly Hills. A movie
executive and his wife were brutally slain and their million
dollar mansion.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
There were no clues and no suspects. The crime initially
was treated as just a random crime that had happened
to this family, and the family had always projected this
really all American family dynamic, right, successful dad, pretty blonde mom.
The two sons were very handsome. Lyle was at Princeton,
(14:36):
Eric had been accepted at UCLA. So they seemed like
classic Beverly Hills kids and Beverly Hills nine oh two
and oh. The show actually debuted in October of nineteen ninety,
so the year okay, the year after, Yeah, so that
image would have been very much in the zeitgeist. So
initially there was a lot of sympathy for the boys. Right,
(14:58):
they were victims. I'll called nine one one after they
quotes found their parents.
Speaker 4 (15:04):
Waits was the story that they had come home and
found the parents dead.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Yeah, I mean I assume that that's kind of the
story they told. Right. The story was they came home,
they found their parents dead, got it? But the story
really blows up because the brothers do end up turning
themselves in in March of nineteen ninety okay, and admitting
to the murder. So there really isn't a doubt. They
have admitted for almost thirty four years that they murdered
(15:29):
their parents, but it wasn't really clear why. And the
reason they even got caught is because Eric was seeing
a therapist, Eric who is the younger brother, and he
confessed to the therapist, and in a really weird twist,
the therapist mistress got mad at him about something. The
therapist mistress, Yes, the therapist mistress got mad a therapist
(15:52):
about something and in a rage, told the police that
the therapist had told her that he had this tape
recording a session wither he confessed to the murder. So
it was this very convoluted way that they got caught.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
I mean, you can see why.
Speaker 4 (16:06):
This is like the perfect made for TV. So there's
even a mistress involved.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
And the police almost immediately started making statements about how
savage these murders were. These were really bloody murders. The
crime scene was incredibly bloody. Jose the father was shot
six times and the mother Kitty was shot ten times.
Oh wow, So it was I think what they referred
to as overkill. The brutality of the murders is commented
on a lot in the media. It's part of what
(16:33):
really sways public opinion away from the boys. And then
there are really two other things that get a lot
of attention. The first is that after the murderers, the
boys seem to have gone on what is described in
the press as a spending spree.
Speaker 7 (16:50):
They didn't do a very good job of acting their
roles of grieving sun police say the boys went on
a wild spending spree, and unlike the relatives of most
murdered vities, the Menandoz boys did not seem to take
much interest in the police search for their parents' murderers.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
So this sort of supports the idea that they're motivated
by greed and just wanted access to their father's money.
Speaker 7 (17:12):
Right, Why did you need to buy a Rolex watch
four days after your parents were killed?
Speaker 9 (17:18):
I didn't need to.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
You wanted to. Lyle bought a Porsche and a Rolex
and randomly a hot Wings restaurant in Princeton, New Jersey,
which I don't even know. That's a strange investment. They
moved out of the house, which I guess is not
weird since there had been these brutal murders there, But
they moved into adjoining condos, which I think people found odd.
(17:40):
Eric hired a full time tennis coach and went on
the tennis circuit. But playing in the tennis like semi
professional tendants are.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
Good even if they hadn't murdered them. Strange way to
behave if your parents have just been murdered and you
don't want to look suspicious.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
So that's the interesting thing. I read that some of
their family after all this came out, said, actually, these
were just their spending habits, like this is just how
they spent money. Oh, this was normal, and that this
may have seemed odd if you were grieving, but they
just spent money like crazy, and so they may just
have not understood that they needed to shift their behavior.
Speaker 4 (18:16):
That's so like to the rest of America. When it's
now being reported in the press, it's insane because I
think this family, but if you live in that bubble
in Beverly Hills, maybe you do right.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
But in the press, this spending spree is treated as
a clear sign that they're just absolutely entitled greedy brats
who were after the money. And that's really the second
thing I think that really sways public opinion against them.
They have this very clear motive. The motive is money.
That their father's estate is worth fourteen million dollars. The
two brothers are the sole beneficiaries of that fourteen million dollars, okay,
(18:51):
And one of the things that circulated was that maybe
he had been planning to withdraw them from his will
or he was planning on cutting them off. So the
motive was they wanted access to the money and they
wanted to secure that access forever. The other thing that
police revealed during this time is that they had become
suspicious of the brothers fairly early on. You know, at
(19:11):
the crime scene, they weren't suspicious of them. They didn't
actually test to see if they had fired guns recently,
which is very common if you're a suspect in a crime.
That really would have made a big difference, I think
in this case, but they weren't tested for that. They
really were initially treated like grieving suns, but the police
felt that they weren't really acting like grieving suns.
Speaker 4 (19:31):
It's so interesting because hearing it now, You're like, Okay,
if this wasn't an uber, wealthy Beverly Hills family, isn't
the person who finds about it always the first suspect?
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (19:43):
I mean, honestly, everything I know about this I know
from law and order, So I have no idea what
it's like.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
Standard protocol in this case.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
But I assume that usually you would be a suspect
if both your parents were murdered and you happened upon
them in your home. But I think in general, this
case was so out of the ordinary. Murders like this
just did not happen in Beverly Hills, So I think
in general the police were caught a little flat footed
at the top. And what eventually happens here though, and
(20:12):
this is really the crux of what these new fans
are really focused on, is that the brothers attorneys come
forward and say that their clients actually acted in self defense.
They killed their parents because they had been suffering from
years of emotional and sexual abuse, that the father had
been sexually abusing these boys for the majority of their lives.
(20:33):
And at the point that that story starts to be
put forward by the boys attorneys, there has been three
years where the majority of the public perception has been
shaped by the prosecution side of the story. Yeah, and
so no one really believed that they were victims themselves,
and in fact, the prosecutors said this was just an
(20:53):
attempt to assassinate the characters of the real victims, which
were their parents. So going into the trial, I think
it was safe to say that most people thought that
this was an open and shycase and that the brothers
were just going to go to jail. And one other
sort of interesting thing about this is that this was
considered a landmark case because this was the first time
(21:14):
that lawyers were going to use the same defense used
in domestic violence cases, which is that the homicide was
in self defense and they feared for their lives. But
it's what's referred to as imperfect self defense because you're
not literally with a knife to your throat, but you
feel that your life is in danger. And this hadn't
been tested before outside of domestic violence, so in that sense,
(21:36):
it was like a.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
Really interesting So it hadn't been used in a child
abuse case before.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
No, and in the nineties, this was just considered a
shocking defense. Right. Conversations like this around sexual abuse certainly
about sexual abuse between a father and his sons just
did not happen in the open. And so when this
trial began in nineteen ninety three, it was just a
huge case. There was an intense amount of attention. It
(22:01):
was broadcast in its entirety, as I said, gavel to
gabble as they called it on court TV. And in
the opening statements, the lawyers for the Menanda's brothers really
get into the sexual abuse.
Speaker 4 (22:13):
Yeah, I was going to ask you what evidence did
they provide for the sexual abuse.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
There actually was a lot of contemporary US evidence, which
obviously you and I now understand is one of the
ways that you corroborate sexual abuse. But I think this
wasn't like a very well understood field, And as you
and I have talked about, there is sort of the
sense of how victims are supposed to behave, and so
there was a lot of questions around this. But the
defense really paints this house as a house of horrors,
(22:40):
and there were many witnesses to it, like friends, families,
colleagues came forward and supported the brothers version of events.
The picture of Jose Menendez was essentially one of a
terrifying monster and Kitty as an alcoholic with a drug
abuse problem who was also emotionally abusive to the boys
and knew about the sexual abuse and did nothing about it.
Speaker 4 (23:03):
And were they painting the father as physically and sexually abusive?
Speaker 3 (23:06):
What had the people.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
Witnessed, Yes, bruises, marx, etc. Okay, so they had not
witnessed the sexual abuse, but the boys had told some
of their cousins about the sexual abuse contemporaneously, So there
was a sense that this had gone on for years.
And you know, you would expect that if two people
were brutally murdered, their family would want to support them.
(23:28):
But for the most part, family came out in support
of the brothers because they really had seen that they
were treated pretty badly.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
Had they also confessed the abuse to the therapist?
Speaker 1 (23:38):
No, So that's I think one of the things that's interesting.
It seems that they had not confessed the abuse to
the therapist, and that was one of the things that
was used against them in the trial. But I think
that that's one thing that is part of that imperfect
victim trope that we talk about. I think for boys,
especially young men, talking about your father pretty brutally raping you,
(23:59):
the scenes that they end up describing. They both take
the stand. They both describe these scenes.
Speaker 9 (24:05):
That started out with him coming in my bedroom and
telling me to get on my knees. I was on
the bed at the.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
Time, and that was fairly common, wasn't it. Yes?
Speaker 4 (24:12):
What did he tell you about telling people?
Speaker 6 (24:19):
He just said that it was our secret. The bad
thing is what happened to me if I told anybody?
And I told him I never would.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
And when he came back with the knife, what did
he do with it?
Speaker 9 (24:39):
If anything, he put it on my neck. He put
his hand on my head and put the knife on
my neck.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
Did he threaten you with it?
Speaker 9 (24:46):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (24:47):
What did he say?
Speaker 9 (24:48):
He said I should kill you and next time I will.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
And did you believe him?
