August 24, 2025 • 29 mins
We’re giving you a breakdown of why Erik and Lyle Menendez have been denied parole. Is there another avenue that can lead to their release?
Plus, Jillian Michaels has been vocal about Netflix’s latest “Biggest Loser” documentary and the lies against her. What’s Jillian’s defense and will she sue?
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 (00:00):
Hi guys, welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I'll
be your host Emily Simpson and oh oh you need
to set up and Shane and Shane. First of all,
we are going to go into the Menindez Brothers because
obviously they've had a big week this week. They were
both went up before the Pearl Boards, and I think
(00:23):
maybe we should just do a little little background just
to see, you know, just to cover how we got
to this point. We've covered Meninda's many many times. Are
actually our very first episode for Legally Brunette was on
the Menindez Brothers, and so if you haven't listened to it,
go back and find it. I think it was a
really good episode because I had done so much research
and read the book written by Robert Rand and studied
(00:47):
as much as possible, so.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Every video, watched, every possible house.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
I went to their house, I stalked them. I've done
everything possible that I could to know as much as
I could. Anyway, so they are on they went before
the parole board this week, and that the parole board
came about because they were on a two track system.
If you guys remember we've talked about this before. They
had a habeas petition that was basically based on new
(01:13):
evidence that came out later, which was a letter from
a cousin of Eric's corroborating that there was sexual abuse
in the relationship with Jose. And then there was also
the boy, the guy from the Menudo band, that came
forward that said that he had been sexually abused by
Jose as well. So those two pieces of new evidence
put them on track for a possible new hearing, new trial,
(01:37):
and that was the habeas route that is still ongoing.
This other route that led to them being in front
of the parole board was the resentencing, and that was
in front of Judge Ryan, and I don't remember the
exact date, but it was I don't know, maybe a
month or so ago or a couple of months. I
don't have time flies, I can't even keep track. But
Judge Ryan re sentenced the Menendez brothers to instead of
(01:59):
life without parole, to life with the eligibility for paroles.
So that's how they've ended up. From fifty years to life,
it was fifty years to life with the eligibility for parole,
which has now put them in front of the parole board.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
So Eric and separately, not together.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Not together. They have separate parole hearings. Lyles was yesterday,
Eric's was the day before, and I'm sure, as we
all know, just based upon the headlines and the news,
both of them were denied parole. Let's talk about first
of all, which is an interesting thought, is because they
had separate parole hearings, one could have been paroled and
(02:36):
one could have not, which would have been a really
probably i mean devastating scenario for them, as well as
an interesting scenario that one could have been paroled and
one could have stayed in prison. We know now that
didn't happen. They were both denied parole, So let's talk
about why they were denied.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
And they both had different not just different dates, but
they had different boards that they were in front of them.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
They did. They were both in different in front of
different parle boards, and each brother had a different commissioner
that was that was heading up the parle board. So
a lot of the issues with the denial was this
contraband that had to do with cell phones. So official
stress that such devices posed serious security risks in prisons,
(03:20):
often tied to gang's drugs or violence. This is when
it had to do with Eric. Eric acknowledged that using
a phone to stay connected with his wife and for entertainment,
which he likes to watch YouTube, listen to music, et cetera,
and apparently also watch pornography. Lyle turned to phones when
he realized his communications with his wife and family. Even
(03:40):
though Lyle isn't married any longer. I believe he's now divorced.
And then there was like a young girlfriend and we
got married.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
I think he's married. Toy did married and divorce in prison?
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Yeah? I think maybe he was married twice. And then
there was like a young girlfriend that came and visited him.
That was like from the UK. Anyway, that's a whole
nother podcast to the parole hearings. But he realized that
his communications with his wife and family were being monitored
and sold to tabloids. So he saw cell phones as
a privacy major in a way to stay in touch
(04:10):
with his wife during a stressful time in their marriage.
So that was the reasoning that both of them gave
for using cell phones in prison. First of all, my
question is who how do they get the cell phone?
And who pays the bill?
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Well, someone on the outside pays the bill. I imagine, well,
why not his wife? Yeah, so you think or maybe
maybe in the divorce proceedings he gets some type of
alimony and he uses it to pay the phone.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Yeah, but he can't be paying his cell phone bill
from was he log on and pay a cell phone bill?
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Sure he has a cell phone, is a smartphone. He
probably has email and everything.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
I mean, you can Venmo and Jaelic probably Vene won
each other. You know.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
It just seems odd to me. But I mean, obviously
I've never been in prison, but it seems odd to me.
I guess there's just I picture like someone's in prison
and that they're just being watched twenty four to seven.
But I guess there are a lot of opportunities where
you can pull off a cell phone. Here's a cell
phone and do it on the download and people don't
know and all right. Also another reason that they were
(05:11):
denied bail was that there were many moments where they
were not considered model prisoners. Eric faced questions about associating
himself with a prison gang called the quote two fivers.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
I don't know what that means, but the number two
and the number five.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Yeah, the two fivers and helping them with a tax scheme.
In twenty thirteen, he claimed that he only did so
to survive the violent gang. He also used drugs and
alcohol in his very early years in prison, but noted
that he had been sober for more than a decade.
I did read this in an article after his parole
was denied, because Eric was first, and I thought, how, now,
(05:47):
how do you get involved in a tax fraud? Do
you pay taxes when you're in prison?
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Well, if you're married, I guess file married, but living separately, I.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Don't know.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Separately. Yeah, so I don't know.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
I guess Eric was involved in some type of tax scheme.
But again, I need a prison insider to come on
the podcast and answer these questions because I want to
know what it's like like for real, not just from
the outside reading articles, but I want to know. I
want to know the cell phone usage. I want to
know how a tax fraud scheme goes on in prison.
(06:23):
I want to know if he's filing taxes. I want
to know all the things that does he have income.
I did think it was good though that I mean,
he's been sober for ten years. That's commendable.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
Well, shouldn't he have been sober for thirty five years
or however long he's been.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
No He claims that he did use drugs and alcohol
in his early years in prison, but that he's been
sober for the past ten. Lyle's record was less severe,
but still drew criticism from the commissioners, who said he
demonstrated quote anti social personality traits like deception, minimization, and
rule breaking that lie beneath that positive surface. You know,
(07:02):
here's another question I have, and this is what I
thought when I read this, when they say he has
anti social personality. Whatever, he's been in prison for thirty
five years. He went into prison when he was like,
you know, twenty one or something. I mean, wouldn't you
expect that someone that spent the last thirty five years
in their life maybe does suffer some type of anti.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
So he's very grumpy. He's grumpy, and he doesn't appreciate what.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
He doesn't show a lot of gratitude. I mean, it's
like I sometimes when I read these decisions and what
they're saying, you know, as far as his personality, I think, well,
what kind of personality do you expect someone to have
after thirty five years of being locked up in prison.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
I would love to see, like a result of someone
that did get off after thirty years, and what was
it that they did, you mean.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
What was their personality like after they spent the day perfect?
