October 29, 2024 • 45 mins
The Menendez Case has gained nation wide attention within pop culture and the recent ruling of resentencing.
Jackie shares why she is deeply interested and how this personally affects her.
Plus, she breaks down the case with Criminal Defense attorney Alison Triessl, who knew Erik personally in high school.
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 (00:02):
Hey, everyone, it's Jackie Goldschneider and this is the last
episode of my limited run of solo podcasts. So Jenfessler
and I have two Jersey Jays, and then I did
six solo podcasts just to talk about some stuff that
was personally important to me, things that I've been wanting
to talk about, and this is the last one. So
(00:25):
I hope you've loved it. Hopefully it comes back again.
But you know, I was thinking a lot about what
to talk about today, and I was gonna, you know,
maybe talk about some things you don't know about me,
or about you know, everyone's childhood shapes them, about my childhood,
or maybe about eating disorders. But there really has been
(00:46):
something on my mind so much lately, and I feel
really strongly about it. And I know that a lot
of people have had this on their mind lately, the
Menindaz trial and specifically the Menanda's brothers. So since this
is a podcast us about issues that involvement aged women,
here's why I want to talk about the Menanda's brothers
in this context because as a middle aged woman, many
(01:10):
of us who are around my age, we're right around
the same age that Kitty Menendez was when she was killed.
But more than that, many of us are mothers, and
I have four kids, three teenage boys, one teenage girl,
and my teenage boys are just slightly younger than the
(01:30):
Menandaz brothers were when they killed their parents. And as
a mom of teenage sons, even though this is like
the most horrific crime, killing your parents, I think that
a lot of parents can see their children in those
boys and can imagine what their children might have turned
(01:55):
out like had they had a childhood filled with abuse
and with basically torture and rape, and parents who were
supposed to keep them safe and did the exact opposite.
And even though we don't know the Menanda's brothers personally,
(02:15):
we can imagine our children in their place. And I'm
speaking personally, but from people I've spoken to, that seems
to be something that a lot of mothers I've spoken
to have said. So now there's speculation over whether the
abuse allegations are true, but if they are, if even
a fraction of that abuse occurred and they had a
(02:38):
childhood filled with such atrocity and horror, where people who
were supposed to make them feel loved tortured them, so horrifically.
Then I don't think that justice was served by putting
them in jail for life. And I hope so much
that they are set free, I really do, And I
(02:59):
hope that they are allowed to live the last thirty
years or so of their lives with freedom and with
their wives they're both married, I think, and their families.
I know that there's so much more to all of this,
and so much more nuanced to this case. But when
I look at their pictures from the courtroom from thirty
(03:20):
years ago, I can look at their eyes and their faces,
and I can see my children. Not that my children
would ever do anything like that, but I just see children,
and I'm getting upset even talking about it. I just
see children who were abused and who obviously you cannot
(03:44):
make I don't think you can make see decisions after
a lifetime of that kind of abuse. So I can imagine,
as a mother, and what it would do to them
to have a childhood like I believe that these had.
And I can't help but think that they have served
their time many times over for basically giving a man
(04:07):
who raped his children what he deserved. Sorry, if you
rape your children, you don't deserve to live and I'm
not for vigilanti justice, but if you rape your children,
I don't feel bad for you, no matter what happens
to you. And as for their mother, if it's true
that she knew her children were being raped and did
not help them, then I don't think that I can
find much grace in my heart for her either. Again,
(04:30):
I don't think that she deserved to be murdered, but
I do think they've served enough time for it. So
because of all the dude interest in this case, the
LA District Attorney has filed a petition to re sentence
the brothers, which means that they could potentially be released
from jail within the next few weeks. So to explain
(04:51):
it a little bit more clearly, the DA asked that
they be resentenced to fifty years to life on two
counts of first degree murder. But since they were under
the age of twenty six at the time of the
crime and they've already served thirty years in prison under
California law, that means that they'd be eligible for youth parole,
meaning that if a judge agrees with that, a parole
(05:13):
board will evaluate whether the brothers have been rehabilitated and
are safe to re enter society. And there are just
so many questions that I have about all of it,
about what kind of life they could live, whether this
could actually happen. I have so many questions, and today
(05:33):
I have a truly incredible guest. She is one of
the best criminal defense attorneys in the country, and she's
a legal expert who knows this case so well, and
also went to high school with one of the Menendez
brothers who her name is Alison treesel So. Alison is
a criminal defense attorney and legal correspondent for Access Hollywood
(05:55):
with MARYA. Lopez, and a legal analyst and hosts of
Legal Smart for Katie TLA Channel five in Los Angeles.
She has provided legal commentary so many times for all
kinds of local and national news Channel CNN, Fox News Nation.
She's one of the few female nationally recognized criminal defense attorneys,
(06:18):
and throughout the course of her twenty five year career,
Allison has represented over a thousand clients charged with committing
serious crimes. So she definitely knows her stuff, and she's
been an outspoken advocate for the mentally ill and wrongly convicted,
as well as being a leading voice in the pro
choice movement. Allison has worked closely with Emily's List, which
(06:39):
is an organization dedicated to electing democratic pro choice women
in office. Very interesting, and she's also the proud mother
of three teenage sons, which same as me, have three
teenage sons, which I think will give her a unique
perspective in this case. Welcome Alison, Thank you so much
(07:09):
for being here. Of course, before you came on, I
was telling our listeners that, like me, you have three
teenage boys, and as a mom of teenage boys, I
think one of the things that hit me so hard
is that I can see my children in these boys,
and obviously I don't know them. I think you know
(07:31):
one of them personally. Yeh, Who did you go to
high school with?
Speaker 2 (07:35):
I went to high school with Eric, so I actually
was at Calbass High School with Eric for a number
of years, so I knew him raptly.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
And so I just I feel personally connected to this case. Okay,
But the first question that I want to ask you
is more of an abstract like, do you think it's
a slippery slope that suddenly we can have one, you know,
director making a documentary or making a movie or a
mini series, and then all of a sudden, the whole
world wants to overturn a sentence that was already decided,
(08:06):
you know, decades ago. Do you think this is a
dangerous thing or a great thing that suddenly this generation
of social media and you know, all these streaming services,
can you know, make an uproar about something that's been
over for decades.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
I think it's a great thing. But I'm going to
tell you that this isn't the first. This really is
not the first. So in my mind, the Making a
Murderer was really the start of this evolution of re
examining cases seeing if there's a there there. The Innocence
Project has really been the one that catapulted the idea
(08:43):
that you know, new forensic evidence and that DNA has
done a lot to free the innocent. So I want
to start more of a it's more of a journey,
not about reality TV and bringing things the limelight. It's
the scientific advancements that have really done more than anything
(09:05):
else to re examine these cases where there have been
wrongful convictions. And then you had a show like Making
a Murderer where you got people thinking thinking about, well
did they do it? What role did they play. Certainly,
a lot of attention was drawn to the nephew and
his confession and his age and how the police really
(09:31):
manipulated him into saying things that frankly just weren't true
because he was afraid and he was young. But that
sort of started this entire idea of if you know
the staircase right, and the jinks and all of those
have shown and some of the times, frankly, there is
no there there. I mean, the person committed the crime,
(09:54):
they are serving the time justly, and they should spend
the right rest of their life in prison. And so
so I think that this is a trend that is
going to continue, and it's going to increase, and there
are times that cases should be re examined. You've got
the Scott Peterson case that they're also read that they
(10:14):
also are re examining. You have to evolve with the
scientific evidence in the case. You also have to evolve,
but be cautious. But be cautious when it comes to
do you open up a new case where there's already
(10:34):
been not just a conviction, but it has gone entirely
through the court system. So the Menendez brothers have exhausted
all of their appeals. All of their court appeals have
been exhausted. Do you reopen that case based on a
social media frenzy based on celebrities coming out and saying
one thing or another that is a slippery slope that
(10:56):
I am concerned about.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Yeah, yes, I understand that, but I agree with you
it could be a very good thing. Yes, So there's
new evidence in this case. First, why was the evidence
of sexual abuse not allowed to come in to the retrial?