Speaker 9 (24:52):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (24:54):
Really really disturbing details, like one of the brothers talked
about how he ate just an enormous amount of ketchup
and always needed lemons nearby. Was it at some point
after you were eleven years old that you developed a
rather peculiar eating habit.
Speaker 9 (25:15):
Yes, I used a lot of lemon in my food.
Speaker 1 (25:19):
And what do you mean by you? And no one
in the family understood why. It was a weird kind
of like obsession with lemons, and he testified during the
trial that it was because that's what he used to
get the taste of his father semen out of his mouth.
Speaker 4 (25:32):
WHOA, that is a fascinating detail.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
It's a fascinating detail, but it's so upsetting. The details
are really specific, and I think also hard to imagine
that these details are lies, because what kind of lie
is that? That's not a lie you make up? Right,
it's so very specific the thing. But the media is
not buying it. They are really skeptical of the defense,
(25:55):
and from what I can tell, almost the majority of
the media coverage at the time is incredibly pro prosecution.
A lot of talk of this defense refers to it
as the abuse defense or the abuse excuse, and they
just are like, this is a lie, and even if
it's true, it isn't an excuse for murder, which you know,
(26:16):
the lawyers for the brothers weren't arguing that it was
an excuse for murder. They were saying that it meant
that the murders were actually manslaughter. Right, the way that
they should consider this crime was as a manslaughter crime
rather than a murder crime. Because of the corroborating evidence
of this abuse. Yeah, and by the time the boys testify,
(26:38):
it's already a huge, huge circus. And then I think
this really dramatic and emotional testimony from the brothers. These
intense descriptions of abuse are just not something most people
have ever heard in their lives. This is the early nineties.
These aren't things that people talk about.
Speaker 4 (26:54):
And so to be clear that their testimony is being
aired live, right, Yes.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
This like incredibly dramatic testimony is ying aired live. Lyle
testifies that his father has been sexually abusing him since
he was six years old, but that at some point
he stopped.
Speaker 7 (27:08):
How old were you when this stopped?
Speaker 9 (27:13):
Eight? When you were about thirteen?
Speaker 5 (27:19):
Did you think that it might be happening to someone else?
Speaker 9 (27:23):
Yes, sir? And who did you think it was happening to? Eric?
Speaker 1 (27:29):
And then Eric is crying while he watches Lyle his
older brother testify, And then Eric testifies, and he says
that the abuse never stopped for him.
Speaker 10 (27:39):
I told him that things between dad and I were
still happening and that, and he kept asking what I
was talking about. Did you tell him what you were
telling Finally I told him I told him they were
just sexual things, sexual things.
Speaker 7 (27:53):
Yes, And did you tell him anything about any kind
of violence that would accompany it, or any kind of
threats from your father?
Speaker 9 (28:03):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (28:04):
And what did you tell him about violence?
Speaker 9 (28:08):
I told him that there were pens and texts that
Dad would die, that Dad.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
Was sick in me and use, and so he had
basically been suffering in silence all this time because his
father had been threatening him that if he ever told Lyle,
he would murder them both. And that is what Eric
and Lyle say actually precipitated the murders. That they began
to realize that this was never going to end, that
they were terrified of their father. They thought he was
(28:35):
going to kill them, and Eric was really terrified that
now he told Lyle that they were in danger. And
so they say that they confronted their parents and that
that is when they learned that their mother had known
all along. They had thought that they were protecting her
from this information, but that in one of these confrontations
between the parents and the boys, it becomes clear that
(28:59):
she knew, and that in fact, the parents are not
really apologetic, and so again they feel that this really
proves that their lives are in danger, and it's really
hard to watch this testimony now, Like, I can't explain
to you how hard it is to watch with all
(29:20):
the distance that we have, and I really don't understand
how people couldn't have found it believable. I mean, if
these boys were lying, they were incredible acting. Yeah, to
think of like an eighteen and twenty one year old
boy probably by the time the trial happened, like early twenties,
you know, to think of these two boys getting up
in front of what they knew was a national televised
(29:42):
audience and talking about these issues in the way that
they did. Like it. It's really hard to watch it
and not have your heartbreak for them. I really have
trouble wrapping my head around the way it was viewed
at the time. But it just gives you a sense
of how poorly this kind of thing was understood.
Speaker 4 (30:01):
Yeah, yeah, wow, So what happens next?
Speaker 1 (30:25):
I want to mention a couple more things, just because
they end up being relevant. Later, one of the cousins
testified that when Lyle was eight, he told her about
the sexual abuse, so that would have been in nineteen
seventy six, and that she told Kitty. So there was
actual roborating evidence that the mother was aware, mother knew,
and there was another cousin that Eric confided in when
he was thirteen, so there were some people around them
(30:48):
that knew. And again, as I mentioned, the defense team
is really trying to go for a manslaughter charge, right.
They just want to make sure that the brothers aren't
put away for a murder charge, which not only means
they'll be in prison for life, but there was a
death penalty element to this case. Okay, So they're not
even suggesting that the brothers shouldn't be held accountable in
some way. They're just saying that this is not a
(31:10):
first degree murder. And jury deliberations went on for a month. Wow.
One thing to note here is that the way this
trial was structured was a little weird. There were two
separate juries, but it was one trial, so each brother
had his own jury. Oh but the trial was done
at the same time, okay. And what is really interesting
(31:31):
is that both jury's deadlock and there is a mistrial
for both brothers. And I saw this fascinating interview with
a female juror who said that on Eric's jury, at
least the deliberations broke down entirely on gender lines, that
the men really dug in that no man would ever
do to his son what these boys were saying Jose
(31:54):
Menendez did to them, really, and they wanted to convince.
Speaker 4 (31:56):
The women were like yeah, obviously, yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
And the women believed them because women know that there
is a lot of abuse.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
In the world.
Speaker 4 (32:06):
Okay, So mistrial means what exactly?
Speaker 1 (32:08):
So mistrial means that they can be tried again. Often
in cases like this, there's like a settlement at this
point because the government doesn't want to go through this
whole circus again. But that doesn't happen here for reasons
that aren't clear. What does happen is that the second
trial takes place two years later. And it's worth noting
that between the two trials there is the OJ Simpson trial,
(32:32):
which is another huge media circus in LA happening at
the same time, essentially, and the prosecutors also lose that case.
So the judicial system in LA is reeling, and so
by the time the boys get back into court for
the second trial, there is only one jury, no cameras
are allowed, and the new prosecutors ask the judge to
(32:55):
limit the amount of testimony.
Speaker 4 (32:57):
Regarding from the boys.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
Okay, they say the abuse is not relevant and it
didn't happen, and the judge essentially agrees, and there's no
clear indication of why he made that choice, but it
significantly changed the trial. The prosecutors had a real advantage.
They went in knowing what the defense strategy would be,
(33:19):
whereas they didn't really know the extent of the abuse
going into the first trial, and they really focus on
the fact that this was a well planned and executed murder,
which I don't know how well planned it was, but
it is true that they bought guns a couple of
days beforehand. You know, there were things that they did,
and the judge just kept ruling against the defense on everything.
(33:40):
He took manslaughter off the table, which left only first
or second degree murder. Leslie Abramson, who was Eric's lawyer
who I mentioned, described the second trial as hell. To
give you an idea, there were fifty plus defense witnesses
for the first trial and half of that for the second.
The family members weren't even allowed to testify. So are
(34:00):
convicted on first degree murder and luckily they don't get
the death penalty and they are sentenced to life in
prison without parole.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (34:08):
And that is where they are today.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
That's where it's at.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
Okay, They've been in prison for thirty four years since
their convictions. Both brothers have been married, even though California
doesn't allow conjugal visits for inmates with life sentences. One
of them has been married more than once, I believe,
And you know, they have just made the best of
their lives in prison. They do a lot of mentoring
(34:33):
and peer work in prison. One of them helped design
this big mural.
Speaker 4 (34:37):
Have there been like profiles of them from prison over
the years.
Speaker 1 (34:40):
Yeah, there have been some profiles, and Lyle does interviews.
Eric is more media shy. I think Eric's wife has
done some press initially when they first got married. But
this new interest I think has probably taken even them
by surprise. There were a lot of years where they
were just sort of making the best of their lives
in prison. And it's worth noting that one of them
(35:02):
said to a family member at one point, honestly, life
in prison is better than the life I had growing
up in that house, which really gives you a sense
of how scared they were as children in that house.
It really does sound like growing up in their house
was a brutal way to live.
Speaker 4 (35:22):
Okay, so are we with the stands here, like I mean,
maybe not like the romantic stands.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
Yeah, definitely not the romantic stands.
Speaker 4 (35:31):
But hearing you tell this in the light of twenty
twenty four makes it sound like the TikTokers are actually
onto something.
Speaker 1 (35:39):
Yeah, I think they have a point. I have to
be honest. Really digging into this case made me wonder
how it was possible that this was done in the
way that it was. The fact is, we just understand
so much more about the psychology of abuse and of victims,
and you can sort of understand that if you grew
up in a house where you were sexually abused from
six years old and physics abused and emotionally abused, the
(36:02):
fact that you would be so terrified of your parents
that you didn't feel like you could just like get
up and walk away. This idea that you could just leave,
and why didn't they just do that they were adults,
That is something we understand is not so simple, And
just like battered wife syndrome, we now have the concept
of a battered child syndrome.