Speaker 2 (07:56):
They have a flawless record.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
I can't imagine. That was an good question and a
point I would like to make is anyone spending thirty
five years in prison, I can't imagine anyone would have
a flawless record and a pristine personality analysis the amount
of violence that you're dealing with, you probably have to
make a lot of decisions to stay alive. Possibly maybe
(08:21):
you have to make decisions or do things that you
wouldn't necessarily do, but you have to survive. I think
you wake up and think, how am I gonna You might.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Get a fight, but you started it. But you started
as a proactive measure because they were going they're going
to attack you or something, or I got to set
the stand.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
I mean, I can't imagine that you can go through
thirty five years of prison without some type of mark
on your record, because I'm sure that you are put
into situations where you are forced to make decisions and
to act in ways where you're just surviving as opposed
to following rules. So I don't know how you know
(08:58):
feasible that is that someone just has a clean record
after all that time.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Even on the outside, one has a clean record.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Yeah, I mean you have antisocial personality too. Jan's like everybody,
everybody's out of the house by nine pm.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
I'd probably be happier. The JEL set no responsibilities right.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
There were also concerns about the death of Kitty Menindaz
and this was something else I thought about before the
decisions came out. When we were when they had separate
parole hearings. I remember thinking, when it comes to separate
parole hearings, Lyle definitely acted differently the night of the
murders as opposed to Eric, because Lyle was the one
who well, they both went into the den and they
(09:48):
shot both of them. They both had shotguns. Lyle was
the one that left and went and reloaded and went
back and then shot his mom. So really, if you
want to look at the facts of the case and
maybe who was more culpable, you could have put that
on Lyle and then that would have maybe made a
difference in whether he was paroled or not, or whether
(10:08):
Eric was or not. But anyway, it ended up being
that the panel pointed out that the way their mother,
Kitty Menendez, was killed, and how the brothers attempted to
cover up the murders afterward, describing those actions as callous
and troubling, and if you do know the case, and
also I said, we did a very in depth episode
on this, which was our first episode. You know, they
did immediately afterwards pretend like, you know, it's not like
(10:33):
they can't clean They did say it with someone else.
They did try to point police in the direction of
a gang related or no, a mob related hit, you know,
saying their dad was involved in like shady business practices.
They did spend a lot of money, their parents' money afterwards.
So but again, it was thirty five years ago, and
(10:54):
at some point, when do you not focus so much
on the actual crime that was committed, because we all
know it was heinous, and do you focus on the
rehabilitation and where they're at now and that they've spent
thirty five years in prison. So it says it says
basically that they have to wait three years. However, I
believe that there's a way that they can apply earlier
(11:14):
for parole.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Well, what I have here is written Eric and Lowle
must wait at least three years before the next eligible
parole hearing. Some indications suggest they may reapply via an
administrative review for after one year and get scheduled for
hearing in eighteen months. So I guess, you know they might.
I don't know what administrative review means. Maybe that just
means they can apply. And if there's they're on track
(11:39):
to do whatever they're set out to do as far
as good behavior and getting rid of their cell phones
and I don't know, paying as taxes or whatever, then
you might pay it early as eighteen months.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Right, And you know they can't appeal this decision, and
so I'm sure their attorneys are working on the appeal.
And I thought this was interesting. The appeal for this
parole decision. We'll go before Judge Ryan, who is the
judge that resentence them.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Oh, oh, it's the same judge that.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
Yeah, it would be Judge Ryan that they would be
in front of in regards to an appeal to the
par board hearing, which I don't know. Maybe that is
just a glimmer of hope because obviously he did resentence them,
so maybe he's more amenable to that that's.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
More familiar with them, so maybe he's come across things
that will work in their favor.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Yeah, so we'll keep following that. Also, here's just some
other things that came out of Lyle's hearing yesterday. First
of all, I do know that there was some audio
from Eric's hearing that was leaked while Lyle was having
his hearing.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Oh wow.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
And when the audio was leaked and a news station
started running it, Lyle became upset and actually left the hearing.
And I think he was upset that, Like, I think
he felt like that was supposed to stay private, but
it was leaked and then everybody was commenting on Eric. Anyway,
Lyle comes back in his commissioner. The commissioner for Lyle
(13:05):
was named Commissioner Garland, and she goes into some details
about why he was denied parole, and she says that
the crime lacks self control, was impulsive and made very
poor and that Lyle made poor decisions during the commission
of the crime. She says he has poor threat perception
with regard to the risk Jose pose and she specifically
cited shooting Kitty one final time as extremely callous, which
(13:28):
you know we've spoken about before. The commissioner also highlighted
Lyle's role in the cover up, which was lying to
police and working to avoid prosecution. Commissioner Garland also says
Lyle has a strong support network and good plans for
his post release life and is set up for success
when he walks out the door, which is all positive.
She also commends Lyle's lack of violence and his prison record,
(13:51):
his work on programs inside, and his positive relationships with
other inmates and staff. This is a quote from the commissioner.
We find your remorse is genuine. In many ways, you
look like you've been a model and mate. You have
been a model inmate in many ways who has demonstrated
the potential for change. But despite all those outward positives,
(14:12):
we see you still struggle with antisocial personality traits like deception, minimization,
and rule breaking that lie beneath that positive surface. She
also goes on to say incarcerated people who break rules
are more likely to break rules in society, and that
we do understand that you had very little hope of
ever being released for many, many years. Citizens are expected
to follow the rules, whether or not there is some
(14:34):
incentive to do so. I don't know what. I don't
know if I necessarily agree. Obviously, they have the statistics
and you know, all that to back up what she's saying.
But to me, when you're in.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
It's like they just described a politician. Yeah right, you
don't follow your rules, you lie, you're deceptive.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Right real? Yeah. I just don't know if I believe
that you would make the same choices or you the
same level of deception in prison as you would outside
of prison. I feel like when you're in prison again,
you're put into a situation where it's a survival type
of situation. I don't And also another thing they look at,
(15:13):
obviously is what the risk is that these two would
commit a crime again. And we talked about this earlier.