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Okay? So if I can give you your listeners a
bit of background, it's important to understand the major change
from the first trial to the second trial. Okay. So
the murders occur in nineteen eighty nine. Eric and Lyle
stay out of custody for almost a year. They get arrested.
(11:37):
Their first case goes to trial in ninety four. There
are two different juries. They have attorneys for each of them.
Eric has Leslie Abramson, who I she's one of the
best attorneys of all time. I mean truly, and as
a female defense attorney like I am, you know, she's
(12:00):
pretty legendary. And they argue this sexual abuse case at
a time where it was very uncommon to claim that
boys men are being raped and molested by their parents.
(12:22):
It's sort of a radical, unbelievable theory to a lot
lot of people, and so there was a lot of resistance,
especially here, claiming, look, we yes, we killed them, but
we did so because our father had molested us for
so long that we were in fear of our lives.
So they argued what was called an imperfect self defense,
(12:44):
which was it wasn't exactly a self defense because you
aren't in eminent immediate fear, but that you're in the
sustained fear, and that you were frankly wrong. So instead
of being convicted of murder, you're not saying we are
in innocent, but we are guilty of manslaughter. And at
that time the maximum sentence you could receive was eleven
(13:07):
years for a manslaughter charge. Each one of the jurors
juries could not reach a verdict. Both were hot. Eric
and Lyle testified at both trials to the sexual abuse
and it was interesting because the hung juries were really
split along gender lines, So most of the women on
(13:32):
the juries found that these boys in fact were molested
and did not believe that they should be convicted of murder,
where the men, generally speaking felt otherwise and wanted them
convicted of murder. Because it was a hung jury, the
(13:52):
DA gil Garcetti quickly made the determination that he was
going to retry the case. That he stated publicly, We're
going to retry the case. The judge did not want
a similar outcome. This case then comes on the heels
of OJ Simpson getting acquitted. So that's a big deal. Okay,
So the DA suffers a loss with the hungury and
(14:13):
the Menendez brothers they suffer another big loss in the
OJ Simpson case. And so and Lyle Menendez has this
very long, lengthy telephone calls that are recorded by a
friend girlfriend at the time, where he essentially says to
(14:34):
the effect, you know, I'm a really good liar. I
can make these things up. That is on him. That
is on him, That has nothing to do with the
judicial system. That means that if he takes the stand
and he testifies to the same type of sexual abuse
that he testified to before, he is going to be
impeached with those phone calls that are on recorded phone
(14:58):
lines that he knew better because you're told when you
call the county jail, all calls are recorded.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
So those calls, why would he say that's if it's
true that the abuse allegations, which I believe they art you,
why would he basically tell someone that he's a good liar.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
You know, I've thought about this case a lot. I've
thought about that, I've thought about sort of the setting,
and it was really most of the questions were in
response to doctor o'zeal and how to counter what doctor
Ozel's testimony was going to be. I want to refresh
your listeners as to the importance of doctor Ozel. Doctor
(15:33):
Ozel was the psychiatrists that Eric actually had been sent
to because the boys were previously involved in these in
these burglaries of homes, and as a punishment, Eric was
sent to see this doctor. And so the doctor, doctor Ozel,
(15:53):
is who Eric eventually confesses to. He never says he
was abused by the way to doctor Ozels, So I
just want that to be very clear. He never he
never tells a doctor Rosiel that he was sexually abused,
which a lot of people have found very interesting over
the years that you would confess to a crime as
heinous as this and not give the explanation as to
(16:13):
why you.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Do you find that do you find that telling.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
Troubling to me. I mean it's troubling to me. I
did know Jose Menendez, and he had a fiery, horrible temper.
He was not a nice man. I mean, he was
really really cruel to his son's no question. I was
not in that bedroom, so I can't talk to the
(16:37):
specifics of sexual abuse. Although I do think given the
new information, mainly Eric's letter that was recently discovered, that
very much corroborates, very very much corroborates Andy Cano, his
cousin's testimony at the first trial, where he said Eric
(16:57):
told me this was happening, and that letter that was
recently discovered was written eight months before the murder. So
I tend to at the time I thought, well, I
don't know, because I wasn't there. I know that this
man was a really cruel, cruel man. We need to
(17:18):
talk about Kitty separately, because that's a separate conversation. But
when you talk about Jose, the corroboration now with that
letter that is authenticated to in fact be in Eric's handwriting,
that was written eight months before, that says, look, the
abuse is still going on. Does coroborate Andy Cano's testimony,
(17:40):
and if introduced at the time of the trial. Do
I think it would have made a difference at the trial.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
I do.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
So you go into the second trial. There is a
backlash here of losing the OJ Simpson case. The judge
in Menendez having two hungaries. You have Lyle's really the
(18:06):
self inflicted damage that he did in those recording. In
those recordings, the judge essentially guts the second time, they
only have one jury. The judge guts their central defense,
which is the sexual abuse allegations. During the first trial,
the boys had fifty people speak testify on their behalf. Okay,
(18:30):
there's a bunch of experts that testify to the sexual abuse,
in the trauma that is caused by it. You have
a lot of relatives that speak out on their behalf.
You have these character witnesses. Those are essentially excluded from
the second trial. So now the the the imperfect self
(18:52):
defense argument is taken away, and all the jurors are
left with is either not guilty or a guilty of
first degree murder.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Okay, So why were they excluded from the second trial.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
Because the judge believed that, based on what Lyle had
said during the time, that there really was no sexual abuse.
There were other factors too, But essentially that was the
nail that sailed that just you know, sealed the coffin.
So the judge guts that part of the defense. And
(19:24):
without that defense, you can have Eric testify, but it
doesn't have the strength. And I mean Lyle's testimony on
the stand and the first trial was very compelling and
very believable and very strong. So he cannot testify because
he's going to be impeached. You also have a change
(19:46):
of council. Leslie Resent stays on, but Jill Jill is
no longer the attorney for Lyle and they have a
public defender. Does does that change things? Maybe? But it
was real lead the rulings that the judge made that
made a case where you would have gotten enough jurors
to say, you know, I think this may have happened
(20:09):
to him. I think I think there was real abuse here,
not just physical or emotional abuse, but real sexual abuse.
That's taken away from the jurors so they are not
provided that information like they were the first time. So
when they are sentenced, and this is very important to understand,
there is a sentence to two counts of first degree
(20:30):
murder twenty five years to life l WOP, and what
that means is life without the possibility of parole. When
you are sentenced to LWOP, you are either given the
choice that the jury has to decide between the death
penalty or life in prison without parole. The jury decided
(20:51):
against the death penalty. But when you are sentenced to
life without the possibility of parol, it means you will
never get out. You will never be given a parole hearing.
You will never be given a chance to sit in
front of a parole board and say I have been reformed,
I have been rehabilitated. I should be I should come out.
Look at what I have done while I've been in prison.
(21:14):
What a model inmate I have been. You're never given
that option. So Lyle and Eric, up to this point,
even though they have served thirty five years in prison,
have never once had a parole hearing.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Let me start with what new evidence has been introduced.
There's a letter from Eric to his cousin that's been authenticated.
Is that stronger than the testimony of the MENUDO member?
Speaker 2 (21:48):
Yes, so quickly, I answered you. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
I love that.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
Because corroboration is a big deal, right, So someone can
say something, say something occurred. But if you have, and
I'm going to give it analogy, Okay, I tell you, Look,
I couldn't have committed that crime because at four fifteen
I was at the local seven eleven getting a slurpee. Okay,
(22:15):
I tell you that. Okay, maybe it's true, maybe it's not.