Speaker 4 (36:21):
It reminds me a little almost of the Gypsy Rose
case as well. Yes, and which TikTok is also obsessed
with right.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
Yeah, but where.
Speaker 4 (36:28):
Yeah, years and years and years of abuse she then
has her boyfriend murder hermel anyway.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
Yes, very similar I think in some ways to that
case where people said the same thing. That was a
case where it was munchilds and biproxy. So the mother
pretended she was sick and it turned out she was
in a wheelchair but she could walk, and people were like, well,
why didn't she just walk away? Which is just really
overly simplistic.
Speaker 4 (36:47):
Right.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
We develop a relationship with your parent when you're so
young and dependent that if that relationship is rooted in
this kind of intense sphere, you don't feel like you
can just walk oh way. You think they're going to
find you and kill you. And honestly, who knows. Jose
Menenda's does not come off like a man that you
should not be scared of in every depiction of him
(37:10):
that comes out during the trial.
Speaker 4 (37:15):
Okay, so what happens now? Have the fans been effective
in asking for further scrutiny to the case.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
I mean, they've certainly been effective in drawing more attention
to the case. Yeah, but the appeals process had pretty
much played itself out. But recently there have been two
big developments that may actually change the fate of the
Menenda's brothers. The first one is a letter was discovered
written by Eric to one of the cousins that testified
(37:45):
on his behalf, and he had written him this letter
just eight months before the crime, in December of eighty eight, okay,
And this letter was found by one of their aunts,
that cousin's mother after the cousin died. So you know,
they've been in prison a long time. One of their
cousin passed away and the mother was going through his
papers and she finds this letter. And presumably it's a
(38:06):
letter that both Eric and the cousin forgot about because
it wasn't about the abuse. But in it, Eric very
clearly references the abuse. Wow. At one point he writes,
I've been trying to avoid Dad, but it's still happening. Andy.
It's worse for me now. And then there's another part
where he says, every night I stay up thinking that
he might come in. I'm afraid he's crazy. He's warned
(38:27):
me a hundred times about telling anyone, especially Lyle.
Speaker 10 (38:31):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
Wow, this is a piece of very contemporaneous evidence that
happened so far before the murders that there's no way
that they're just like making it up to cover up
this crime. But there's a bigger twist even and this
one is wild. At one point, Jose Menendez, who as
I said, was a Hollywood executive, was a top executive
(38:52):
at RCAA Records, okay. And while he was there, RCAA
signed a very popular Puerto Rican boy band from the
eighties called Menudo Manudo. It's the band that gave the
Ricky Martin. Yes, yes, it was one of the biggest
boy bands of all time and RCA signed them for
thirty million dollars. And an interesting thing about Menudo is
(39:15):
that it is a band that had an age limit,
so once the boys hit sixteen, they actually swapped them
out so that the boy band stayed forever young.
Speaker 3 (39:26):
Oh wow, whoa Okay.
Speaker 1 (39:28):
So in April of twenty twenty three, so just last year,
there is a former member of the band named Roy Roussello,
and he comes forward and says that in the nineteen eighties,
when he was fourteen or fifteen, the band's manager sent
him to go see Jose Menendez, the father of Lyle
and Eric Menendez at the family home, and while he
(39:50):
was there, he was given a glass of wine which
he believes was spiked and Jose Menendez raped him. Oh wow.
And he says that there were also other occasions, at
least two other times where Jose Menendez sexually abused him.
Speaker 3 (40:04):
Oh so this is new.
Speaker 1 (40:06):
So this is totally new, and it corroborates the boys
descriptions of abuse. He came forward as part of a
docuseries that you can watch on Peacock called Menendez and
Menudo Boys Betrayed and it's actually a fascinating docuseries. I
recommend it. It's based on the reporting of two journalists.
One is named Robert Rand. He covered the case initially
(40:27):
and has become sort of an advocate for the boys
over the years. And the other is this woman Nary Inclan,
who Robert reaches out to when he realizes that there
is this sexual abuse component that he needs to do
some additional reporting. On the way Robert Rand thinks to
connect these two cases is that he's going through some
(40:48):
old notes and he remembers that Jose Menendez's assistant in
interviews with him often emphasized how obsessed with Minudo, Jose
Menendez had been he would go all the time to
their concerts, which was not a thing you know, you
usually did when you were like the top executive of RCIA.
That he talked about them all the time, that he
(41:08):
was kind of fascinated by them. And there have been
other allegations of abuse. That manager that ran Manudo, that
created Manunda has been accused by other boys in the
band of having abused them. So it occurs to Robert Rand,
wait a second, maybe there's a connection here.
Speaker 3 (41:25):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (41:26):
He reaches out to this other reporter. She is someone
who's very skilled on doing sexual abuse reporting. She spends
a lot of time starting to talk to members of
Menudo just even to tell that story. And eventually, in
one of her conversations with Roy she's talking to him
as part of this larger Menudo investigation, and he just
(41:47):
mentions it. He says, oh, you know, there was this
RCAA executive and he raped me, And she says she
got absolute chills.
Speaker 4 (41:56):
Did the person making the accusation even make the connection
to the Menandez brothers.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
No, Wow, he had not realized in all these years,
he had not made the connection. But in the docuseries,
he describes going to the family house and he remembers
meeting the brother, but he just never connected it to
the larger story that was in the press at that time. Also,
you know, he was in Puerto Rico. He was in
this band. And that manager, by the way, is now
(42:24):
being investigated by the LAPD for the rape of Roy Roussello,
who is the person who has come forward to say
that he was abused by Jose Menendez. He has also
come forward to say that he was abused for years
allegedly by the manager Edgar Diez of Minundo.
Speaker 4 (42:41):
Wow, it's amazing how these guys just like find each other.
They're like, oh, yeah, he's my kind. We'll just run
a sex trafficking right.
Speaker 1 (42:50):
It feels like it was essentially a factory for this.
I mean, the way he describes what went on with
this particular manager is that he would essentially just bring
in new boys and constantly wait.
Speaker 4 (43:01):
Well, that makes you wonder if that's why they had
to stay forever, y'all.
Speaker 1 (43:04):
Right, of course, of course it makes you wonder that.
And so I was thinking about this, like, why do
we see so many cases of abuse like this, like
the Nickelodeon case, that's obviously become more prominent recently, and
I think what happens is is that if you are
a predator, you look for places that will give you
the most access to children. And working in entertainment, often,
(43:29):
especially when it's related to children, does give you a
lot of access and power and power because people want
fame and they want money, and so they're willing to
give their children over to you and trust you because
there's a tangible benefit to that. And so it was
really really sad to watch the stock You series, but
I really recommend it.
Speaker 4 (43:48):
Yeah, it makes me want to watch it.
Speaker 1 (43:50):
It just really broke my heart for poor Roy. So
where that leaves us is that in May of last year,
twenty twenty three, lawyers for the brothers filed a petition
in LA and asked for a new hearing and said
that this new evidence, the letter and Rory Roussello, the
former member of Menudo, coming forward, this evidence contradicts the
arguments prosecutors made in the second trial that there was
(44:11):
no abuse, and they've asked for the conviction to be overturned.
And their argument is that the brothers should never have
been convicted of murder, that this was clearly a case
of manslaughter because the brothers genuinely believed that they were
in danger because of the sexual and physical abuse. And
in June, a judge asked the LA District Attorney's Office
(44:31):
to respond to this request before a judge can rule. So,
so this past June, and so because I have never
found a rabbit hole, I can't fall too deeply into.
I spoke to one of their lawyers yesterday.
Speaker 4 (44:46):
Yes, of course, is this a different lawyer from there?
These are different lawyers from the original lawyers.
Speaker 1 (44:50):
Yes. The lawyers are Cliff Gardner, who is a well
known attorney in California, and Mark Geragos, who is a
very famous attorney who often turns up.
Speaker 3 (44:58):
Wait, okay, back up.
Speaker 4 (45:00):
So you're like, we got to do this recording tomorrow,
I just got it.
Speaker 3 (45:04):
Well, well, I had a really.
Speaker 1 (45:06):
Good reason for calling up Cliff. There have been recent
reports because of this filing, but I couldn't find a
timeline anywhere, Like I was like, okay, so now we're
waiting for the LA District Attorney's Office to respond, Like
when are they going to respond? And when can we
expect a ruling? It is true that if in fact,
the court agrees to give them a new trial, and
if they are convicted of manslaughter, they will get out
(45:29):
of prison because they have already served beyond the maximum
for mansilter.
Speaker 4 (45:33):
How old are they now, like in their fifties.
Speaker 1 (45:35):
They're in their fifties, okay, So I mean they would
get out of prison. So I imagine that they're pretty
interested in the timeline as well. But I couldn't find
one anywhere online, so I thought why not. I left
a message for Cliff Gardner. I found his number online
and was like, Hey, I'm a reporter and I'm looking
into this story. I'm recording something tomorrow. Could you give
me a callback? And he did, and he was a
lovely man, and he said that they are in fact
(45:57):
waiting for the LA District Attorney's Office to respond. The
DA's office has asked for a couple extensions because there
is just so much from the first trials to go over,
and that even once they respond, there will be some
time before the court makes a decision, so there is
no clear timeline, which is why I could not find one.