To me, I don't think there are risks to society
in any way, shape or form. I think what happened
was thirty five years ago. It was an isolated event.
It had to do with traumatic circumstances that they were
dealing with within their home at a very young age.
They made a poor decision. It was a heinous crime.
(15:36):
I think they've felt remorse for thirty five years. I
feel like they've done their time, and I don't think
that they're a threat to society.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
No, do you agree?
Speaker 1 (15:44):
No?
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Based on what I've seen, though, I don't think so.
I mean, if you wanted to say they should be
in there longer because of the crime itself, like deserves
a longer sentence, that's that's a different story. But if
you're saying that they're a threat to society, therefore they
should be in prison, I agree with that.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
Also, Commissioner Garland said that I think she was taken
aback by this question that she asked Lyle, which was
are you a good liar? And he said no. Ultimately,
she said Lyle needs to be the person that he shows,
who is the person who is running programs for other inmates.
I don't know if someone asked you on a parole
board hearing are you a good liar?
Speaker 2 (16:21):
I mean that's a what. Yeah, that's not How are
you going to answer that? You can't It's a load
of question. You can't answer it the right right, there's
no good answer.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
Right, are you a good liar? Well? If I say yes, yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
It's like when we're kids, you'd run I remember, we'd say,
like does your mom know you're ugly? Like no, it's like, well, oh,
your mom doesn't know, you know, but it's like, you
can't answer that correctly. No, that's your favor.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
That's a lose lose. So I didn't. I felt like
that was a I don't know what you called a
trick question, a loaded question, whatever, But it's a question
where there's no good answer, there's no exactly. It puts
him in a position where you're right, there's no good choice.
If he says yes, I'm a good liar, then it's like, oh,
you're being honest, but now nothing we you know, nothing
you have said has any weight because you just admitted
(17:06):
that you're a good liar. And if you say no,
you're not a good liar, then it's like, oh, you're lying.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Unless they're trying to say like, not a good liar
means you don't do it. You get called out if
you do lie, like people know, you don't get away
with things. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Well, then at the end of this hearing with Lyle,
I think she goes on to give him a little
bit of hope, But don't ever not have hope. This
denial is not the end. It's a way for you
to spend some time to demonstrate to practice what you
preach about, who you are, who you want to be,
don't be somebody different behind closed doors. So she says
he'll be considered for an administrative review within one year,
and Lyle could be moved up to a hearing as
(17:44):
soon as eighteen months. And then the hearing adjourned.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Here's we see they have sorry, they have thirty five
years or however long, and then in one year, magically
it's like, oh, okay, you know, thirty five years, you
weren't eligible, you weren't very good, you're not a rule faller, accepted,
but you know, in the last twelve months, but if
you get your app together in the next year, we
might let you out.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
I mean, I bet. Basically, yeah, that's that's a really
good point to make that they've been in prison for
thirty five years. But they're saying, don't lose hope. If
you can just you know, get your act together in
the next year, we might, you know, free you. But
is there Here's what I was thinking. Are there consultants
that help you? Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (18:21):
Like everything has consultants, Yes, like that probably.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
I mean, if you if you go into pageant there's
pageant consultants.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
That teach you, like if child custody, there's child custody
hearing consultants. So you go teach you how to you know,
how to deliver, not not to change the truth, but
how to deliver, to express, what to kind of refrain from,
you know what, what looks? What's bad? A bad look?
You know?
Speaker 1 (18:46):
Right? And I know maybe to you listening, maybe that
sounded like a dumb question, but it's really not a
dumb question. It really is like are there attorneys?
Speaker 2 (18:55):
That's why you needed a cell phone? He had a
close pro board consultant.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Right, I mean, I feel like at this point it's like, okay,
well we went through one round of parole hearings, we
didn't do well. We have a year. What do we
need to do to get ourselves, you know, prepared for
this next parole hearing. Anyway, if anyone has an any
insight on that as well, I'd like to know. All right,
(19:26):
So let's move on to I just wanted to touch
briefly on the Gillian Michaels of pop culture because I
see her everywhere, and I will tell you I am
the biggest fan of Biggest Loser. You know that I
watched it all the time and because I realized I'm
one of those people that I like shows where there's transformations.
That's why you make fun of me all the time.
(19:48):
But I love my six hundred pound life because I
get to know them. I root for them. I want
to see them, you know, get healthy. Oh I love intervention.
Oh my gosh, the success rate and intervention is like
is it It's so low tough. But I become so
(20:08):
engrossed in their life and I and I'm rooting for them.
And I think that's what the appeal was with Biggest Loser.
It was huge. It was you know everyone, you know,
there was so I think there were like twenty somethings seasons. Anyway,
So the other day when I was I put Netflix
on and I saw that there was a documentary on
the Biggest Loser. I clicked on it immediately. I was
(20:29):
so excited to watch it. So now we have Jillian
Michaels's pushing back against the claims made on her and
the new Biggest Loser documentary.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
It's called well, let's be clear on the documentary. Is
she does not appear in it? Others do? She does not?
Speaker 1 (20:43):
Right? And I read that they reached out to her
and asked her to appear in the documentary and she declined,
which now she's.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
Probably glad she didn't, or she did well no, because well, yeah,
you're right, if she she would be glad she didn't
because she's like that. They say a bunch of crap
and they edit it in a way where they paint
it in a bad light and I don't want to
be a part of that, and now I can sue
them and hopefully I'll make some money.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Or she's regretting saying no because she doesn't get to
voice her own opinion and give her own viewpoint of things.
It's just everyone else talking.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
And then so yeah, fair point.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
Anyway. The documentary is on Netflix. It's called Fit for TV,
The Reality of the Biggest Loser. I thought it was great.