But then you corroborate it with the surveillance video at
the seven eleven at four point thirty and there I
am at the slurpee machine. Although I'm not a huge
slurp bey fan. I just use an example, and you
say she couldn't have been there because I have video
(22:35):
evidence that she was somewhere else. That's corroboration. That's a
that makes for a very very strong case. Right. So
Andy Cano's testimony alone, without corroboration, is just basically me
telling you I was at the seven eleven at the time.
But that letter, that letter that predates the murder by
(22:56):
eight months, that's a long time. That says it's still
happening to me. If that letter was in evidence at
the time of Cano's testimony, that corroborates what he's saying.
That's really strong. Now, I am not saying that that
the band member, the former band member of Menudo isn't
(23:18):
telling the truth. I am not saying that that at all.
I'm saying that it's just his testimony alone, many decades later,
claiming that he was molested in the Menendez house by Jose,
without any other corroboration. So when you ask me if
that evidence that letter is stronger? Yes, does the declaration
(23:40):
from the band member of Menudo help? It does? It
shows that if Jose in fact was bold enough to
molest this person, this child in his home in New
Jersey at that time, it does show a similar pattern
because that's what his son said he did to them,
(24:01):
that he would isolate them in the rooms upstairs where
no one else was allowed to go and molest them there.
So it does embolden, it does strengthen the Meninus's case.
I don't think that declaration alone would be enough to
bring about a new trial.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Okay, So now this is not going to go in
front of a journey. So a judge decides that this
is enough and then refers it to a parole board.
Is that what happens?
Speaker 2 (24:29):
Okay? So there's two separate tracks, and I know it's
awfully confusing. So hopefully we're just going to parse through
it in a way that is that is broken down
to there's two separate tracks here. They have a habeas petition,
and that habeas petition is asking for essentially a new
trial or a new hearing based on new evidence. And
(24:51):
that would be the letter as well as the declaration okay,
and that is set for late November, that hearing based
on new vas okay, undiscovered, newly discovered evidence. Then there
is the track that seems to be the most winning
(25:12):
path forward for the Menendez brothers, which is that they
are appealing directly to the district Attorney George Gascone, asking
that they be resentenced. And what George Gascone has done
at this point is he has said, yes, I am
going to officially ask the court to resentence these men
(25:35):
who have now served thirty five years in prison to
a term of fifty two life. What that means is
they are now eligible for parole. So in the last
sentence they were given fifty to life without the possibility
of role, which we call LWOP in California. Here he
(25:57):
has not reduced the charge. He's not reducing the charge
to manslaughter, which would mean that essentially they would immediately
be free. He is saying, I want to give them
their chance at parole. And because they have served thirty
five years in prison, and because their model inmates, and
because they have started all these programs and have shown
(26:22):
true rehabilitation and reformation, I believe that they should in
the best interests of justice, they should be released. In
addition to hearing from twenty plus members of the Menendez family,
I am convinced that these boys have been rehabilitated and
should be released. That is his argument that is separate
(26:43):
and apart from the legal argument in the case. So
this week the DAS is going to ask the judge
in Los Angeles Downtown Superior Court. We don't know what
judge it's going to be assigned to yet, to consider
re sentencing them. But that does not mean that the
judge is going to agree to do it. The judge
(27:04):
may say no, I am unwilling to re sentence. So
we're far from We're far from having them home for
the holidays right now. Not to say it's not gonna pay,
not to say it's not going to happen, but there
are two more steps to get them there.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
Okay, got it. Now, If they were released. Is there
I mean, is there a world where they can live
a normal life. I mean, you've seen this before, you
looked on the Innocence Project. No, right, I mean what
is their life going to be like? Generally speaking?
Speaker 2 (27:35):
Well, I mean, what's Kasey Anthony's life like? What was O. J.
Simpson's life like? I mean, the list goes on and
on and on. They're going to be hounded all the
time by the press. Will they try and profit from this?
Who knows? Can they sort of fade in, you know,
(27:57):
fade into the shadows? I just don't think so. I mean,
this has been a such a notorious case for so
many years. I I it is my understanding that that Eric,
if released, intends to move to Nevada to live with
(28:18):
his wife Tammy. But again, they're going to be on parole,
so parole has to agree to all these things. So
there may be conditions of their parole there where they're
under house arrest. I mean, they're not just simply you know,
they're not just simply let let out of prison. The
parole board essentially then decides what are the terms of
(28:41):
your parole?
Speaker 1 (28:44):
Got it? Okay? Back to the original trial, you know,
I get most of my facts, Like most of the
American people, I've read a lot about it, but probably
through the documentaries and streaming shows that have been made
about it. Why would they have been separated put in
separate sparate jails, you know a few years into their sentence.
(29:04):
That seemed like over the top cruelty.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
So yeah, yeah, I agree with you, and I think
that that was that was very heartbreaking. I mean, they
were they were all that they had. But it is
not uncommon. It is not uncommon to separate code defendants
in a case and send them to separate prisons. Okay,
(29:28):
so if you committed a crime together, it is not
uncommon that you separate those co defendants so that they
cannot conspire to commit another crime. I am, I am,
I am talking as a generality. Use if if there's
a gang, right, if it's a gang case and two
gang members are convicted of a murder, they'll separate them
(29:52):
so they It wasn't without precedent, and the the the
the help Ornia's state boarder prisons can basically do anything
that they want. I mean in terms of housing. They
didn't have an automatic right to be together. It does
seem cruel to me, I agree with you. I mean
it was years. It was probably twenty something years that
(30:13):
they were separated. I believe that they're in Donovan together now,
but they did not have a legal right to be together.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
Okay, and their marriages, yes, what is that?
Speaker 2 (30:27):
Like?
Speaker 1 (30:27):
Are they allowed to how often do they see their wives?
They have a lot of people asking like how did
they even meet spouses while in jail.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
Marriages are not uncommon in jail, and in California they
are allowed. It depends what kind of where you're being
housed and are you allowed conjugal visits. You know, lifers
have much less access to their spouses than other people
(31:00):
being housed there. The idea behind conjugal visits or weekend
visits is that you want to give the inmate a
reason to behave to behave while while in prison, something
to look forward to, or a past that you can
take away if there's a disciplinary problem. So I don't
(31:22):
know the specifics of how often their spouse is met
with them. I know that Eric has been married to
this woman to me for a long time, but it
was not your It's never your traditional marriage. I mean,
you cannot you know you're being watched all of the time,
and and so they really only know each other like
(31:48):
most inmates know their spouses while they're incarcerated, right through
talking on the phone, through letter writing, for having those
those in person visits. But they're not private in person visits.
There are guards all around them at all time, and
every square every square inch of the prison is videoed.
(32:11):
There is surveillance. So what does their marriage look like?
Not like a typical marriage, if that's the question.
Speaker 1 (32:20):
Yeah, well, at least they have somebody. Yeah, but when
they come out correct and.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
Also look they they have. You know, the Menendez family,
save the brother of Jose Menendez, is very very much
in support of them getting out and has offered to
have them live with them and cares very deeply about
them and believes that they were molested. One of the
reasons that George Gascone is asking for the re sentencing
(32:48):
is because under Marci's Law in the state of California, victims' families.
So the Menendez, the Jose and Kiddy's family men, Okay,
they're brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, they all are considered victims
for purposes of Marcy's Law, and they have a right
(33:11):
to be heard so very rarely do you hear the
victims of the decedents speaking out in favor of the
people who murdered them. So that was unique in and
of itself, and they that family came out in mass
numbers to support the release of Lyle and Eric.
Speaker 1 (33:32):
What was Eric like in high school to the extent
you knew him?
Speaker 2 (33:37):
And you know, look, I've done criminal defense for a
very long time, and I've been an attorney for a
long time, and there's no need for me to ever
exaggerate on our relationships, whether I have them or I
don't have them. I actually happened to know him fairly well.
We studied together. I played on the tennis team. He
played on the tennis team. He was Eric. He was arrogant,
(34:01):
that's the truth. Very smart, very very smart, very good
tennis player. They came from a very wealthy family and
they were stobby. I did not dislike him at all.