So I see it's my little bit of reporting.
Speaker 4 (46:19):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (46:20):
The other big thing that's coming soon is that Ryan
Murphy has a series coming for Netflix about the Menanda's brothers,
So we're about to see a lot of attention. This
is the second installment of a series Ryan Murphy does
called the Monster Series for Netflix. Oh right, And the
first one was Dahmer, and it became the most watched
(46:43):
English series of all time within twenty eight days. It
reached a billion view hours in its first sixty days,
and wow, it was nominated for a bunch of Golden
Globes and Emmy Awards and won an Emmy Award.
Speaker 4 (46:54):
And like a million think pieces written about how we
assessed Dahmer then, and every piece was sort of a
little many in retrospect exactly.
Speaker 1 (47:01):
So I think we're about to get a lot more
in retrospect on the Menandez brothers. Javier Bardem and Chloe
Sevignier will star as the Jose and Kiddy Menendez. Wow.
So I think interest in this case is only going
to grow in the coming months. So I think that's
what comes next.
Speaker 4 (47:19):
You can see why this has been the subject of
endless fascination. There's so many shwists and turns. You can
see why TikTok or wherever the stands are choosing to
post their mems and so decided to pick up on it. Yeah, gosh,
I mean, I really want to keep following where this
ends up. I'm very interested to hear and I hope
(47:39):
that we can keep in touch with the lawyer to
understand when this actually is happening.
Speaker 1 (47:44):
Yes, I'm now. I'm very invested in the future of
the Menendez Brothers case and I will be following it,
so don't worry. I will keep you updated. Jess, I
want to tease what we're talking about next week because
it's a fun one. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (48:01):
This episode actually gets something that seems to course through
all of our episodes, which is girl culture. We delve
into what it means to be a girl today in
the age of Barbie and Bimbocore and girl Dinner on TikTok,
and how influences from the past and president seem to
be colliding.
Speaker 3 (48:19):
It's a lot of fun.
Speaker 1 (48:25):
This is in retrospect. Thanks for listening. Is there a
pop culture moment you can't stop thinking about and want
us to explore in a future episode. Email us at
in retropod at gmail dot com or find us on
Instagram at in retropod.
Speaker 4 (48:39):
If you love this podcast, please rate and review us
on Apple or Spotify or wherever you listen. If you
hate it, you can post nasty comments on our Instagram,
which we may or may not delete.
Speaker 1 (48:49):
You can also find us on Instagram at Jessica Bennett
and at Susie b NYC. Also check out Jessica's books Feminist,
Fight Club and This Is Eighteen.
Speaker 4 (48:58):
In Retrospect is a production of I Heart Podcasts and
the Media. Lauren Hanson is our supervising producer. Derek Clements
is our engineer and sound designer. Emily Meronoff is our producer.
Sharan Atia is our researcher and associate producer.
Speaker 1 (49:12):
Our executive producer from the media is Cindy Levy. Our
executive producers from iHeart are Anna Stemp and Katrina Norbel.
Our artwork is from Pentagram. Our mixing engineer is Amanda
Rose Smith. Additional editing help from Mary Do. We are
your hosts Susie Bannaccarum and Jessica Bennett.
Speaker 4 (49:31):
We are also executive producers. For even more, check out
in retropod dot com. See you next week.
Hey everyone, it's susy. Since we originally published this episode
in May of twenty twenty four, there have been significant
developments for Lyle and Eric Menendez, brothers, who were convicted
of murdering their parents in the early nineteen nineties. The
brothers do not deny the killings, but they say they
endured years of sexual and emotional abuse from their father,
and a recent documentary and a docudrama on Netflix have
(00:24):
reignited interest in their case. A number of their family
members have come forward with impassion pleas for their release,
saying that they believe them about the abuse, and on
October twenty fourth, in a studying development, the Los Angeles
District Attorney said that he would request that the Menendez
brothers be resentenced.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
I believe that they have paid their debt to society,
and the system provides a vehicle for their case to
be reviewed by a parole bar and the role concurs
with my assessment, and it will be their decision. There
(01:07):
will be released accordantly.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
If you're looking for contacts. This episode explains how we
arrived at this extraordinary moment, and how kids on social
media played an important role, and how new evidence may
impact whether they are ultimately released, and as a warning,
we discuss the sexual and emotional abuse of children in detail.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Are we with the stands here?
Speaker 4 (01:32):
I mean maybe like the romantic stands? Yeah, But now
you tell this in the light of twenty twenty four
makes it sound like the TikTokers are actually onto something.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
I'm Susie BANACHERM and I'm Jessica Bennett. And this is
in Retrospect, where each week we revisit a cultural moment
from the past that shaped.
Speaker 4 (01:52):
Us and that we just can't stop thinking about.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Today, we're talking about Lyle and Eric Menendez, two Beverly
Hills brothers convicted of killing their parents in a case
that captivated the nation in the early nineteen nineties. But
we're also talking about how in recent years they have
become unlikely social media stars despite being in prison for
thirty four years.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
Susie, I remember so vividly this era of a number
of years, when I think I was in high school,
the Menanda's brother's case just being constantly, constantly on the
air and on television. But it was with some surprise
only recently I noticed it was trending on TikTok.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Is that why you wanted to talk about.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
This, Yes, So I also have this memory of this
being in the zeitgeist. Like I vaguely knew about this case.
I wasn't someone who read all the details or watched
the trial as it was happening. But the story about
them was always the same story, which was they were
these two spoiled rich kids from Beverly Hills who had
(02:58):
everything they wanted. They killed their parents because they wanted
their inheritance and they wanted the parents out of the way.
And after they killed them, they went on this wild
spending spree. So I hadn't really thought about the Menendez
brothers in a long time. I mean, that's a pretty
salacious story, and I remember being kind of fascinated by
the concept of killing your parents for money that you
(03:20):
already had access to, right right, And I think I
saw one of the TV movies at the time, although
I don't remember it that well. But a few years
ago I did start noticing this on TikTok that occasionally
in my feed i'd see a video about these brothers.
Speaker 4 (03:36):
Why did the Menandez brothers kill their own parents?
Speaker 3 (03:39):
This is part three of this chilling case.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Did you hear the latest news about the Menandez brothers.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Four facts about the Menendez brothers.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Menandez brothers and Menendez brothers, Menendez, these two brothers should
be out of prison by now. I sort of just
took a mental note. I was like, why is there
renewed interest in this? But I sort of chalked it
up to how obsessed everyone is with true crime now.
But then a couple of years ago, Ezra Marcus wrote
a piece for the New York Times. Did you read
(04:07):
this piece? Yes? It was called the New Menendez Defenders,
and it was about how, seemingly out of nowhere, suddenly
hundreds of accounts on TikTok and Instagram were dedicated to
the Menendez brothers and how they didn't receive a fair
trial and how the abuse they suffered during their childhoods
led to this crime.
Speaker 5 (04:28):
This became a trial by media, completely sensationalized, many believing
that these two preppy, good looking, rich young men had
killed their parents for money, and in reality, their motive
for murder was far more heartbreaking and dare I say understandable.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
I honestly had such a vague memory that there had
been some abuse allegations. I'm not sure I had ever
really paid attention to that, so I thought that was
really interesting. And even the way Ezrah describes these accounts
as fascinating, right, Like a lot of them are just
endless clips from the original trials or news were parts
of the time. But some of them are literal fan
(05:03):
accounts that are dedicated to how hot the brothers are
or were.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
I guess is wild. It is the wildest.
Speaker 4 (05:12):
How old were the Menanda's brothers at the time this
took place.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
They were twenty one and eighteen, and they were very attractive,
kind of like Beverly Hills preppies at the time. Right,
A lot was made of their looks. One of the
reporters who covered them at the time talked about how
they received thousands of letters a week at the Los
Angeles County jail when they were on trial. Some of
(05:36):
them contain nude photos and ropes would line up to
see the trial. Yes, but these very specific stand culture accounts.
They have a certain kind of like dreamy, soft focus vibe,
and there's like music and often with the Menanda's brothers,
it's stills of them stitched together, often from the trials,
(05:57):
very weird things. It is amazing like my love Eric
Menendez or Lyle Menendez, and one of them had a
video that was captured Happy Birthday King for Eric Menende's birthday,
and then just like had pictures from his childhood, which
I also found creepy, Like I was like, what are
you posting pictures of him when he was like six
or seven, especially because what we know now of his
(06:19):
childhood is not great. The other thing that the New
York Times piece identified was that they're mostly gen z right,
and that it's a very international crowd.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
Oh, it's an international.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Crowd, but almost entirely teenagers who have looked at the
details of this case and have wondered how the stories
of abuse and we'll get into them were not more
front and center in the coverage. And it is a
good question, Like I have now gone back and fallen
(06:52):
into this rabbit hole, and there's a lot of things
to think about with this case.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Okay, So just to take as a step back for
a minute. I know that these things crop up on
TikTok and people become obsessed with new subjects from the past,
and you don't ever really know why. In this moment,
we are talking again about the menandas brothers. So do
you know anything about what caused this sudden renewed interest.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Well, as you say, it's very hard to pinpoint exactly
why something sort of returns. So the Zeidis, there's a
couple theories about why. Okay, this has become kind of
a popular case again, if that's the right way of
framing it. Any did a documentary about them in twenty seventeen,
and that didn't get posted on Hulu until twenty nineteen.