I watched I think it's like three episodes. I watched
all of them in one night. The series goes back
and re examines The Biggest Loser, which aired from two
thousand and four until twenty sixteen and briefly returned in
twenty twenty, through a very critical lens highlighting the extremes
(21:43):
the contestants endured for dramatic weight loss, and you know,
now watching it as a fifty year old woman as
opposed to you know, a twenty something or thirty. How
old would I be in two thousand and four. I
can't do math thirty. Yeah, so there's a big difference
between watching it as a thirty year old watching it
as a fifty year old. Because when they were showing
(22:04):
some of those flashback scenes of the challenges they made
them go through where they had to stack donuts and
you know, put donuts in their mouth and run from
place to place, and I was like, that's humiliating, it is,
that's really that is sad.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
The ones I didn't like are that when they tempt
them with like junk food, yeah, you know, not not
reward them with something, you know, like like a lot
of these shows do they reward them with prizes or
things to inspire them, But they want to tempt them
with crap food, right.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
And then show like you know, chocolate fountains and donuts,
and I mean it's just it's just making fun of them.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
And I don't think I actually the reason I thought
that's why you liked watching it.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
No, I liked to watch the table well, I mean,
I do love a good dessert table, but I know
I really love the whole transformation part of it. So
Jillian Michaels has been very public. Every time I pull
up my new sword source, which we all know is Instagram,
there's lots She's been doing lots of interviews, and Michaels
has addressed the documentary's claims on social media. I know
(23:10):
she was posting a lot of things, and she was
posting receipts, she was posting screenshots and things. She disputed
accusations that she and other trainers gave contestants caffeine pills
without approval, sharing what she said were old emails showing
that the show's doctor had cleared their use and that
fellow trainer Bob Harper had even suggested certain supplements. I
(23:32):
did read an article where she said, I know she's
mad because she's being blamed and accused of like for
her team to win or whatever, that she was giving
them caffeine pills to have an edge. And her dispute
is that was It's not like I was doing it
on the down load, it was approved. She also rejected
Harper's statement in the series that she failed to reach
(23:53):
out after his twenty seventeen heart attack, posting what she
described as a screenshot of one of her last text
messages to him that claims he's the one who never
responds back to her. She did post a text message
that said something to the effect of, you know, you
never respond to any of my texts. You know, I
do find that interesting when people ghost you. Like let's say,
(24:14):
for example, she shows a text that shows that he's
not responding to her. So he allegedly, according to her
and her screenshots, ghosted her and wasn't responding. Then he
has a heart attack in twenty seventeen, and then he says, oh,
she didn't, you know, reach out to me. But it's like,
where does the blame lie. If you ghosted her and
weren't responding to her and you weren't friends, is she
obligated to reach out? I don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
I don't think so.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
Michael's further did I claims that she made an inappropriate
comment to a contestant contestant saying you're going to make
me a millionaire, or that she encouraged unsafe dieting.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
Why would wait as if Jillian said you're going to
make me amazing Yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
In one of the interviews, I don't remember which contestant was,
but he claimed that she was just you know, pushing
and pushing, pushing and pushing, and said something like, you know,
don't give up, keep pushing because you're gonna make me
a millionaire. You know when we watched I don't remember
the one woman's name, but it was the very first.
It's like they flew them in and they ran on
the beach, remember, and this is like this is before.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
Wasn't it like make it to the finish line and
then you'll you'll make the cut or something like that.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Yeah, And she nearly died and they had to helicopter
her away. And I'm thinking, like literally, like I I
work out every day and I wouldn't have been able
to run that far and sand and heat on the beach.
And then and you're talking about people that.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Are stretch and warm up the least, right.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
I mean, then these are people that clearly are extremely
overweight and have a sedentary that's when you don't move
like they don't they don't work out, they don't move
a lot. You that's whatever that is, Yes, But and
then you put them on a beach and you're like,
run for as long as you can and as hard
as you can.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
And these are people that never tried to work out,
knew they were overweight, we're okay with it for or
we're not okay with it, but they let it be
for twenty years. And also he expected them to be
like superstars and just run right like they could have
done that on their own. They knew that they don't
want to do it.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
So he claims that she says, you're going to make
me a millionaire, or that she encouraged unsafe dieting. She
said that written records, including emails and messages with former
participants and producers, supported her account that she promoted a
calorie intake of sixteen hundred calories per day. The documentary
also alleges that she was forcing contestants to consume less
than a thousand calories and addressing Rachel Frederickson's dramatic weight
(26:35):
loss during season fifteen, Oh my gosh, that was crazy.
Did you see that? That was in the very last
episode of this they show this girl named Rachel Frederickson
comes out, you know when they show the dramatic weight loss,
and you can see everybody's face and they all look
shocked because.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
She is so thin, like not like unhealthy.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
Thin like unhealthy than not like she hes been working
out and she lost the weight and she looks she
like gaunt, and you can look at the camera pans
to the trainers and they were just like in shock.
So in addressing this is her name was Rachel Frederickson's
dramatic weight loss during season fifteen. Michael's claim that NBC
(27:17):
told her if she did not publicly condone Fredericson's appearance,
NBC would pursue legal action against her. Michael's also added,
I resigned from the Biggest Losers shortly thereafter. At this time,
she's considering suing Netflix for the claims made against her,
I mean, obviously without her own input in this documentary,
since she chose not to be a part of it.
(27:40):
I know she's thinking this is defamatory. They're accusing her
of giving, you know, caffeine pills to contestants when they're
claiming that you weren't supposed to do that, and she's saying,
but we were allowed to do that. She even claims
that Bob Harper was saying, why don't we give them
some other brand stackers or something, but she said the
conversation revolved around her saying, no, let's use the caffeine pills.
(28:01):
I like because they're cleaner, and that the ban on
caffeine was never a rule. Also, when they interviewed doctor Hazanga,
he's the doctor that's on staff.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
He disapproved of the caffeine pills, right.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Well, I think he disapproved of a lot of things.
But I think I felt. To me, my takeaway about
doctor Hazanga was that I felt like he was genuinely
a good guy.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Yeah, I think his health was a concern.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
Yeah, that was really looking out for the best interest
of the contestants and their health. But the problem is
is that you're doing that versus good TV, and you've
got production on one side saying, but we have to
make good TV. So they got to work out hard,
and they got to lose weight. We gotta have transformations.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
And ye, you know you're right, because if they didn't
have any, if people weren't losing weight every week, no
one was going to tune in. Yeah you think, Okay,
this show is not working right.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
So in order to make good TV, you have to
have a significant transformation and you have to have people
dropping weight, and so that's where the line was.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Blowing and just breaking down, you know, because they break
him down all the time, right, They're crying, they're falling
over remind.