I did not dislike him at all, but he was
He was very, very arrogant. And I remember specifically when
(34:23):
night he came over to our family. He came over
to my house to study. My dad was a psychiatrist.
He would work late hours. My mom had sort of
always made dinner for my dad and put it aside.
In those like nineteen eighties, microwave covers right and put
his dinner aside. And Eric came over to study and
(34:46):
took the cover off of my dad's dinner and ate
my dad's dinner. And my dad said, what is wrong
with this kid? He's like the sociopath. I mean, that
is an incredible statement to be made. You know, a
year or two before where the murders took place, and
then immediately after the death of their parents, a group
(35:08):
of us went out with them, went out with Eric
to console him, and he spent most of the time
talking about money and cars and watches and going to
Israel to play tennis. And I remember coming home and
saying to my dad did the psychiatrist? God, it was
so strange. He really wasn't that sympathetic. He wasn't that sad.
He said, well, you know, people handle grief differently, so
(35:33):
my personal experiences, and I'm just being honest, were But
I also watched. I also watched as Jose humiliated him
and belittled him on the tennis court, and it was awful.
It was absolutely awful. I mean, I think anybody who
was around them at the time would have told you
(35:54):
that Jose was just a very mean, controlling I mean,
one of those one of those fathers that you felt
so sorry for the kid. The embarrassment, the humiliation, it
was just off off off the scales.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
And so as as a as a criminal attorney who
has watched this case so closely, what what do you believe?
Speaker 2 (36:20):
What do you believe and.
Speaker 1 (36:21):
What do you think is going to happen?
Speaker 2 (36:22):
So I think they're going to be released. I think
that they're going to ultimately be released. I think about
the fact that they have served thirty five years in prison.
I think that the laws in California have changed drastically.
I think people's views on whether men can be raped
have been have changed drastically. I think that when the
(36:43):
prosecutor at the time in the early nineties said, you know,
men can't be raped, that is that is a ridiculous
statement that we now know to be completely untrue. I
think that the that the what these boys endure as
children is horrific, is absolutely horrific, and that thirty five
(37:08):
years is a lot of time. They did They brutally,
brutally killed their parents. It's a hard explanation on why
they went back and reloaded and shot their mother in
the face. I don't think that there is very strong
evidence that she sexually assaulted them, but I think that
(37:29):
thirty years thirty five years in prison is a lot
of time to be served. And I am particularly swayed
by their behavior in prison as model inmates, knowing that
they were never going to get out, so that is key.
(37:50):
Knowing that they would never get a parole, hearing right,
knowing that they were would be serving life in prison
without the possibility parole. They were model inmates that made
real reforms, that started therapy groups, that did a lot
for the betterment of other inmates incarcerated. You don't always
(38:11):
see that, especially from inmates who who aren't doing it
to impress a parole board because they weren't going to
get paroled. So it's very hard to say, oh, well,
you know, they thought down the line, maybe the law
would change, maybe they would get out. No, there was
really no hope of any of that happening. So, I mean,
(38:32):
we know that there are at least two letters a
character reference letters of people that work in the prison
that are supporting their release and saying these are model
model prisoners. So I do think that thirty five years
in custody is a very very long time. And the
laws in California have changed where when you're looking at sentencing,
(38:56):
when you're looking at sentencing, you now look at whether
the defendant is a youthful offender, which is they have
to be under the age of twenty six, which both
of them were at the time, and whether or not
there's a history of physical, emotional or sexual trauma, which
there is in this case. So that law went into
(39:19):
effect and it is retroactive, meaning it applies to cases
that happened that happened many years ago. And so I
think for those reasons, I think that they will be
let out, and they should be let out.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
I agree with you. Well, we get to see will
it be televised the parole board hearings or any of
the judge's decisions, or will we just have to wait and.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
Hear So generally speaking, California is an interesting state. So
New York there are no cameras in the courtroom, no
cameras in the courtroom in New York. In California, there
are cameras in the courtroom. However, it is on a
case by case basis. It is ultimately up to the
judge it's handling the case, to decide whether or not
(40:02):
to allow cameras in the courtroom. So there's nothing preventing
cameras from being in the courtroom. I'm sure that both
sides will want cameras in the courtroom, but ultimately it
will be up to the judge to decide whether or
not there will be cameras in the courtroom. As to
the parole hearing, those are generally not televised. It might be,
(40:25):
but they're generally not televised. But the interesting you know,
it's a it's a very interesting case because you you
not only have a family who lost who's whose sister
and brother and you know aunt and uncle were brutally murdered.
(40:46):
They're supporting the release of the people that killed them.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Well except for one right, brother.
Speaker 2 (40:52):
Jose's brother is very much against. It is very much against.
Speaker 1 (40:56):
I think I thought it was Kitty's brother.
Speaker 2 (40:57):
No, you may be right, you may be right, but
when you have a ninety three year old aunt come
out and say enough is enough, it's time. They've been
in so long, and I think that's Kitty's sister. I
think yeah, so enough of the family is coming out
in support of them of their release, and they, presume
(41:21):
to Marci's lawaw are allowed to testify, so they would
be able to testify at a parole hearing. I think
it's going to be very interesting to see who the
judge is in Los Angeles that's going to look at
this case and decide. You know, there are people are saying, well,
is gascone doing this because this is a very this
(41:47):
is a this is a political move because he is
down in the polls and his his his DA ship
is in jeopardy, and does.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
He do you think he is? Do I think what
that he's doing this for political reasons?
Speaker 2 (42:05):
Well, there may be some aspect to that. I mean,
I will say that he has in the last four years,
he has sentenced three hundred people, so it's not like
this is the only case that he has resentenced. Twenty
six of those have been murder cases, so it's not
like that he hasn't done a murder case. But certainly
there are a lot of people that are in support
(42:26):
of their release, and if they collateral consequence of that
is they vote for Gascogne because he is asking that
these boys be resentenced. It certainly does not hurt him
when he is down by some accounts thirty percentage points
in the polls. He has fallen out of favor by
(42:47):
a lot of a lot of organizations because they have
felt that he's been too soft on crime. So it
may be politically motivated. The men Indaz family says it's
definitely not. The District Attorney's office says it's definitely not.
But there are other camps that say, absolutely it is
(43:08):
politically motivated, no question. And he's moving quickly, right, I mean,
the election is essentially next week, and he's moving quickly
to have this case in front of a judge as
soon as possible.
Speaker 1 (43:21):
Right, Well, I know that I will be watching very anxiously.
I really do truly hope that they get out of
jail and can have some semblance of a life.
Speaker 2 (43:32):
Yeah. Yeah, I mean it's been Look, it's been a
very long time. It's been a very very long time,
thirty five years of their life. And I can say,
on a personal level, just watching the father interact with him,
not even the sexual assault, but the emotional and physical
I mean, he was it was. It was awful to watch,
absolutely awful.
Speaker 1 (43:53):
Yeah, well, thank you so much. You're brilliant, and I'm
so grateful that you came on and explained this to everybody,
and just like you all be watching with baited breath.
So thank you so much, Alison.
Speaker 2 (44:07):
Pleasure, my pleasure. Okay, okay, bye bye bye.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
Oh that was a lot. So I mean, like I
said at the beginning, as a mom of teenage boys,
obviously not okay to kill your parents. But thirty five
years after such a horrific and tortured childhood by the
parents who by the people who are supposed to make
(44:33):
you feel safe and loved on this planet, and they
just do the esex act opposite. I just feel like
their time has been served many times over, and I,
for one, I'm very hopeful that they get released. Like
Alison said, I don't know what kind of life you
have after that, but I really do hope that they
(44:58):
can live the last thirty years or so their lives
and freedom. And I will be watching just like all
of you, and guys, that's it for just Jackie for now.