So there's some sense that when that was posted in
(07:41):
twenty nineteen, Blue, where you know a lot of gen
z gets their content, they watched this documentary and it
renewed their interests. That's sort of where it began. And
one of the social media fans in the New York
Times piece did talk about watching that A and E documentary,
So that might have reintroduced this case to a new
generation of true crime. Yeah, but I think the thing
(08:02):
that likely had the bigger impact is that during the pandemic,
Court TV, which aired this trial, Gabble to Gabble, as
they called it. This was one of the first trials
where that happened, posted the entire trial to YouTube.
Speaker 6 (08:17):
And we have both jury panels back in the courtroom
and everyone else is present, the defense may call its
next witness.
Speaker 5 (08:23):
Thanks, he just blowman Inus.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
And so you know, at a time, oh, when we're
all at home in the pandemic.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Yeah, at a time when everyone's at home and desperate
for like interesting content, I think a lot of kids
just would have this on all day. And so a
lot of TikTok and Instagram accounts start posting videos after that,
and Google searches for the Menanda's brother Spike. In May
of twenty twenty one, right after Court TV started putting
(08:50):
the videos on YouTube of the trial. So I suspect
that had a lot to do with it. And another
one of the social media supporters from the New York
Times piece, a twenty something student from London named Jordan Wynn,
talked about how he watched the entire trial during the
pandemic and that inspired him to start his Instagram account
at Menendez supporter got it. But I went through some
(09:11):
of these accounts last week because it had been a
while since I looked at them, and I was curious. Yeah,
and by the way, rip my algorithm. Obviously, I'm just
going to be served Menendez brother's content from.
Speaker 4 (09:20):
Now on yeah, forever for the rest of your life.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Sorry. I found that there are still hundreds of accounts
and they have millions and millions of views, and it
is fascinating. There's one called Menendez Supporter three hours and
it has two hundred and sixty five thousand followers and
almost thirteen million likes on its videos. One of its
pinned videos has almost sixteen million views and the other
(09:45):
one has seven million, So it just gives you a
sense of how popular this content is. And the most
popular accounts tend to be mostly news clips or news
reports from the time, clips from the TV movies. There
was a Law and Order special. They did a limited
series that was just the Menendez brothers a few years ago.
Clips from that seemed to do pretty well. Another element
(10:08):
of what's happened here in terms of renewed interest is
there's a change dot org petition. It was started in
March of twenty nineteen and it has about three hundred
thousand signatures. But weirdly, it's a petition to Leslie Abramson, who,
if you don't know, was Eric's lawyer during his initial trials,
and she's kind of a big character herself. She was
(10:30):
a petition to do what well to you know, I
guess file another appeal. But she's not their appellet attorney.
She's not involved in their case anymore at all.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
Okay, So it's a petition to their former lawyer to
file a new appeal on their case.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
Yeah, which gives you a sense of how plugged in
these kids are to the reality of what's happened to
the wrong person. Okay, God, but I found this also fascinating.
There was an LA Times piece recently and they reached
out to Leslie Abramson just to get her take on
what's happening. Oh okay, and she said she doesn't discuss
the case anymore. And then there's this quote from her,
(11:07):
I am still harassed by TV producers, high school kids
and nutcases who promise to get my clients out of prison.
Oh she said it an email. I have nothing else
to say to you. But I was like high school kids, Like,
imagine how many of these TikTokers must be reaching out
to Leslie Abramson.
Speaker 7 (11:24):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
And you know, Leslie Abramson I think is in her
eighties now, Like she's probably like, who are these kids?
Speaker 7 (11:30):
Wow?
Speaker 1 (11:30):
She's like get going, literally, get all of my law,
and she probably has no way of understanding what the
fuck they're talking about. She doesn't know what stan accounts are,
So yes, it's just I do think it's kind of
a hilarious twist that she's sort of been dragged into
this and is suddenly being contacted by children all around
the world. But it's not just kids. Rosie O'Donnell the
(11:52):
actress and former talk show host. She is a big
defender of the Menanda's brothers. She recently interviewed Lyle from
prison for her podcast It's a Very Special Episode.
Speaker 8 (12:02):
I talked for the full hour to Lyele Menendez, who
has been in prison for thirty four years for the
killing of both of his parents after a lifetime of
child abuse and incest.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
And she did an interview with cour TV, and she
said that she felt like the brothers didn't deserve to
still be in jail, and that she grew up in
a family with an abuse dynamic and that she believed
that they had been abused and really believed that their
lives were in danger.
Speaker 4 (12:34):
Okay, so for people who don't remember, remind us what
was the situation with the brothers and their trials and
how long have they been in prison.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
They've been in prison for thirty four years, and there
are just a lot of wild twists and turns to
the story. I actually do think it's fascinating. I understand
why it captured the imagination of the country then and
why it's capturing the imagination of all these kids now.
In a lot of ways, felt like a story made
for the tabloids. Right he was in LA there was
(13:05):
immediate interest in it. It felt like a TV movie
from the start. So here are the particulars of the crime.
(13:25):
Two brothers, Lyle and Eric Mendez. They were twenty one
and eighteen at the time of the murders, whose parents,
Jose and Kitty Menendez, were brutally murdered in the family
home in August of nineteen eighty nine. And initially this
seemed just like a random crime. The boys called it
in to nine one one. The father, Jose, who was
(13:47):
this very successful, wealthy and powerful Hollywood executive who had
sort of lived the American dream. He had immigrated to
America from Cuba with very little money and he'd made
all his own money. There was some set that maybe
this was a mob hit or somehow related to his business.
Because he was this big wig executive.
Speaker 8 (14:07):
It's not supposed to happen in Beverly Hills. A movie
executive and his wife were brutally slain and their million
dollar mansion.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
There were no clues and no suspects. The crime initially
was treated as just a random crime that had happened
to this family, and the family had always projected this
really all American family dynamic, right, successful dad, pretty blonde mom.
The two sons were very handsome. Lyle was at Princeton,
(14:36):
Eric had been accepted at UCLA. So they seemed like
classic Beverly Hills kids and Beverly Hills nine oh two
and oh. The show actually debuted in October of nineteen ninety,
so the year okay, the year after, Yeah, so that
image would have been very much in the zeitgeist. So
initially there was a lot of sympathy for the boys. Right,
(14:58):
they were victims. I'll called nine one one after they
quotes found their parents.
Speaker 4 (15:04):
Waits was the story that they had come home and
found the parents dead.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Yeah, I mean I assume that that's kind of the
story they told. Right. The story was they came home,
they found their parents dead, got it? But the story
really blows up because the brothers do end up turning
themselves in in March of nineteen ninety okay, and admitting
to the murder. So there really isn't a doubt. They
have admitted for almost thirty four years that they murdered
(15:29):
their parents, but it wasn't really clear why. And the
reason they even got caught is because Eric was seeing
a therapist, Eric who is the younger brother, and he
confessed to the therapist, and in a really weird twist,
the therapist mistress got mad at him about something. The
therapist mistress, Yes, the therapist mistress got mad a therapist
(15:52):
about something and in a rage, told the police that
the therapist had told her that he had this tape
recording a session wither he confessed to the murder. So
it was this very convoluted way that they got caught.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
I mean, you can see why.
Speaker 4 (16:06):
This is like the perfect made for TV. So there's
even a mistress involved.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
And the police almost immediately started making statements about how
savage these murders were. These were really bloody murders. The
crime scene was incredibly bloody. Jose the father was shot
six times and the mother Kitty was shot ten times.
Oh wow, So it was I think what they referred
to as overkill. The brutality of the murders is commented
on a lot in the media. It's part of what
(16:33):
really sways public opinion away from the boys. And then
there are really two other things that get a lot
of attention. The first is that after the murderers, the
boys seem to have gone on what is described in
the press as a spending spree.
Speaker 7 (16:50):
They didn't do a very good job of acting their
roles of grieving sun police say the boys went on
a wild spending spree, and unlike the relatives of most
murdered vities, the Menandoz boys did not seem to take
much interest in the police search for their parents' murderers.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
So this sort of supports the idea that they're motivated
by greed and just wanted access to their father's money.
Speaker 7 (17:12):
Right, Why did you need to buy a Rolex watch
four days after your parents were killed?
Speaker 9 (17:18):
I didn't need to.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
You wanted to. Lyle bought a Porsche and a Rolex
and randomly a hot Wings restaurant in Princeton, New Jersey,
which I don't even know. That's a strange investment. They
moved out of the house, which I guess is not
weird since there had been these brutal murders there, But
they moved into adjoining condos, which I think people found odd.
(17:40):
Eric hired a full time tennis coach and went on
the tennis circuit. But playing in the tennis like semi
professional tendants are.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
Good even if they hadn't murdered them. Strange way to
behave if your parents have just been murdered and you
don't want to look suspicious.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
So that's the interesting thing. I read that some of
their family after all this came out, said, actually, these
were just their spending habits, like this is just how
they spent money. Oh, this was normal, and that this
may have seemed odd if you were grieving, but they
just spent money like crazy, and so they may just
have not understood that they needed to shift their behavior.