Speaker 1 (29:09):
Tactics, you know, when you go to boot camp and
the whole point is to break you down so then
they can build you up. We will continue to follow
Jillian Michaels. We'll see if she actually does sue Netflix
and we will follow that story. But anyway, thank you
guys so much for listening today. We appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Thank you
Hi guys, welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I'll
be your host Emily Simpson and oh oh you need
to set up and Shane and Shane. First of all,
we are going to go into the Menindez Brothers because
obviously they've had a big week this week. They were
both went up before the Pearl Boards, and I think
(00:23):
maybe we should just do a little little background just
to see, you know, just to cover how we got
to this point. We've covered Meninda's many many times. Are
actually our very first episode for Legally Brunette was on
the Menindez Brothers, and so if you haven't listened to it,
go back and find it. I think it was a
really good episode because I had done so much research
and read the book written by Robert Rand and studied
(00:47):
as much as possible, so.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Every video, watched, every possible house.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
I went to their house, I stalked them. I've done
everything possible that I could to know as much as
I could. Anyway, so they are on they went before
the parole board this week, and that the parole board
came about because they were on a two track system.
If you guys remember we've talked about this before. They
had a habeas petition that was basically based on new
(01:13):
evidence that came out later, which was a letter from
a cousin of Eric's corroborating that there was sexual abuse
in the relationship with Jose. And then there was also
the boy, the guy from the Menudo band, that came
forward that said that he had been sexually abused by
Jose as well. So those two pieces of new evidence
put them on track for a possible new hearing, new trial,
(01:37):
and that was the habeas route that is still ongoing.
This other route that led to them being in front
of the parole board was the resentencing, and that was
in front of Judge Ryan, and I don't remember the
exact date, but it was I don't know, maybe a
month or so ago or a couple of months. I
don't have time flies, I can't even keep track. But
Judge Ryan re sentenced the Menendez brothers to instead of
(01:59):
life without parole, to life with the eligibility for paroles.
So that's how they've ended up. From fifty years to life,
it was fifty years to life with the eligibility for parole,
which has now put them in front of the parole board.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
So Eric and separately, not together.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Not together. They have separate parole hearings. Lyles was yesterday,
Eric's was the day before, and I'm sure, as we
all know, just based upon the headlines and the news,
both of them were denied parole. Let's talk about first
of all, which is an interesting thought, is because they
had separate parole hearings, one could have been paroled and
(02:36):
one could have not, which would have been a really
probably i mean devastating scenario for them, as well as
an interesting scenario that one could have been paroled and
one could have stayed in prison. We know now that
didn't happen. They were both denied parole, So let's talk
about why they were denied.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
And they both had different not just different dates, but
they had different boards that they were in front of them.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
They did. They were both in different in front of
different parle boards, and each brother had a different commissioner
that was that was heading up the parle board. So
a lot of the issues with the denial was this
contraband that had to do with cell phones. So official
stress that such devices posed serious security risks in prisons,
(03:20):
often tied to gang's drugs or violence. This is when
it had to do with Eric. Eric acknowledged that using
a phone to stay connected with his wife and for entertainment,
which he likes to watch YouTube, listen to music, et cetera,
and apparently also watch pornography. Lyle turned to phones when
he realized his communications with his wife and family. Even
(03:40):
though Lyle isn't married any longer. I believe he's now divorced.
And then there was like a young girlfriend and we
got married.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
I think he's married. Toy did married and divorce in prison?
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Yeah? I think maybe he was married twice. And then
there was like a young girlfriend that came and visited him.
That was like from the UK. Anyway, that's a whole
nother podcast to the parole hearings. But he realized that
his communications with his wife and family were being monitored
and sold to tabloids. So he saw cell phones as
a privacy major in a way to stay in touch
(04:10):
with his wife during a stressful time in their marriage.
So that was the reasoning that both of them gave
for using cell phones in prison. First of all, my
question is who how do they get the cell phone?
And who pays the bill?
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Well, someone on the outside pays the bill. I imagine, well,
why not his wife? Yeah, so you think or maybe
maybe in the divorce proceedings he gets some type of
alimony and he uses it to pay the phone.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Yeah, but he can't be paying his cell phone bill
from was he log on and pay a cell phone bill?
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Sure he has a cell phone, is a smartphone. He
probably has email and everything.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
I mean, you can Venmo and Jaelic probably Vene won
each other. You know.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
It just seems odd to me. But I mean, obviously
I've never been in prison, but it seems odd to me.
I guess there's just I picture like someone's in prison
and that they're just being watched twenty four to seven.
But I guess there are a lot of opportunities where
you can pull off a cell phone. Here's a cell
phone and do it on the download and people don't
know and all right. Also another reason that they were
(05:11):
denied bail was that there were many moments where they
were not considered model prisoners. Eric faced questions about associating
himself with a prison gang called the quote two fivers.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
I don't know what that means, but the number two
and the number five.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Yeah, the two fivers and helping them with a tax scheme.
In twenty thirteen, he claimed that he only did so
to survive the violent gang. He also used drugs and
alcohol in his very early years in prison, but noted
that he had been sober for more than a decade.
I did read this in an article after his parole
was denied, because Eric was first, and I thought, how, now,
(05:47):
how do you get involved in a tax fraud? Do
you pay taxes when you're in prison?
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Well, if you're married, I guess file married, but living separately, I.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Don't know.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Separately. Yeah, so I don't know.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
I guess Eric was involved in some type of tax scheme.
But again, I need a prison insider to come on
the podcast and answer these questions because I want to
know what it's like like for real, not just from
the outside reading articles, but I want to know. I
want to know the cell phone usage. I want to
know how a tax fraud scheme goes on in prison.
(06:23):
I want to know if he's filing taxes. I want
to know all the things that does he have income.
I did think it was good though that I mean,
he's been sober for ten years. That's commendable.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
Well, shouldn't he have been sober for thirty five years
or however long he's been.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
No He claims that he did use drugs and alcohol
in his early years in prison, but that he's been
sober for the past ten. Lyle's record was less severe,
but still drew criticism from the commissioners, who said he
demonstrated quote anti social personality traits like deception, minimization, and
rule breaking that lie beneath that positive surface. You know,
(07:02):
here's another question I have, and this is what I
thought when I read this, when they say he has
anti social personality. Whatever, he's been in prison for thirty
five years. He went into prison when he was like,
you know, twenty one or something. I mean, wouldn't you
expect that someone that spent the last thirty five years
in their life maybe does suffer some type of anti.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
So he's very grumpy. He's grumpy, and he doesn't appreciate what.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
He doesn't show a lot of gratitude. I mean, it's
like I sometimes when I read these decisions and what
they're saying, you know, as far as his personality, I think, well,
what kind of personality do you expect someone to have
after thirty five years of being locked up in prison.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
I would love to see, like a result of someone
that did get off after thirty years, and what was
it that they did, you mean.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
What was their personality like after they spent the day perfect?