We'll see, maybe it'll come back. But so grateful for
all of you who have listened, and I hope you
enjoyed this episode and this series and I love you
(45:20):
all for listening and I will see you guys on
to Jersey jays Hie
Hey, everyone, it's Jackie Goldschneider and this is the last
episode of my limited run of solo podcasts. So Jenfessler
and I have two Jersey Jays, and then I did
six solo podcasts just to talk about some stuff that
was personally important to me, things that I've been wanting
to talk about, and this is the last one. So
(00:25):
I hope you've loved it. Hopefully it comes back again.
But you know, I was thinking a lot about what
to talk about today, and I was gonna, you know,
maybe talk about some things you don't know about me,
or about you know, everyone's childhood shapes them, about my childhood,
or maybe about eating disorders. But there really has been
(00:46):
something on my mind so much lately, and I feel
really strongly about it. And I know that a lot
of people have had this on their mind lately, the
Menindaz trial and specifically the Menanda's brothers. So since this
is a podcast us about issues that involvement aged women,
here's why I want to talk about the Menanda's brothers
in this context because as a middle aged woman, many
(01:10):
of us who are around my age, we're right around
the same age that Kitty Menendez was when she was killed.
But more than that, many of us are mothers, and
I have four kids, three teenage boys, one teenage girl,
and my teenage boys are just slightly younger than the
(01:30):
Menandaz brothers were when they killed their parents. And as
a mom of teenage sons, even though this is like
the most horrific crime, killing your parents, I think that
a lot of parents can see their children in those
boys and can imagine what their children might have turned
(01:55):
out like had they had a childhood filled with abuse
and with basically torture and rape, and parents who were
supposed to keep them safe and did the exact opposite.
And even though we don't know the Menanda's brothers personally,
(02:15):
we can imagine our children in their place. And I'm
speaking personally, but from people I've spoken to, that seems
to be something that a lot of mothers I've spoken
to have said. So now there's speculation over whether the
abuse allegations are true, but if they are, if even
a fraction of that abuse occurred and they had a
(02:38):
childhood filled with such atrocity and horror, where people who
were supposed to make them feel loved tortured them, so horrifically.
Then I don't think that justice was served by putting
them in jail for life. And I hope so much
that they are set free, I really do, And I
(02:59):
hope that they are allowed to live the last thirty
years or so of their lives with freedom and with
their wives they're both married, I think, and their families.
I know that there's so much more to all of this,
and so much more nuanced to this case. But when
I look at their pictures from the courtroom from thirty
(03:20):
years ago, I can look at their eyes and their faces,
and I can see my children. Not that my children
would ever do anything like that, but I just see children,
and I'm getting upset even talking about it. I just
see children who were abused and who obviously you cannot
(03:44):
make I don't think you can make see decisions after
a lifetime of that kind of abuse. So I can imagine,
as a mother, and what it would do to them
to have a childhood like I believe that these had.
And I can't help but think that they have served
their time many times over for basically giving a man
(04:07):
who raped his children what he deserved. Sorry, if you
rape your children, you don't deserve to live and I'm
not for vigilanti justice, but if you rape your children,
I don't feel bad for you, no matter what happens
to you. And as for their mother, if it's true
that she knew her children were being raped and did
not help them, then I don't think that I can
find much grace in my heart for her either. Again,
(04:30):
I don't think that she deserved to be murdered, but
I do think they've served enough time for it. So
because of all the dude interest in this case, the
LA District Attorney has filed a petition to re sentence
the brothers, which means that they could potentially be released
from jail within the next few weeks. So to explain
(04:51):
it a little bit more clearly, the DA asked that
they be resentenced to fifty years to life on two
counts of first degree murder. But since they were under
the age of twenty six at the time of the
crime and they've already served thirty years in prison under
California law, that means that they'd be eligible for youth parole,
meaning that if a judge agrees with that, a parole
(05:13):
board will evaluate whether the brothers have been rehabilitated and
are safe to re enter society. And there are just
so many questions that I have about all of it,
about what kind of life they could live, whether this
could actually happen. I have so many questions, and today
(05:33):
I have a truly incredible guest. She is one of
the best criminal defense attorneys in the country, and she's
a legal expert who knows this case so well, and
also went to high school with one of the Menendez
brothers who her name is Alison treesel So. Alison is
a criminal defense attorney and legal correspondent for Access Hollywood
(05:55):
with MARYA. Lopez, and a legal analyst and hosts of
Legal Smart for Katie TLA Channel five in Los Angeles.
She has provided legal commentary so many times for all
kinds of local and national news Channel CNN, Fox News Nation.
She's one of the few female nationally recognized criminal defense attorneys,
(06:18):
and throughout the course of her twenty five year career,
Allison has represented over a thousand clients charged with committing
serious crimes. So she definitely knows her stuff, and she's
been an outspoken advocate for the mentally ill and wrongly convicted,
as well as being a leading voice in the pro
choice movement. Allison has worked closely with Emily's List, which
(06:39):
is an organization dedicated to electing democratic pro choice women
in office. Very interesting, and she's also the proud mother
of three teenage sons, which same as me, have three
teenage sons, which I think will give her a unique
perspective in this case. Welcome Alison, Thank you so much
(07:09):
for being here. Of course, before you came on, I
was telling our listeners that, like me, you have three
teenage boys, and as a mom of teenage boys, I
think one of the things that hit me so hard
is that I can see my children in these boys,
and obviously I don't know them. I think you know
(07:31):
one of them personally. Yeh, Who did you go to
high school with?
Speaker 2 (07:35):
I went to high school with Eric, so I actually
was at Calbass High School with Eric for a number
of years, so I knew him raptly.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
And so I just I feel personally connected to this case. Okay,
But the first question that I want to ask you
is more of an abstract like, do you think it's
a slippery slope that suddenly we can have one, you know,
director making a documentary or making a movie or a
mini series, and then all of a sudden, the whole
world wants to overturn a sentence that was already decided,
(08:06):
you know, decades ago. Do you think this is a
dangerous thing or a great thing that suddenly this generation
of social media and you know, all these streaming services,
can you know, make an uproar about something that's been
over for decades.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
I think it's a great thing. But I'm going to
tell you that this isn't the first. This really is
not the first. So in my mind, the Making a
Murderer was really the start of this evolution of re
examining cases seeing if there's a there there. The Innocence
Project has really been the one that catapulted the idea
(08:43):
that you know, new forensic evidence and that DNA has
done a lot to free the innocent. So I want
to start more of a it's more of a journey,
not about reality TV and bringing things the limelight. It's
the scientific advancements that have really done more than anything
(09:05):
else to re examine these cases where there have been
wrongful convictions. And then you had a show like Making
a Murderer where you got people thinking thinking about, well
did they do it? What role did they play. Certainly,
a lot of attention was drawn to the nephew and
his confession and his age and how the police really
(09:31):
manipulated him into saying things that frankly just weren't true
because he was afraid and he was young. But that
sort of started this entire idea of if you know
the staircase right, and the jinks and all of those
have shown and some of the times, frankly, there is
no there there. I mean, the person committed the crime,
(09:54):
they are serving the time justly, and they should spend
the right rest of their life in prison. And so
so I think that this is a trend that is
going to continue, and it's going to increase, and there
are times that cases should be re examined. You've got
the Scott Peterson case that they're also read that they
(10:14):
also are re examining. You have to evolve with the
scientific evidence in the case. You also have to evolve,
but be cautious. But be cautious when it comes to
do you open up a new case where there's already
(10:34):
been not just a conviction, but it has gone entirely
through the court system. So the Menendez brothers have exhausted
all of their appeals. All of their court appeals have
been exhausted. Do you reopen that case based on a
social media frenzy based on celebrities coming out and saying
one thing or another that is a slippery slope that
(10:56):
I am concerned about.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Yeah, yes, I understand that, but I agree with you
it could be a very good thing. Yes, So there's
new evidence in this case. First, why was the evidence
of sexual abuse not allowed to come in to the retrial?