Speaker 4 (18:16):
That's so like to the rest of America. When it's
now being reported in the press, it's insane because I
think this family, but if you live in that bubble
in Beverly Hills, maybe you do right.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
But in the press, this spending spree is treated as
a clear sign that they're just absolutely entitled greedy brats
who were after the money. And that's really the second
thing I think that really sways public opinion against them.
They have this very clear motive. The motive is money.
That their father's estate is worth fourteen million dollars. The
two brothers are the sole beneficiaries of that fourteen million dollars, okay,
(18:51):
And one of the things that circulated was that maybe
he had been planning to withdraw them from his will
or he was planning on cutting them off. So the
motive was they wanted access to the money and they
wanted to secure that access forever. The other thing that
police revealed during this time is that they had become
suspicious of the brothers fairly early on. You know, at
(19:11):
the crime scene, they weren't suspicious of them. They didn't
actually test to see if they had fired guns recently,
which is very common if you're a suspect in a crime.
That really would have made a big difference, I think
in this case, but they weren't tested for that. They
really were initially treated like grieving suns, but the police
felt that they weren't really acting like grieving suns.
Speaker 4 (19:31):
It's so interesting because hearing it now, You're like, Okay,
if this wasn't an uber, wealthy Beverly Hills family, isn't
the person who finds about it always the first suspect?
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (19:43):
I mean, honestly, everything I know about this I know
from law and order, So I have no idea what
it's like.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
Standard protocol in this case.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
But I assume that usually you would be a suspect
if both your parents were murdered and you happened upon
them in your home. But I think in general, this
case was so out of the ordinary. Murders like this
just did not happen in Beverly Hills, So I think
in general the police were caught a little flat footed
at the top. And what eventually happens here though, and
(20:12):
this is really the crux of what these new fans
are really focused on, is that the brothers attorneys come
forward and say that their clients actually acted in self defense.
They killed their parents because they had been suffering from
years of emotional and sexual abuse, that the father had
been sexually abusing these boys for the majority of their lives.
(20:33):
And at the point that that story starts to be
put forward by the boys attorneys, there has been three
years where the majority of the public perception has been
shaped by the prosecution side of the story. Yeah, and
so no one really believed that they were victims themselves,
and in fact, the prosecutors said this was just an
(20:53):
attempt to assassinate the characters of the real victims, which
were their parents. So going into the trial, I think
it was safe to say that most people thought that
this was an open and shycase and that the brothers
were just going to go to jail. And one other
sort of interesting thing about this is that this was
considered a landmark case because this was the first time
(21:14):
that lawyers were going to use the same defense used
in domestic violence cases, which is that the homicide was
in self defense and they feared for their lives. But
it's what's referred to as imperfect self defense because you're
not literally with a knife to your throat, but you
feel that your life is in danger. And this hadn't
been tested before outside of domestic violence, so in that sense,
(21:36):
it was like a.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
Really interesting So it hadn't been used in a child
abuse case before.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
No, and in the nineties, this was just considered a
shocking defense. Right. Conversations like this around sexual abuse certainly
about sexual abuse between a father and his sons just
did not happen in the open. And so when this
trial began in nineteen ninety three, it was just a
huge case. There was an intense amount of attention. It
(22:01):
was broadcast in its entirety, as I said, gavel to
gabble as they called it on court TV. And in
the opening statements, the lawyers for the Menanda's brothers really
get into the sexual abuse.
Speaker 4 (22:13):
Yeah, I was going to ask you what evidence did
they provide for the sexual abuse.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
There actually was a lot of contemporary US evidence, which
obviously you and I now understand is one of the
ways that you corroborate sexual abuse. But I think this
wasn't like a very well understood field, And as you
and I have talked about, there is sort of the
sense of how victims are supposed to behave, and so
there was a lot of questions around this. But the
defense really paints this house as a house of horrors,
(22:40):
and there were many witnesses to it, like friends, families,
colleagues came forward and supported the brothers version of events.
The picture of Jose Menendez was essentially one of a
terrifying monster and Kitty as an alcoholic with a drug
abuse problem who was also emotionally abusive to the boys
and knew about the sexual abuse and did nothing about it.
Speaker 4 (23:03):
And were they painting the father as physically and sexually abusive?
Speaker 3 (23:06):
What had the people.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
Witnessed, Yes, bruises, marx, etc. Okay, so they had not
witnessed the sexual abuse, but the boys had told some
of their cousins about the sexual abuse contemporaneously, So there
was a sense that this had gone on for years.
And you know, you would expect that if two people
were brutally murdered, their family would want to support them.
(23:28):
But for the most part, family came out in support
of the brothers because they really had seen that they
were treated pretty badly.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
Had they also confessed the abuse to the therapist?
Speaker 1 (23:38):
No, So that's I think one of the things that's interesting.
It seems that they had not confessed the abuse to
the therapist, and that was one of the things that
was used against them in the trial. But I think
that that's one thing that is part of that imperfect
victim trope that we talk about. I think for boys,
especially young men, talking about your father pretty brutally raping you,
(23:59):
the scenes that they end up describing. They both take
the stand. They both describe these scenes.
Speaker 9 (24:05):
That started out with him coming in my bedroom and
telling me to get on my knees. I was on
the bed at the.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
Time, and that was fairly common, wasn't it. Yes?
Speaker 4 (24:12):
What did he tell you about telling people?
Speaker 6 (24:19):
He just said that it was our secret. The bad
thing is what happened to me if I told anybody?
And I told him I never would.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
And when he came back with the knife, what did
he do with it?
Speaker 9 (24:39):
If anything, he put it on my neck. He put
his hand on my head and put the knife on
my neck.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
Did he threaten you with it?
Speaker 9 (24:46):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (24:47):
What did he say?
Speaker 9 (24:48):
He said I should kill you and next time I will.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
And did you believe him?
Speaker 9 (24:52):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (24:54):
Really really disturbing details, like one of the brothers talked
about how he ate just an enormous amount of ketchup
and always needed lemons nearby. Was it at some point
after you were eleven years old that you developed a
rather peculiar eating habit.
Speaker 9 (25:15):
Yes, I used a lot of lemon in my food.
Speaker 1 (25:19):
And what do you mean by you? And no one
in the family understood why. It was a weird kind
of like obsession with lemons, and he testified during the
trial that it was because that's what he used to
get the taste of his father semen out of his mouth.
Speaker 4 (25:32):
WHOA, that is a fascinating detail.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
It's a fascinating detail, but it's so upsetting. The details
are really specific, and I think also hard to imagine
that these details are lies, because what kind of lie
is that? That's not a lie you make up? Right,
it's so very specific the thing. But the media is
not buying it. They are really skeptical of the defense,
(25:55):
and from what I can tell, almost the majority of
the media coverage at the time is incredibly pro prosecution.
A lot of talk of this defense refers to it
as the abuse defense or the abuse excuse, and they
just are like, this is a lie, and even if
it's true, it isn't an excuse for murder, which you know,
(26:16):
the lawyers for the brothers weren't arguing that it was
an excuse for murder. They were saying that it meant
that the murders were actually manslaughter. Right, the way that
they should consider this crime was as a manslaughter crime
rather than a murder crime. Because of the corroborating evidence
of this abuse. Yeah, and by the time the boys testify,
(26:38):
it's already a huge, huge circus. And then I think
this really dramatic and emotional testimony from the brothers. These
intense descriptions of abuse are just not something most people
have ever heard in their lives. This is the early nineties.
These aren't things that people talk about.
Speaker 4 (26:54):
And so to be clear that their testimony is being
aired live, right, Yes.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
This like incredibly dramatic testimony is ying aired live. Lyle
testifies that his father has been sexually abusing him since
he was six years old, but that at some point
he stopped.
Speaker 7 (27:08):
How old were you when this stopped?
Speaker 9 (27:13):
Eight? When you were about thirteen?
Speaker 5 (27:19):
Did you think that it might be happening to someone else?
Speaker 9 (27:23):
Yes, sir? And who did you think it was happening to? Eric?
Speaker 1 (27:29):
And then Eric is crying while he watches Lyle his
older brother testify, And then Eric testifies, and he says
that the abuse never stopped for him.
Speaker 10 (27:39):
I told him that things between dad and I were
still happening and that, and he kept asking what I
was talking about. Did you tell him what you were
telling Finally I told him I told him they were
just sexual things, sexual things.
Speaker 7 (27:53):
Yes, And did you tell him anything about any kind
of violence that would accompany it, or any kind of
threats from your father?
Speaker 9 (28:03):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (28:04):
And what did you tell him about violence?