Speaker 2 (07:56):
They have a flawless record.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
I can't imagine. That was an good question and a
point I would like to make is anyone spending thirty
five years in prison, I can't imagine anyone would have
a flawless record and a pristine personality analysis the amount
of violence that you're dealing with, you probably have to
make a lot of decisions to stay alive. Possibly maybe
(08:21):
you have to make decisions or do things that you
wouldn't necessarily do, but you have to survive. I think
you wake up and think, how am I gonna You might.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Get a fight, but you started it. But you started
as a proactive measure because they were going they're going
to attack you or something, or I got to set
the stand.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
I mean, I can't imagine that you can go through
thirty five years of prison without some type of mark
on your record, because I'm sure that you are put
into situations where you are forced to make decisions and
to act in ways where you're just surviving as opposed
to following rules. So I don't know how you know
(08:58):
feasible that is that someone just has a clean record
after all that time.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Even on the outside, one has a clean record.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Yeah, I mean you have antisocial personality too. Jan's like everybody,
everybody's out of the house by nine pm.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
I'd probably be happier. The JEL set no responsibilities right.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
There were also concerns about the death of Kitty Menindaz
and this was something else I thought about before the
decisions came out. When we were when they had separate
parole hearings. I remember thinking, when it comes to separate
parole hearings, Lyle definitely acted differently the night of the
murders as opposed to Eric, because Lyle was the one
who well, they both went into the den and they
(09:48):
shot both of them. They both had shotguns. Lyle was
the one that left and went and reloaded and went
back and then shot his mom. So really, if you
want to look at the facts of the case and
maybe who was more culpable, you could have put that
on Lyle and then that would have maybe made a
difference in whether he was paroled or not, or whether
(10:08):
Eric was or not. But anyway, it ended up being
that the panel pointed out that the way their mother,
Kitty Menendez, was killed, and how the brothers attempted to
cover up the murders afterward, describing those actions as callous
and troubling, and if you do know the case, and
also I said, we did a very in depth episode
on this, which was our first episode. You know, they
did immediately afterwards pretend like, you know, it's not like
(10:33):
they can't clean They did say it with someone else.
They did try to point police in the direction of
a gang related or no, a mob related hit, you know,
saying their dad was involved in like shady business practices.
They did spend a lot of money, their parents' money afterwards.
So but again, it was thirty five years ago, and
(10:54):
at some point, when do you not focus so much
on the actual crime that was committed, because we all
know it was heinous, and do you focus on the
rehabilitation and where they're at now and that they've spent
thirty five years in prison. So it says it says
basically that they have to wait three years. However, I
believe that there's a way that they can apply earlier
(11:14):
for parole.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Well, what I have here is written Eric and Lowle
must wait at least three years before the next eligible
parole hearing. Some indications suggest they may reapply via an
administrative review for after one year and get scheduled for
hearing in eighteen months. So I guess, you know they might.
I don't know what administrative review means. Maybe that just
means they can apply. And if there's they're on track
(11:39):
to do whatever they're set out to do as far
as good behavior and getting rid of their cell phones
and I don't know, paying as taxes or whatever, then
you might pay it early as eighteen months.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Right, And you know they can't appeal this decision, and
so I'm sure their attorneys are working on the appeal.
And I thought this was interesting. The appeal for this
parole decision. We'll go before Judge Ryan, who is the
judge that resentence them.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Oh, oh, it's the same judge that.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
Yeah, it would be Judge Ryan that they would be
in front of in regards to an appeal to the
par board hearing, which I don't know. Maybe that is
just a glimmer of hope because obviously he did resentence them,
so maybe he's more amenable to that that's.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
More familiar with them, so maybe he's come across things
that will work in their favor.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Yeah, so we'll keep following that. Also, here's just some
other things that came out of Lyle's hearing yesterday. First
of all, I do know that there was some audio
from Eric's hearing that was leaked while Lyle was having
his hearing.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Oh wow.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
And when the audio was leaked and a news station
started running it, Lyle became upset and actually left the hearing.
And I think he was upset that, Like, I think
he felt like that was supposed to stay private, but
it was leaked and then everybody was commenting on Eric. Anyway,
Lyle comes back in his commissioner. The commissioner for Lyle
(13:05):
was named Commissioner Garland, and she goes into some details
about why he was denied parole, and she says that
the crime lacks self control, was impulsive and made very
poor and that Lyle made poor decisions during the commission
of the crime. She says he has poor threat perception
with regard to the risk Jose pose and she specifically
cited shooting Kitty one final time as extremely callous, which
(13:28):
you know we've spoken about before. The commissioner also highlighted
Lyle's role in the cover up, which was lying to
police and working to avoid prosecution. Commissioner Garland also says
Lyle has a strong support network and good plans for
his post release life and is set up for success
when he walks out the door, which is all positive.
She also commends Lyle's lack of violence and his prison record,
(13:51):
his work on programs inside, and his positive relationships with
other inmates and staff. This is a quote from the commissioner.
We find your remorse is genuine. In many ways, you
look like you've been a model and mate. You have
been a model inmate in many ways who has demonstrated
the potential for change. But despite all those outward positives,
(14:12):
we see you still struggle with antisocial personality traits like deception, minimization,
and rule breaking that lie beneath that positive surface. She
also goes on to say incarcerated people who break rules
are more likely to break rules in society, and that
we do understand that you had very little hope of
ever being released for many, many years. Citizens are expected
to follow the rules, whether or not there is some
(14:34):
incentive to do so. I don't know what. I don't
know if I necessarily agree. Obviously, they have the statistics
and you know, all that to back up what she's saying.
But to me, when you're in.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
It's like they just described a politician. Yeah right, you
don't follow your rules, you lie, you're deceptive.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Right real? Yeah. I just don't know if I believe
that you would make the same choices or you the
same level of deception in prison as you would outside
of prison. I feel like when you're in prison again,
you're put into a situation where it's a survival type
of situation. I don't And also another thing they look at,
(15:13):
obviously is what the risk is that these two would
commit a crime again. And we talked about this earlier.
To me, I don't think there are risks to society
in any way, shape or form. I think what happened
was thirty five years ago. It was an isolated event.
It had to do with traumatic circumstances that they were
dealing with within their home at a very young age.
They made a poor decision. It was a heinous crime.