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Okay? So if I can give you your listeners a
bit of background, it's important to understand the major change
from the first trial to the second trial. Okay. So
the murders occur in nineteen eighty nine. Eric and Lyle
stay out of custody for almost a year. They get arrested.
(11:37):
Their first case goes to trial in ninety four. There
are two different juries. They have attorneys for each of them.
Eric has Leslie Abramson, who I she's one of the
best attorneys of all time. I mean truly, and as
a female defense attorney like I am, you know, she's
(12:00):
pretty legendary. And they argue this sexual abuse case at
a time where it was very uncommon to claim that
boys men are being raped and molested by their parents.
(12:22):
It's sort of a radical, unbelievable theory to a lot
lot of people, and so there was a lot of resistance,
especially here, claiming, look, we yes, we killed them, but
we did so because our father had molested us for
so long that we were in fear of our lives.
So they argued what was called an imperfect self defense,
(12:44):
which was it wasn't exactly a self defense because you
aren't in eminent immediate fear, but that you're in the
sustained fear, and that you were frankly wrong. So instead
of being convicted of murder, you're not saying we are
in innocent, but we are guilty of manslaughter. And at
that time the maximum sentence you could receive was eleven
(13:07):
years for a manslaughter charge. Each one of the jurors
juries could not reach a verdict. Both were hot. Eric
and Lyle testified at both trials to the sexual abuse
and it was interesting because the hung juries were really
split along gender lines, So most of the women on
(13:32):
the juries found that these boys in fact were molested
and did not believe that they should be convicted of murder,
where the men, generally speaking felt otherwise and wanted them
convicted of murder. Because it was a hung jury, the
(13:52):
DA gil Garcetti quickly made the determination that he was
going to retry the case. That he stated publicly, We're
going to retry the case. The judge did not want
a similar outcome. This case then comes on the heels
of OJ Simpson getting acquitted. So that's a big deal. Okay,
So the DA suffers a loss with the hungury and
(14:13):
the Menendez brothers they suffer another big loss in the
OJ Simpson case. And so and Lyle Menendez has this
very long, lengthy telephone calls that are recorded by a
friend girlfriend at the time, where he essentially says to
(14:34):
the effect, you know, I'm a really good liar. I
can make these things up. That is on him. That
is on him, That has nothing to do with the
judicial system. That means that if he takes the stand
and he testifies to the same type of sexual abuse
that he testified to before, he is going to be
impeached with those phone calls that are on recorded phone
(14:58):
lines that he knew better because you're told when you
call the county jail, all calls are recorded.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
So those calls, why would he say that's if it's
true that the abuse allegations, which I believe they art you,
why would he basically tell someone that he's a good liar.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
You know, I've thought about this case a lot. I've
thought about that, I've thought about sort of the setting,
and it was really most of the questions were in
response to doctor o'zeal and how to counter what doctor
Ozel's testimony was going to be. I want to refresh
your listeners as to the importance of doctor Ozel. Doctor
(15:33):
Ozel was the psychiatrists that Eric actually had been sent
to because the boys were previously involved in these in
these burglaries of homes, and as a punishment, Eric was
sent to see this doctor. And so the doctor, doctor Ozel,
(15:53):
is who Eric eventually confesses to. He never says he
was abused by the way to doctor Ozels, So I
just want that to be very clear. He never he
never tells a doctor Rosiel that he was sexually abused,
which a lot of people have found very interesting over
the years that you would confess to a crime as
heinous as this and not give the explanation as to
(16:13):
why you.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Do you find that do you find that telling.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
Troubling to me. I mean it's troubling to me. I
did know Jose Menendez, and he had a fiery, horrible temper.
He was not a nice man. I mean, he was
really really cruel to his son's no question. I was
not in that bedroom, so I can't talk to the
(16:37):
specifics of sexual abuse. Although I do think given the
new information, mainly Eric's letter that was recently discovered, that
very much corroborates, very very much corroborates Andy Cano, his
cousin's testimony at the first trial, where he said Eric
(16:57):
told me this was happening, and that letter that was
recently discovered was written eight months before the murder. So
I tend to at the time I thought, well, I
don't know, because I wasn't there. I know that this
man was a really cruel, cruel man. We need to
(17:18):
talk about Kitty separately, because that's a separate conversation. But
when you talk about Jose, the corroboration now with that
letter that is authenticated to in fact be in Eric's handwriting,
that was written eight months before, that says, look, the
abuse is still going on. Does coroborate Andy Cano's testimony,
(17:40):
and if introduced at the time of the trial. Do
I think it would have made a difference at the trial.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
I do.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
So you go into the second trial. There is a
backlash here of losing the OJ Simpson case. The judge
in Menendez having two hungaries. You have Lyle's really the
(18:06):
self inflicted damage that he did in those recording. In
those recordings, the judge essentially guts the second time, they
only have one jury. The judge guts their central defense,
which is the sexual abuse allegations. During the first trial,
the boys had fifty people speak testify on their behalf. Okay,
(18:30):
there's a bunch of experts that testify to the sexual abuse,
in the trauma that is caused by it. You have
a lot of relatives that speak out on their behalf.
You have these character witnesses. Those are essentially excluded from
the second trial. So now the the the imperfect self
(18:52):
defense argument is taken away, and all the jurors are
left with is either not guilty or a guilty of
first degree murder.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Okay, So why were they excluded from the second trial.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
Because the judge believed that, based on what Lyle had
said during the time, that there really was no sexual abuse.
There were other factors too, But essentially that was the
nail that sailed that just you know, sealed the coffin.
So the judge guts that part of the defense. And
(19:24):
without that defense, you can have Eric testify, but it
doesn't have the strength. And I mean Lyle's testimony on
the stand and the first trial was very compelling and
very believable and very strong. So he cannot testify because
he's going to be impeached. You also have a change
(19:46):
of council. Leslie Resent stays on, but Jill Jill is
no longer the attorney for Lyle and they have a
public defender. Does does that change things? Maybe? But it
was real lead the rulings that the judge made that
made a case where you would have gotten enough jurors
to say, you know, I think this may have happened
(20:09):
to him. I think I think there was real abuse here,
not just physical or emotional abuse, but real sexual abuse.
That's taken away from the jurors so they are not
provided that information like they were the first time. So
when they are sentenced, and this is very important to understand,
there is a sentence to two counts of first degree
(20:30):
murder twenty five years to life l WOP, and what
that means is life without the possibility of parole. When
you are sentenced to LWOP, you are either given the
choice that the jury has to decide between the death
penalty or life in prison without parole. The jury decided
(20:51):
against the death penalty. But when you are sentenced to
life without the possibility of parol, it means you will
never get out. You will never be given a parole hearing.
You will never be given a chance to sit in
front of a parole board and say I have been reformed,
I have been rehabilitated. I should be I should come out.
Look at what I have done while I've been in prison.
(21:14):
What a model inmate I have been. You're never given
that option. So Lyle and Eric, up to this point,
even though they have served thirty five years in prison,
have never once had a parole hearing.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Let me start with what new evidence has been introduced.
There's a letter from Eric to his cousin that's been authenticated.
Is that stronger than the testimony of the MENUDO member?
Speaker 2 (21:48):
Yes, so quickly, I answered you. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
I love that.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
Because corroboration is a big deal, right, So someone can
say something, say something occurred. But if you have, and
I'm going to give it analogy, Okay, I tell you, Look,
I couldn't have committed that crime because at four fifteen
I was at the local seven eleven getting a slurpee. Okay,
(22:15):
I tell you that. Okay, maybe it's true, maybe it's not.
But then you corroborate it with the surveillance video at
the seven eleven at four point thirty and there I
am at the slurpee machine. Although I'm not a huge
slurp bey fan. I just use an example, and you
say she couldn't have been there because I have video
(22:35):
evidence that she was somewhere else. That's corroboration. That's a
that makes for a very very strong case. Right. So
Andy Cano's testimony alone, without corroboration, is just basically me
telling you I was at the seven eleven at the time.