Speaker 9 (28:08):
I told him that there were pens and texts that
Dad would die, that Dad.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
Was sick in me and use, and so he had
basically been suffering in silence all this time because his
father had been threatening him that if he ever told Lyle,
he would murder them both. And that is what Eric
and Lyle say actually precipitated the murders. That they began
to realize that this was never going to end, that
they were terrified of their father. They thought he was
(28:35):
going to kill them, and Eric was really terrified that
now he told Lyle that they were in danger. And
so they say that they confronted their parents and that
that is when they learned that their mother had known
all along. They had thought that they were protecting her
from this information, but that in one of these confrontations
between the parents and the boys, it becomes clear that
(28:59):
she knew, and that in fact, the parents are not
really apologetic, and so again they feel that this really
proves that their lives are in danger, and it's really
hard to watch this testimony now, Like, I can't explain
to you how hard it is to watch with all
(29:20):
the distance that we have, and I really don't understand
how people couldn't have found it believable. I mean, if
these boys were lying, they were incredible acting. Yeah, to
think of like an eighteen and twenty one year old
boy probably by the time the trial happened, like early twenties,
you know, to think of these two boys getting up
in front of what they knew was a national televised
(29:42):
audience and talking about these issues in the way that
they did. Like it. It's really hard to watch it
and not have your heartbreak for them. I really have
trouble wrapping my head around the way it was viewed
at the time. But it just gives you a sense
of how poorly this kind of thing was understood.
Speaker 4 (30:01):
Yeah, yeah, wow, So what happens next?
Speaker 1 (30:25):
I want to mention a couple more things, just because
they end up being relevant. Later, one of the cousins
testified that when Lyle was eight, he told her about
the sexual abuse, so that would have been in nineteen
seventy six, and that she told Kitty. So there was
actual roborating evidence that the mother was aware, mother knew,
and there was another cousin that Eric confided in when
he was thirteen, so there were some people around them
(30:48):
that knew. And again, as I mentioned, the defense team
is really trying to go for a manslaughter charge, right.
They just want to make sure that the brothers aren't
put away for a murder charge, which not only means
they'll be in prison for life, but there was a
death penalty element to this case. Okay, So they're not
even suggesting that the brothers shouldn't be held accountable in
some way. They're just saying that this is not a
(31:10):
first degree murder. And jury deliberations went on for a month. Wow.
One thing to note here is that the way this
trial was structured was a little weird. There were two
separate juries, but it was one trial, so each brother
had his own jury. Oh but the trial was done
at the same time, okay. And what is really interesting
(31:31):
is that both jury's deadlock and there is a mistrial
for both brothers. And I saw this fascinating interview with
a female juror who said that on Eric's jury, at
least the deliberations broke down entirely on gender lines, that
the men really dug in that no man would ever
do to his son what these boys were saying Jose
(31:54):
Menendez did to them, really, and they wanted to convince.
Speaker 4 (31:56):
The women were like yeah, obviously, yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
And the women believed them because women know that there
is a lot of abuse.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
In the world.
Speaker 4 (32:06):
Okay, So mistrial means what exactly?
Speaker 1 (32:08):
So mistrial means that they can be tried again. Often
in cases like this, there's like a settlement at this
point because the government doesn't want to go through this
whole circus again. But that doesn't happen here for reasons
that aren't clear. What does happen is that the second
trial takes place two years later. And it's worth noting
that between the two trials there is the OJ Simpson trial,
(32:32):
which is another huge media circus in LA happening at
the same time, essentially, and the prosecutors also lose that case.
So the judicial system in LA is reeling, and so
by the time the boys get back into court for
the second trial, there is only one jury, no cameras
are allowed, and the new prosecutors ask the judge to
(32:55):
limit the amount of testimony.
Speaker 4 (32:57):
Regarding from the boys.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
Okay, they say the abuse is not relevant and it
didn't happen, and the judge essentially agrees, and there's no
clear indication of why he made that choice, but it
significantly changed the trial. The prosecutors had a real advantage.
They went in knowing what the defense strategy would be,
(33:19):
whereas they didn't really know the extent of the abuse
going into the first trial, and they really focus on
the fact that this was a well planned and executed murder,
which I don't know how well planned it was, but
it is true that they bought guns a couple of
days beforehand. You know, there were things that they did,
and the judge just kept ruling against the defense on everything.
(33:40):
He took manslaughter off the table, which left only first
or second degree murder. Leslie Abramson, who was Eric's lawyer
who I mentioned, described the second trial as hell. To
give you an idea, there were fifty plus defense witnesses
for the first trial and half of that for the second.
The family members weren't even allowed to testify. So are
(34:00):
convicted on first degree murder and luckily they don't get
the death penalty and they are sentenced to life in
prison without parole.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (34:08):
And that is where they are today.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
That's where it's at.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
Okay, They've been in prison for thirty four years since
their convictions. Both brothers have been married, even though California
doesn't allow conjugal visits for inmates with life sentences. One
of them has been married more than once, I believe,
And you know, they have just made the best of
their lives in prison. They do a lot of mentoring
(34:33):
and peer work in prison. One of them helped design
this big mural.
Speaker 4 (34:37):
Have there been like profiles of them from prison over
the years.
Speaker 1 (34:40):
Yeah, there have been some profiles, and Lyle does interviews.
Eric is more media shy. I think Eric's wife has
done some press initially when they first got married. But
this new interest I think has probably taken even them
by surprise. There were a lot of years where they
were just sort of making the best of their lives
in prison. And it's worth noting that one of them
(35:02):
said to a family member at one point, honestly, life
in prison is better than the life I had growing
up in that house, which really gives you a sense
of how scared they were as children in that house.
It really does sound like growing up in their house
was a brutal way to live.
Speaker 4 (35:22):
Okay, so are we with the stands here, like I mean,
maybe not like the romantic stands.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
Yeah, definitely not the romantic stands.
Speaker 4 (35:31):
But hearing you tell this in the light of twenty
twenty four makes it sound like the TikTokers are actually
onto something.
Speaker 1 (35:39):
Yeah, I think they have a point. I have to
be honest. Really digging into this case made me wonder
how it was possible that this was done in the
way that it was. The fact is, we just understand
so much more about the psychology of abuse and of victims,
and you can sort of understand that if you grew
up in a house where you were sexually abused from
six years old and physics abused and emotionally abused, the
(36:02):
fact that you would be so terrified of your parents
that you didn't feel like you could just like get
up and walk away. This idea that you could just leave,
and why didn't they just do that they were adults,
That is something we understand is not so simple, And
just like battered wife syndrome, we now have the concept
of a battered child syndrome.
Speaker 4 (36:21):
It reminds me a little almost of the Gypsy Rose
case as well. Yes, and which TikTok is also obsessed
with right.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
Yeah, but where.
Speaker 4 (36:28):
Yeah, years and years and years of abuse she then
has her boyfriend murder hermel anyway.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
Yes, very similar I think in some ways to that
case where people said the same thing. That was a
case where it was munchilds and biproxy. So the mother
pretended she was sick and it turned out she was
in a wheelchair but she could walk, and people were like, well,
why didn't she just walk away? Which is just really
overly simplistic.
Speaker 4 (36:47):
Right.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
We develop a relationship with your parent when you're so
young and dependent that if that relationship is rooted in
this kind of intense sphere, you don't feel like you
can just walk oh way. You think they're going to
find you and kill you. And honestly, who knows. Jose
Menenda's does not come off like a man that you
should not be scared of in every depiction of him
(37:10):
that comes out during the trial.
Speaker 4 (37:15):
Okay, so what happens now? Have the fans been effective
in asking for further scrutiny to the case.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
I mean, they've certainly been effective in drawing more attention
to the case. Yeah, but the appeals process had pretty
much played itself out. But recently there have been two
big developments that may actually change the fate of the
Menenda's brothers. The first one is a letter was discovered
written by Eric to one of the cousins that testified
(37:45):
on his behalf, and he had written him this letter
just eight months before the crime, in December of eighty eight, okay,
And this letter was found by one of their aunts,
that cousin's mother after the cousin died. So you know,
they've been in prison a long time. One of their
cousin passed away and the mother was going through his
papers and she finds this letter. And presumably it's a
(38:06):
letter that both Eric and the cousin forgot about because
it wasn't about the abuse. But in it, Eric very
clearly references the abuse. Wow. At one point he writes,
I've been trying to avoid Dad, but it's still happening. Andy.
It's worse for me now. And then there's another part
where he says, every night I stay up thinking that
he might come in. I'm afraid he's crazy. He's warned
(38:27):
me a hundred times about telling anyone, especially Lyle.
Speaker 10 (38:31):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
Wow, this is a piece of very contemporaneous evidence that
happened so far before the murders that there's no way
that they're just like making it up to cover up
this crime. But there's a bigger twist even and this
one is wild. At one point, Jose Menendez, who as
I said, was a Hollywood executive, was a top executive
(38:52):
at RCAA Records, okay. And while he was there, RCAA
signed a very popular Puerto Rican boy band from the
eighties called Menudo Manudo. It's the band that gave the
Ricky Martin. Yes, yes, it was one of the biggest
boy bands of all time and RCA signed them for
thirty million dollars. And an interesting thing about Menudo is
(39:15):
that it is a band that had an age limit,
so once the boys hit sixteen, they actually swapped them
out so that the boy band stayed forever young.
Speaker 3 (39:26):
Oh wow, whoa Okay.
Speaker 1 (39:28):
So in April of twenty twenty three, so just last year,
there is a former member of the band named Roy Roussello,
and he comes forward and says that in the nineteen eighties,
when he was fourteen or fifteen, the band's manager sent
him to go see Jose Menendez, the father of Lyle
and Eric Menendez at the family home, and while he
(39:50):
was there, he was given a glass of wine which
he believes was spiked and Jose Menendez raped him. Oh wow.