(15:36):
I think they've felt remorse for thirty five years. I
feel like they've done their time, and I don't think
that they're a threat to society.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
No, do you agree?
Speaker 1 (15:44):
No?
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Based on what I've seen, though, I don't think so.
I mean, if you wanted to say they should be
in there longer because of the crime itself, like deserves
a longer sentence, that's that's a different story. But if
you're saying that they're a threat to society, therefore they
should be in prison, I agree with that.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
Also, Commissioner Garland said that I think she was taken
aback by this question that she asked Lyle, which was
are you a good liar? And he said no. Ultimately,
she said Lyle needs to be the person that he shows,
who is the person who is running programs for other inmates.
I don't know if someone asked you on a parole
board hearing are you a good liar?
Speaker 2 (16:21):
I mean that's a what. Yeah, that's not How are
you going to answer that? You can't It's a load
of question. You can't answer it the right right, there's
no good answer.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
Right, are you a good liar? Well? If I say yes, yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
It's like when we're kids, you'd run I remember, we'd say,
like does your mom know you're ugly? Like no, it's like, well, oh,
your mom doesn't know, you know, but it's like, you
can't answer that correctly. No, that's your favor.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
That's a lose lose. So I didn't. I felt like
that was a I don't know what you called a
trick question, a loaded question, whatever, But it's a question
where there's no good answer, there's no exactly. It puts
him in a position where you're right, there's no good choice.
If he says yes, I'm a good liar, then it's like, oh,
you're being honest, but now nothing we you know, nothing
you have said has any weight because you just admitted
(17:06):
that you're a good liar. And if you say no,
you're not a good liar, then it's like, oh, you're lying.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Unless they're trying to say like, not a good liar
means you don't do it. You get called out if
you do lie, like people know, you don't get away
with things. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Well, then at the end of this hearing with Lyle,
I think she goes on to give him a little
bit of hope, But don't ever not have hope. This
denial is not the end. It's a way for you
to spend some time to demonstrate to practice what you
preach about, who you are, who you want to be,
don't be somebody different behind closed doors. So she says
he'll be considered for an administrative review within one year,
and Lyle could be moved up to a hearing as
(17:44):
soon as eighteen months. And then the hearing adjourned.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Here's we see they have sorry, they have thirty five
years or however long, and then in one year, magically
it's like, oh, okay, you know, thirty five years, you
weren't eligible, you weren't very good, you're not a rule faller, accepted,
but you know, in the last twelve months, but if
you get your app together in the next year, we
might let you out.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
I mean, I bet. Basically, yeah, that's that's a really
good point to make that they've been in prison for
thirty five years. But they're saying, don't lose hope. If
you can just you know, get your act together in
the next year, we might, you know, free you. But
is there Here's what I was thinking. Are there consultants
that help you? Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (18:21):
Like everything has consultants, Yes, like that probably.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
I mean, if you if you go into pageant there's
pageant consultants.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
That teach you, like if child custody, there's child custody
hearing consultants. So you go teach you how to you know,
how to deliver, not not to change the truth, but
how to deliver, to express, what to kind of refrain from,
you know what, what looks? What's bad? A bad look?
You know?
Speaker 1 (18:46):
Right? And I know maybe to you listening, maybe that
sounded like a dumb question, but it's really not a
dumb question. It really is like are there attorneys?
Speaker 2 (18:55):
That's why you needed a cell phone? He had a
close pro board consultant.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Right, I mean, I feel like at this point it's like, okay,
well we went through one round of parole hearings, we
didn't do well. We have a year. What do we
need to do to get ourselves, you know, prepared for
this next parole hearing. Anyway, if anyone has an any
insight on that as well, I'd like to know. All right,
(19:26):
So let's move on to I just wanted to touch
briefly on the Gillian Michaels of pop culture because I
see her everywhere, and I will tell you I am
the biggest fan of Biggest Loser. You know that I
watched it all the time and because I realized I'm
one of those people that I like shows where there's transformations.
That's why you make fun of me all the time.
(19:48):
But I love my six hundred pound life because I
get to know them. I root for them. I want
to see them, you know, get healthy. Oh I love intervention.
Oh my gosh, the success rate and intervention is like
is it It's so low tough. But I become so
(20:08):
engrossed in their life and I and I'm rooting for them.
And I think that's what the appeal was with Biggest Loser.
It was huge. It was you know everyone, you know,
there was so I think there were like twenty somethings seasons. Anyway,
So the other day when I was I put Netflix
on and I saw that there was a documentary on
the Biggest Loser. I clicked on it immediately. I was
(20:29):
so excited to watch it. So now we have Jillian
Michaels's pushing back against the claims made on her and
the new Biggest Loser documentary.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
It's called well, let's be clear on the documentary. Is
she does not appear in it? Others do? She does not?
Speaker 1 (20:43):
Right? And I read that they reached out to her
and asked her to appear in the documentary and she declined,
which now she's.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
Probably glad she didn't, or she did well no, because well, yeah,
you're right, if she she would be glad she didn't
because she's like that. They say a bunch of crap
and they edit it in a way where they paint
it in a bad light and I don't want to
be a part of that, and now I can sue
them and hopefully I'll make some money.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Or she's regretting saying no because she doesn't get to
voice her own opinion and give her own viewpoint of things.
It's just everyone else talking.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
And then so yeah, fair point.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
Anyway. The documentary is on Netflix. It's called Fit for TV,
The Reality of the Biggest Loser. I thought it was great.