But that letter, that letter that predates the murder by
(22:56):
eight months, that's a long time. That says it's still
happening to me. If that letter was in evidence at
the time of Cano's testimony, that corroborates what he's saying.
That's really strong. Now, I am not saying that that
the band member, the former band member of Menudo isn't
(23:18):
telling the truth. I am not saying that that at all.
I'm saying that it's just his testimony alone, many decades later,
claiming that he was molested in the Menendez house by Jose,
without any other corroboration. So when you ask me if
that evidence that letter is stronger? Yes, does the declaration
(23:40):
from the band member of Menudo help? It does? It
shows that if Jose in fact was bold enough to
molest this person, this child in his home in New
Jersey at that time, it does show a similar pattern
because that's what his son said he did to them,
(24:01):
that he would isolate them in the rooms upstairs where
no one else was allowed to go and molest them there.
So it does embolden, it does strengthen the Meninus's case.
I don't think that declaration alone would be enough to
bring about a new trial.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Okay, So now this is not going to go in
front of a journey. So a judge decides that this
is enough and then refers it to a parole board.
Is that what happens?
Speaker 2 (24:29):
Okay? So there's two separate tracks, and I know it's
awfully confusing. So hopefully we're just going to parse through
it in a way that is that is broken down
to there's two separate tracks here. They have a habeas petition,
and that habeas petition is asking for essentially a new
trial or a new hearing based on new evidence. And
(24:51):
that would be the letter as well as the declaration okay,
and that is set for late November, that hearing based
on new vas okay, undiscovered, newly discovered evidence. Then there
is the track that seems to be the most winning
(25:12):
path forward for the Menendez brothers, which is that they
are appealing directly to the district Attorney George Gascone, asking
that they be resentenced. And what George Gascone has done
at this point is he has said, yes, I am
going to officially ask the court to resentence these men
(25:35):
who have now served thirty five years in prison to
a term of fifty two life. What that means is
they are now eligible for parole. So in the last
sentence they were given fifty to life without the possibility
of role, which we call LWOP in California. Here he
(25:57):
has not reduced the charge. He's not reducing the charge
to manslaughter, which would mean that essentially they would immediately
be free. He is saying, I want to give them
their chance at parole. And because they have served thirty
five years in prison, and because their model inmates, and
because they have started all these programs and have shown
(26:22):
true rehabilitation and reformation, I believe that they should in
the best interests of justice, they should be released. In
addition to hearing from twenty plus members of the Menendez family,
I am convinced that these boys have been rehabilitated and
should be released. That is his argument that is separate
(26:43):
and apart from the legal argument in the case. So
this week the DAS is going to ask the judge
in Los Angeles Downtown Superior Court. We don't know what
judge it's going to be assigned to yet, to consider
re sentencing them. But that does not mean that the
judge is going to agree to do it. The judge
(27:04):
may say no, I am unwilling to re sentence. So
we're far from We're far from having them home for
the holidays right now. Not to say it's not gonna pay,
not to say it's not going to happen, but there
are two more steps to get them there.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
Okay, got it. Now, If they were released. Is there
I mean, is there a world where they can live
a normal life. I mean, you've seen this before, you
looked on the Innocence Project. No, right, I mean what
is their life going to be like? Generally speaking?
Speaker 2 (27:35):
Well, I mean, what's Kasey Anthony's life like? What was O. J.
Simpson's life like? I mean, the list goes on and
on and on. They're going to be hounded all the
time by the press. Will they try and profit from this?
Who knows? Can they sort of fade in, you know,
(27:57):
fade into the shadows? I just don't think so. I mean,
this has been a such a notorious case for so
many years. I I it is my understanding that that Eric,
if released, intends to move to Nevada to live with
(28:18):
his wife Tammy. But again, they're going to be on parole,
so parole has to agree to all these things. So
there may be conditions of their parole there where they're
under house arrest. I mean, they're not just simply you know,
they're not just simply let let out of prison. The
parole board essentially then decides what are the terms of
(28:41):
your parole?
Speaker 1 (28:44):
Got it? Okay? Back to the original trial, you know,
I get most of my facts, Like most of the
American people, I've read a lot about it, but probably
through the documentaries and streaming shows that have been made
about it. Why would they have been separated put in
separate sparate jails, you know a few years into their sentence.
(29:04):
That seemed like over the top cruelty.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
So yeah, yeah, I agree with you, and I think
that that was that was very heartbreaking. I mean, they
were they were all that they had. But it is
not uncommon. It is not uncommon to separate code defendants
in a case and send them to separate prisons. Okay,
(29:28):
so if you committed a crime together, it is not
uncommon that you separate those co defendants so that they
cannot conspire to commit another crime. I am, I am,
I am talking as a generality. Use if if there's
a gang, right, if it's a gang case and two
gang members are convicted of a murder, they'll separate them
(29:52):
so they It wasn't without precedent, and the the the
the help Ornia's state boarder prisons can basically do anything
that they want. I mean in terms of housing. They
didn't have an automatic right to be together. It does
seem cruel to me, I agree with you. I mean
it was years. It was probably twenty something years that
(30:13):
they were separated. I believe that they're in Donovan together now,
but they did not have a legal right to be together.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
Okay, and their marriages, yes, what is that?
Speaker 2 (30:27):
Like?
Speaker 1 (30:27):
Are they allowed to how often do they see their wives?
They have a lot of people asking like how did
they even meet spouses while in jail.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
Marriages are not uncommon in jail, and in California they
are allowed. It depends what kind of where you're being
housed and are you allowed conjugal visits. You know, lifers
have much less access to their spouses than other people
(31:00):
being housed there. The idea behind conjugal visits or weekend
visits is that you want to give the inmate a
reason to behave to behave while while in prison, something
to look forward to, or a past that you can
take away if there's a disciplinary problem. So I don't
(31:22):
know the specifics of how often their spouse is met
with them. I know that Eric has been married to
this woman to me for a long time, but it
was not your It's never your traditional marriage. I mean,
you cannot you know you're being watched all of the time,
and and so they really only know each other like
(31:48):
most inmates know their spouses while they're incarcerated, right through
talking on the phone, through letter writing, for having those
those in person visits. But they're not private in person visits.
There are guards all around them at all time, and
every square every square inch of the prison is videoed.
(32:11):
There is surveillance. So what does their marriage look like?
Not like a typical marriage, if that's the question.
Speaker 1 (32:20):
Yeah, well, at least they have somebody. Yeah, but when
they come out correct and.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
Also look they they have. You know, the Menendez family,
save the brother of Jose Menendez, is very very much
in support of them getting out and has offered to
have them live with them and cares very deeply about
them and believes that they were molested. One of the
reasons that George Gascone is asking for the re sentencing
(32:48):
is because under Marci's Law in the state of California, victims' families.
So the Menendez, the Jose and Kiddy's family men, Okay,
they're brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, they all are considered victims
for purposes of Marcy's Law, and they have a right
(33:11):
to be heard so very rarely do you hear the
victims of the decedents speaking out in favor of the
people who murdered them. So that was unique in and
of itself, and they that family came out in mass
numbers to support the release of Lyle and Eric.
Speaker 1 (33:32):
What was Eric like in high school to the extent
you knew him?
Speaker 2 (33:37):
And you know, look, I've done criminal defense for a
very long time, and I've been an attorney for a
long time, and there's no need for me to ever
exaggerate on our relationships, whether I have them or I
don't have them. I actually happened to know him fairly well.
We studied together. I played on the tennis team. He
played on the tennis team. He was Eric. He was arrogant,
(34:01):
that's the truth. Very smart, very very smart, very good
tennis player. They came from a very wealthy family and
they were stobby. I did not dislike him at all.
I did not dislike him at all, but he was
He was very, very arrogant. And I remember specifically when
(34:23):
night he came over to our family. He came over
to my house to study. My dad was a psychiatrist.