And he says that there were also other occasions, at
least two other times where Jose Menendez sexually abused him.
Speaker 3 (40:04):
Oh so this is new.
Speaker 1 (40:06):
So this is totally new, and it corroborates the boys
descriptions of abuse. He came forward as part of a
docuseries that you can watch on Peacock called Menendez and
Menudo Boys Betrayed and it's actually a fascinating docuseries. I
recommend it. It's based on the reporting of two journalists.
One is named Robert Rand. He covered the case initially
(40:27):
and has become sort of an advocate for the boys
over the years. And the other is this woman Nary Inclan,
who Robert reaches out to when he realizes that there
is this sexual abuse component that he needs to do
some additional reporting. On the way Robert Rand thinks to
connect these two cases is that he's going through some
(40:48):
old notes and he remembers that Jose Menendez's assistant in
interviews with him often emphasized how obsessed with Minudo, Jose
Menendez had been he would go all the time to
their concerts, which was not a thing you know, you
usually did when you were like the top executive of RCIA.
That he talked about them all the time, that he
(41:08):
was kind of fascinated by them. And there have been
other allegations of abuse. That manager that ran Manudo, that
created Manunda has been accused by other boys in the
band of having abused them. So it occurs to Robert Rand,
wait a second, maybe there's a connection here.
Speaker 3 (41:25):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (41:26):
He reaches out to this other reporter. She is someone
who's very skilled on doing sexual abuse reporting. She spends
a lot of time starting to talk to members of
Menudo just even to tell that story. And eventually, in
one of her conversations with Roy she's talking to him
as part of this larger Menudo investigation, and he just
(41:47):
mentions it. He says, oh, you know, there was this
RCAA executive and he raped me, And she says she
got absolute chills.
Speaker 4 (41:56):
Did the person making the accusation even make the connection
to the Menandez brothers.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
No, Wow, he had not realized in all these years,
he had not made the connection. But in the docuseries,
he describes going to the family house and he remembers
meeting the brother, but he just never connected it to
the larger story that was in the press at that time. Also,
you know, he was in Puerto Rico. He was in
this band. And that manager, by the way, is now
(42:24):
being investigated by the LAPD for the rape of Roy Roussello,
who is the person who has come forward to say
that he was abused by Jose Menendez. He has also
come forward to say that he was abused for years
allegedly by the manager Edgar Diez of Minundo.
Speaker 4 (42:41):
Wow, it's amazing how these guys just like find each other.
They're like, oh, yeah, he's my kind. We'll just run
a sex trafficking right.
Speaker 1 (42:50):
It feels like it was essentially a factory for this.
I mean, the way he describes what went on with
this particular manager is that he would essentially just bring
in new boys and constantly wait.
Speaker 4 (43:01):
Well, that makes you wonder if that's why they had
to stay forever, y'all.
Speaker 1 (43:04):
Right, of course, of course it makes you wonder that.
And so I was thinking about this, like, why do
we see so many cases of abuse like this, like
the Nickelodeon case, that's obviously become more prominent recently, and
I think what happens is is that if you are
a predator, you look for places that will give you
the most access to children. And working in entertainment, often,
(43:29):
especially when it's related to children, does give you a
lot of access and power and power because people want
fame and they want money, and so they're willing to
give their children over to you and trust you because
there's a tangible benefit to that. And so it was
really really sad to watch the stock You series, but
I really recommend it.
Speaker 4 (43:48):
Yeah, it makes me want to watch it.
Speaker 1 (43:50):
It just really broke my heart for poor Roy. So
where that leaves us is that in May of last year,
twenty twenty three, lawyers for the brothers filed a petition
in LA and asked for a new hearing and said
that this new evidence, the letter and Rory Roussello, the
former member of Menudo, coming forward, this evidence contradicts the
arguments prosecutors made in the second trial that there was
(44:11):
no abuse, and they've asked for the conviction to be overturned.
And their argument is that the brothers should never have
been convicted of murder, that this was clearly a case
of manslaughter because the brothers genuinely believed that they were
in danger because of the sexual and physical abuse. And
in June, a judge asked the LA District Attorney's Office
(44:31):
to respond to this request before a judge can rule. So,
so this past June, and so because I have never
found a rabbit hole, I can't fall too deeply into.
I spoke to one of their lawyers yesterday.
Speaker 4 (44:46):
Yes, of course, is this a different lawyer from there?
These are different lawyers from the original lawyers.
Speaker 1 (44:50):
Yes. The lawyers are Cliff Gardner, who is a well
known attorney in California, and Mark Geragos, who is a
very famous attorney who often turns up.
Speaker 3 (44:58):
Wait, okay, back up.
Speaker 4 (45:00):
So you're like, we got to do this recording tomorrow,
I just got it.
Speaker 3 (45:04):
Well, well, I had a really.
Speaker 1 (45:06):
Good reason for calling up Cliff. There have been recent
reports because of this filing, but I couldn't find a
timeline anywhere, Like I was like, okay, so now we're
waiting for the LA District Attorney's Office to respond, Like
when are they going to respond? And when can we
expect a ruling? It is true that if in fact,
the court agrees to give them a new trial, and
if they are convicted of manslaughter, they will get out
(45:29):
of prison because they have already served beyond the maximum
for mansilter.
Speaker 4 (45:33):
How old are they now, like in their fifties.
Speaker 1 (45:35):
They're in their fifties, okay, So I mean they would
get out of prison. So I imagine that they're pretty
interested in the timeline as well. But I couldn't find
one anywhere online, so I thought why not. I left
a message for Cliff Gardner. I found his number online
and was like, Hey, I'm a reporter and I'm looking
into this story. I'm recording something tomorrow. Could you give
me a callback? And he did, and he was a
lovely man, and he said that they are in fact
(45:57):
waiting for the LA District Attorney's Office to respond. The
DA's office has asked for a couple extensions because there
is just so much from the first trials to go over,
and that even once they respond, there will be some
time before the court makes a decision, so there is
no clear timeline, which is why I could not find one.
So I see it's my little bit of reporting.
Speaker 4 (46:19):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (46:20):
The other big thing that's coming soon is that Ryan
Murphy has a series coming for Netflix about the Menanda's brothers,
So we're about to see a lot of attention. This
is the second installment of a series Ryan Murphy does
called the Monster Series for Netflix. Oh right, And the
first one was Dahmer, and it became the most watched
(46:43):
English series of all time within twenty eight days. It
reached a billion view hours in its first sixty days,
and wow, it was nominated for a bunch of Golden
Globes and Emmy Awards and won an Emmy Award.
Speaker 4 (46:54):
And like a million think pieces written about how we
assessed Dahmer then, and every piece was sort of a
little many in retrospect exactly.
Speaker 1 (47:01):
So I think we're about to get a lot more
in retrospect on the Menandez brothers. Javier Bardem and Chloe
Sevignier will star as the Jose and Kiddy Menendez. Wow.
So I think interest in this case is only going
to grow in the coming months. So I think that's
what comes next.
Speaker 4 (47:19):
You can see why this has been the subject of
endless fascination. There's so many shwists and turns. You can
see why TikTok or wherever the stands are choosing to
post their mems and so decided to pick up on it. Yeah, gosh,
I mean, I really want to keep following where this
ends up. I'm very interested to hear and I hope
(47:39):
that we can keep in touch with the lawyer to
understand when this actually is happening.
Speaker 1 (47:44):
Yes, I'm now. I'm very invested in the future of
the Menendez Brothers case and I will be following it,
so don't worry. I will keep you updated. Jess, I
want to tease what we're talking about next week because
it's a fun one. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (48:01):
This episode actually gets something that seems to course through
all of our episodes, which is girl culture. We delve
into what it means to be a girl today in
the age of Barbie and Bimbocore and girl Dinner on TikTok,
and how influences from the past and president seem to
be colliding.
Speaker 3 (48:19):
It's a lot of fun.
Speaker 1 (48:25):
This is in retrospect. Thanks for listening. Is there a
pop culture moment you can't stop thinking about and want
us to explore in a future episode. Email us at
in retropod at gmail dot com or find us on
Instagram at in retropod.
Speaker 4 (48:39):
If you love this podcast, please rate and review us
on Apple or Spotify or wherever you listen. If you
hate it, you can post nasty comments on our Instagram,
which we may or may not delete.
Speaker 1 (48:49):
You can also find us on Instagram at Jessica Bennett
and at Susie b NYC. Also check out Jessica's books Feminist,
Fight Club and This Is Eighteen.
Speaker 4 (48:58):
In Retrospect is a production of I Heart Podcasts and
the Media. Lauren Hanson is our supervising producer. Derek Clements
is our engineer and sound designer. Emily Meronoff is our producer.
Sharan Atia is our researcher and associate producer.
Speaker 1 (49:12):
Our executive producer from the media is Cindy Levy. Our
executive producers from iHeart are Anna Stemp and Katrina Norbel.
Our artwork is from Pentagram. Our mixing engineer is Amanda
Rose Smith. Additional editing help from Mary Do. We are
your hosts Susie Bannaccarum and Jessica Bennett.
Speaker 4 (49:31):
We are also executive producers. For even more, check out
in retropod dot com. See you next week.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com