I watched I think it's like three episodes. I watched
all of them in one night. The series goes back
and re examines The Biggest Loser, which aired from two
thousand and four until twenty sixteen and briefly returned in
twenty twenty, through a very critical lens highlighting the extremes
(21:43):
the contestants endured for dramatic weight loss, and you know,
now watching it as a fifty year old woman as
opposed to you know, a twenty something or thirty. How
old would I be in two thousand and four. I
can't do math thirty. Yeah, so there's a big difference
between watching it as a thirty year old watching it
as a fifty year old. Because when they were showing
(22:04):
some of those flashback scenes of the challenges they made
them go through where they had to stack donuts and
you know, put donuts in their mouth and run from
place to place, and I was like, that's humiliating, it is,
that's really that is sad.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
The ones I didn't like are that when they tempt
them with like junk food, yeah, you know, not not
reward them with something, you know, like like a lot
of these shows do they reward them with prizes or
things to inspire them, But they want to tempt them
with crap food, right.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
And then show like you know, chocolate fountains and donuts,
and I mean it's just it's just making fun of them.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
And I don't think I actually the reason I thought
that's why you liked watching it.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
No, I liked to watch the table well, I mean,
I do love a good dessert table, but I know
I really love the whole transformation part of it. So
Jillian Michaels has been very public. Every time I pull
up my new sword source, which we all know is Instagram,
there's lots She's been doing lots of interviews, and Michaels
has addressed the documentary's claims on social media. I know
(23:10):
she was posting a lot of things, and she was
posting receipts, she was posting screenshots and things. She disputed
accusations that she and other trainers gave contestants caffeine pills
without approval, sharing what she said were old emails showing
that the show's doctor had cleared their use and that
fellow trainer Bob Harper had even suggested certain supplements. I
(23:32):
did read an article where she said, I know she's
mad because she's being blamed and accused of like for
her team to win or whatever, that she was giving
them caffeine pills to have an edge. And her dispute
is that was It's not like I was doing it
on the down load, it was approved. She also rejected
Harper's statement in the series that she failed to reach
(23:53):
out after his twenty seventeen heart attack, posting what she
described as a screenshot of one of her last text
messages to him that claims he's the one who never
responds back to her. She did post a text message
that said something to the effect of, you know, you
never respond to any of my texts. You know, I
do find that interesting when people ghost you. Like let's say,
(24:14):
for example, she shows a text that shows that he's
not responding to her. So he allegedly, according to her
and her screenshots, ghosted her and wasn't responding. Then he
has a heart attack in twenty seventeen, and then he says, oh,
she didn't, you know, reach out to me. But it's like,
where does the blame lie. If you ghosted her and
weren't responding to her and you weren't friends, is she
obligated to reach out? I don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
I don't think so.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
Michael's further did I claims that she made an inappropriate
comment to a contestant contestant saying you're going to make
me a millionaire, or that she encouraged unsafe dieting.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
Why would wait as if Jillian said you're going to
make me amazing Yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
In one of the interviews, I don't remember which contestant was,
but he claimed that she was just you know, pushing
and pushing, pushing and pushing, and said something like, you know,
don't give up, keep pushing because you're gonna make me
a millionaire. You know when we watched I don't remember
the one woman's name, but it was the very first.
It's like they flew them in and they ran on
the beach, remember, and this is like this is before.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
Wasn't it like make it to the finish line and
then you'll you'll make the cut or something like that.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Yeah, And she nearly died and they had to helicopter
her away. And I'm thinking, like literally, like I I
work out every day and I wouldn't have been able
to run that far and sand and heat on the beach.
And then and you're talking about people that.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Are stretch and warm up the least, right.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
I mean, then these are people that clearly are extremely
overweight and have a sedentary that's when you don't move
like they don't they don't work out, they don't move
a lot. You that's whatever that is, Yes, But and
then you put them on a beach and you're like,
run for as long as you can and as hard
as you can.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
And these are people that never tried to work out,
knew they were overweight, we're okay with it for or
we're not okay with it, but they let it be
for twenty years. And also he expected them to be
like superstars and just run right like they could have
done that on their own. They knew that they don't
want to do it.
Speaker 1 (26:11):
So he claims that she says, you're going to make
me a millionaire, or that she encouraged unsafe dieting. She
said that written records, including emails and messages with former
participants and producers, supported her account that she promoted a
calorie intake of sixteen hundred calories per day. The documentary
also alleges that she was forcing contestants to consume less
than a thousand calories and addressing Rachel Frederickson's dramatic weight
(26:35):
loss during season fifteen, Oh my gosh, that was crazy.
Did you see that? That was in the very last
episode of this they show this girl named Rachel Frederickson
comes out, you know when they show the dramatic weight loss,
and you can see everybody's face and they all look
shocked because.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
She is so thin, like not like unhealthy.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
Thin like unhealthy than not like she hes been working
out and she lost the weight and she looks she
like gaunt, and you can look at the camera pans
to the trainers and they were just like in shock.
So in addressing this is her name was Rachel Frederickson's
dramatic weight loss during season fifteen. Michael's claim that NBC
(27:17):
told her if she did not publicly condone Fredericson's appearance,
NBC would pursue legal action against her. Michael's also added,
I resigned from the Biggest Losers shortly thereafter. At this time,
she's considering suing Netflix for the claims made against her,
I mean, obviously without her own input in this documentary,
since she chose not to be a part of it.
(27:40):
I know she's thinking this is defamatory. They're accusing her
of giving, you know, caffeine pills to contestants when they're
claiming that you weren't supposed to do that, and she's saying,
but we were allowed to do that. She even claims
that Bob Harper was saying, why don't we give them
some other brand stackers or something, but she said the
conversation revolved around her saying, no, let's use the caffeine pills.
(28:01):
I like because they're cleaner, and that the ban on
caffeine was never a rule. Also, when they interviewed doctor Hazanga,
he's the doctor that's on staff.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
He disapproved of the caffeine pills, right.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Well, I think he disapproved of a lot of things.
But I think I felt. To me, my takeaway about
doctor Hazanga was that I felt like he was genuinely
a good guy.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Yeah, I think his health was a concern.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
Yeah, that was really looking out for the best interest
of the contestants and their health. But the problem is
is that you're doing that versus good TV, and you've
got production on one side saying, but we have to
make good TV. So they got to work out hard,
and they got to lose weight. We gotta have transformations.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
And ye, you know you're right, because if they didn't
have any, if people weren't losing weight every week, no
one was going to tune in. Yeah you think, Okay,
this show is not working right.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
So in order to make good TV, you have to
have a significant transformation and you have to have people
dropping weight, and so that's where the line was.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Blowing and just breaking down, you know, because they break
him down all the time, right, They're crying, they're falling
over remind.
Speaker 1 (29:09):
Tactics, you know, when you go to boot camp and
the whole point is to break you down so then
they can build you up. We will continue to follow
Jillian Michaels. We'll see if she actually does sue Netflix
and we will follow that story. But anyway, thank you
guys so much for listening today. We appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Thank you
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2
Season Two Out Now! Law & Order: Criminal Justice System tells the real stories behind the landmark cases that have shaped how the most dangerous and influential criminals in America are prosecuted. In its second season, the series tackles the threat of terrorism in the United States. From the rise of extremist political groups in the 60s to domestic lone wolves in the modern day, we explore how organizations like the FBI and Joint Terrorism Take Force have evolved to fight back against a multitude of terrorist threats.
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