He would work late hours. My mom had sort of
always made dinner for my dad and put it aside.
In those like nineteen eighties, microwave covers right and put
his dinner aside. And Eric came over to study and
(34:46):
took the cover off of my dad's dinner and ate
my dad's dinner. And my dad said, what is wrong
with this kid? He's like the sociopath. I mean, that
is an incredible statement to be made. You know, a
year or two before where the murders took place, and
then immediately after the death of their parents, a group
(35:08):
of us went out with them, went out with Eric
to console him, and he spent most of the time
talking about money and cars and watches and going to
Israel to play tennis. And I remember coming home and
saying to my dad did the psychiatrist? God, it was
so strange. He really wasn't that sympathetic. He wasn't that sad.
He said, well, you know, people handle grief differently, so
(35:33):
my personal experiences, and I'm just being honest, were But
I also watched. I also watched as Jose humiliated him
and belittled him on the tennis court, and it was awful.
It was absolutely awful. I mean, I think anybody who
was around them at the time would have told you
(35:54):
that Jose was just a very mean, controlling I mean,
one of those one of those fathers that you felt
so sorry for the kid. The embarrassment, the humiliation, it
was just off off off the scales.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
And so as as a as a criminal attorney who
has watched this case so closely, what what do you believe?
Speaker 2 (36:20):
What do you believe and.
Speaker 1 (36:21):
What do you think is going to happen?
Speaker 2 (36:22):
So I think they're going to be released. I think
that they're going to ultimately be released. I think about
the fact that they have served thirty five years in prison.
I think that the laws in California have changed drastically.
I think people's views on whether men can be raped
have been have changed drastically. I think that when the
(36:43):
prosecutor at the time in the early nineties said, you know,
men can't be raped, that is that is a ridiculous
statement that we now know to be completely untrue. I
think that the that the what these boys endure as
children is horrific, is absolutely horrific, and that thirty five
(37:08):
years is a lot of time. They did They brutally,
brutally killed their parents. It's a hard explanation on why
they went back and reloaded and shot their mother in
the face. I don't think that there is very strong
evidence that she sexually assaulted them, but I think that
(37:29):
thirty years thirty five years in prison is a lot
of time to be served. And I am particularly swayed
by their behavior in prison as model inmates, knowing that
they were never going to get out, so that is key.
(37:50):
Knowing that they would never get a parole, hearing right,
knowing that they were would be serving life in prison
without the possibility parole. They were model inmates that made
real reforms, that started therapy groups, that did a lot
for the betterment of other inmates incarcerated. You don't always
(38:11):
see that, especially from inmates who who aren't doing it
to impress a parole board because they weren't going to
get paroled. So it's very hard to say, oh, well,
you know, they thought down the line, maybe the law
would change, maybe they would get out. No, there was
really no hope of any of that happening. So, I mean,
(38:32):
we know that there are at least two letters a
character reference letters of people that work in the prison
that are supporting their release and saying these are model
model prisoners. So I do think that thirty five years
in custody is a very very long time. And the
laws in California have changed where when you're looking at sentencing,
(38:56):
when you're looking at sentencing, you now look at whether
the defendant is a youthful offender, which is they have
to be under the age of twenty six, which both
of them were at the time, and whether or not
there's a history of physical, emotional or sexual trauma, which
there is in this case. So that law went into
(39:19):
effect and it is retroactive, meaning it applies to cases
that happened that happened many years ago. And so I
think for those reasons, I think that they will be
let out, and they should be let out.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
I agree with you. Well, we get to see will
it be televised the parole board hearings or any of
the judge's decisions, or will we just have to wait and.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
Hear So generally speaking, California is an interesting state. So
New York there are no cameras in the courtroom, no
cameras in the courtroom in New York. In California, there
are cameras in the courtroom. However, it is on a
case by case basis. It is ultimately up to the
judge it's handling the case, to decide whether or not
(40:02):
to allow cameras in the courtroom. So there's nothing preventing
cameras from being in the courtroom. I'm sure that both
sides will want cameras in the courtroom, but ultimately it
will be up to the judge to decide whether or
not there will be cameras in the courtroom. As to
the parole hearing, those are generally not televised. It might be,
(40:25):
but they're generally not televised. But the interesting you know,
it's a it's a very interesting case because you you
not only have a family who lost who's whose sister
and brother and you know aunt and uncle were brutally murdered.
(40:46):
They're supporting the release of the people that killed them.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Well except for one right, brother.
Speaker 2 (40:52):
Jose's brother is very much against. It is very much against.
Speaker 1 (40:56):
I think I thought it was Kitty's brother.
Speaker 2 (40:57):
No, you may be right, you may be right, but
when you have a ninety three year old aunt come
out and say enough is enough, it's time. They've been
in so long, and I think that's Kitty's sister. I
think yeah, so enough of the family is coming out
in support of them of their release, and they, presume
(41:21):
to Marci's lawaw are allowed to testify, so they would
be able to testify at a parole hearing. I think
it's going to be very interesting to see who the
judge is in Los Angeles that's going to look at
this case and decide. You know, there are people are saying, well,
is gascone doing this because this is a very this
(41:47):
is a this is a political move because he is
down in the polls and his his his DA ship
is in jeopardy, and does.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
He do you think he is? Do I think what
that he's doing this for political reasons?
Speaker 2 (42:05):
Well, there may be some aspect to that. I mean,
I will say that he has in the last four years,
he has sentenced three hundred people, so it's not like
this is the only case that he has resentenced. Twenty
six of those have been murder cases, so it's not
like that he hasn't done a murder case. But certainly
there are a lot of people that are in support
(42:26):
of their release, and if they collateral consequence of that
is they vote for Gascogne because he is asking that
these boys be resentenced. It certainly does not hurt him
when he is down by some accounts thirty percentage points
in the polls. He has fallen out of favor by
(42:47):
a lot of a lot of organizations because they have
felt that he's been too soft on crime. So it
may be politically motivated. The men Indaz family says it's
definitely not. The District Attorney's office says it's definitely not.
But there are other camps that say, absolutely it is
(43:08):
politically motivated, no question. And he's moving quickly, right, I mean,
the election is essentially next week, and he's moving quickly
to have this case in front of a judge as
soon as possible.
Speaker 1 (43:21):
Right, Well, I know that I will be watching very anxiously.
I really do truly hope that they get out of
jail and can have some semblance of a life.
Speaker 2 (43:32):
Yeah. Yeah, I mean it's been Look, it's been a
very long time. It's been a very very long time,
thirty five years of their life. And I can say,
on a personal level, just watching the father interact with him,
not even the sexual assault, but the emotional and physical
I mean, he was it was. It was awful to watch,
absolutely awful.
Speaker 1 (43:53):
Yeah, well, thank you so much. You're brilliant, and I'm
so grateful that you came on and explained this to everybody,
and just like you all be watching with baited breath.
So thank you so much, Alison.
Speaker 2 (44:07):
Pleasure, my pleasure. Okay, okay, bye bye bye.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
Oh that was a lot. So I mean, like I
said at the beginning, as a mom of teenage boys,
obviously not okay to kill your parents. But thirty five
years after such a horrific and tortured childhood by the
parents who by the people who are supposed to make
(44:33):
you feel safe and loved on this planet, and they
just do the esex act opposite. I just feel like
their time has been served many times over, and I,
for one, I'm very hopeful that they get released. Like
Alison said, I don't know what kind of life you
have after that, but I really do hope that they
(44:58):
can live the last thirty years or so their lives
and freedom. And I will be watching just like all
of you, and guys, that's it for just Jackie for now.
We'll see, maybe it'll come back. But so grateful for
all of you who have listened, and I hope you
enjoyed this episode and this series and I love you
(45:20):
all for listening and I will see you guys on
to Jersey jays Hie
Hosts And Creators
Jackie Goldschneider
Jennifer Fessler
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