August 20, 2025 • 47 mins
Dr Kirk Honda and Humberto read follow-up emails to the deep dive on the Menendez Bros.
This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/KIRK to get 10% off your first month.
00:00 What might life be like for the Menendez Brothers post prison?
26:00 Could generational abuse have affected the brutality?
35:03 Dramatization of the story & other details
44:40 Self-rehabilitation work in prison
46:51 Final words
Become a member: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOUZWV1DRtHtpP2H48S7iiw/join
Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/PsychologyInSeattle
Email: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com/contact
Website: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com
Merch: https://psychologyinseattle-shop.fourthwall.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/psychologyinseattle/
Facebook Official Page: https://www.facebook.com/PsychologyInSeattle/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@kirk.honda
August 20, 2025
The Psychology In Seattle Podcast ®
Trigger Warning: This episode may include topics such as assault, trauma, and discrimination. If necessary, listeners are encouraged to refrain from listening and care for their safety and well-being.
Disclaimer: The content provided is for educational, informational, and entertainment purposes only. Nothing here constitutes personal or professional consultation, therapy, diagnosis, or creates a counselor-client relationship. Topics discussed may generate differing points of view. If you participate (by being a guest, submitting a question, or commenting) you must do so with the knowledge that we cannot control reactions or responses from others, which may not agree with you or feel unfair. Your participation on this site is at your own risk, accepting full responsibility for any liability or harm that may result. Anything you write here may be used for discussion or endorsement of the podcast. Opinions and views expressed by the host and guest hosts are personal views. Although, we take precautions and fact check, they should not be considered facts and the opinions may change. Opinions posted by participants (such as comments) are not those of the hosts. Readers should not rely on any information found here and should perform due diligence before taking any action. For a more extensive description of factors for you to consider, please see www.psychologyinseattle.com
This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/KIRK to get 10% off your first month.
00:00 What might life be like for the Menendez Brothers post prison?
26:00 Could generational abuse have affected the brutality?
35:03 Dramatization of the story & other details
44:40 Self-rehabilitation work in prison
46:51 Final words
Become a member: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOUZWV1DRtHtpP2H48S7iiw/join
Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/PsychologyInSeattle
Email: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com/contact
Website: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com
Merch: https://psychologyinseattle-shop.fourthwall.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/psychologyinseattle/
Facebook Official Page: https://www.facebook.com/PsychologyInSeattle/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@kirk.honda
August 20, 2025
The Psychology In Seattle Podcast ®
Trigger Warning: This episode may include topics such as assault, trauma, and discrimination. If necessary, listeners are encouraged to refrain from listening and care for their safety and well-being.
Disclaimer: The content provided is for educational, informational, and entertainment purposes only. Nothing here constitutes personal or professional consultation, therapy, diagnosis, or creates a counselor-client relationship. Topics discussed may generate differing points of view. If you participate (by being a guest, submitting a question, or commenting) you must do so with the knowledge that we cannot control reactions or responses from others, which may not agree with you or feel unfair. Your participation on this site is at your own risk, accepting full responsibility for any liability or harm that may result. Anything you write here may be used for discussion or endorsement of the podcast. Opinions and views expressed by the host and guest hosts are personal views. Although, we take precautions and fact check, they should not be considered facts and the opinions may change. Opinions posted by participants (such as comments) are not those of the hosts. Readers should not rely on any information found here and should perform due diligence before taking any action. For a more extensive description of factors for you to consider, please see www.psychologyinseattle.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
So Berto, we did a deep dive on the Menandez brothers,
and we asked for follow up emails and we got
a few. So let's read those and respond. What do
you say?
Speaker 2 (00:10):
I think it sounds great.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
This is the Psychology in Seattle podcast. I'm your host,
doctor Kirkanda. I'm a therapist and I'm also a professor.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
My name is Umberto Casn and I am a calligraphy
dick deconstructionist. See, I can't even say my job titles.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
He almost said calligraphy construction.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Construction is was what I used to call myself.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
I see. So patron Maya from San Francisco, She says, Hi,
I think Berto did did an incredible job slowly unraveling
the details of the Menendez story. I wanted to see
what you guys think life on the outside would be
like if the Menindaz brothers are released. So here's the
first question, Burto. Would either of them be able to
(00:47):
get a job?
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Yes, elaborate depends what we define it jobs, but as
long as it's something that pays the money, yeah, absolutely.
First of all, in today's world, they could be any
number of influencing capacities, right like they could do podcasts.
They could do YouTube channels, whether with or without the haters,
you know, like people could hate them and whatever, they
could still do that. Second, I could see them being
(01:10):
contributors on channels for like legal contributors or whatever, you know.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
And again it'd be hard to make money doing that though,
you know, as someone who is a contributor on those things,
they often don't pay or they.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
That might be fair, yeah, they barely. Then they also
could write books about their experiences, probably as long as
they don't say anything about the victims or something.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
I don't know, Well, that's a good question.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
If they're victims, are their parents?
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Yeah, it's weird, right, it's.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Like, but anyways, I'm thinking they could definitely make money
now as far as like could they go and apply, Yes,
there are a lot of businesses that I think would
turn their resume away just because they probably don't want
the mails from that comes with it.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
But if they're just like a regular person at at
a regular job, right that that isn't public facing, like
they're a bookkeeper for business or something, you know.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Well, and legally they shouldn't be able to discriminate against
them if they've been you know, properly.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Released well, and a lot of people have a lot
of sympathy, so I could see it going either way.
In fact, I would imagine most people would have tremendous
sympathy for them, and they serve their time and do
you think that what they're going to kill the boss
or something? Yeah, but there is but there well, so
I think we should absolutely acknowledge that on average, there's
(02:27):
a lot of discrimination against people who were incarcerated. People
if they have two or three resumes and one resume
as someone who was incarcerated, a lot of people, even
though they might not admit it, that would put that
one aside because well, who knows. I mean, even if
it's a low risk that they're going to fly off
(02:48):
the handle and kill someone at my work, I don't
want that worry. And so anywhere from there to full
on you know misinformation that once a criminal, always a
criminal kind of thing. So yeah, I think it would different.
I think another opportunity for people like this is the
speaking circuit. You can give speeches, you know, like conventions
(03:12):
and other kind of professional organization meetings. I always have
like keynote speakers, and it's kind of interesting, like the
industry and the economy of that kind of occupation of
people like Monica Lewinsky and other kinds of people and
maybe deservedly so that the way that it seems to
(03:34):
me when I've attended these things is that when you
go to a professional organization get together, and you can
walk away saying, a famous person you know, you know,
like Monica Lewinsky or something, or one of the meninda'z
brothers gave a talk. Even if the talk isn't like fantastic.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Right, it adds exactly.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
Yeah, and if you're Meninda's brothers, you could absolutely cobble
together arious different talks, whether it's inspirational or transformational, or
media savvy or.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Survive trauma r trauma.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
So you know, there's all sorts of inspirational or informational
types of or apologizing.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Yeah, you know the thing I would personally, so like
if I was hiring, Let's say I was hiring and
I got their resumes, and depending what the job is,
of course, like if I'm trying to find survivors of
abuse that spend time in jail and are famous and
I need these kinds of applicants, well then of course,
But if it's more like I have a quote unquote
normal business and I get their resumes across my desk.
(04:39):
The thing that might worry me if I know their
background is more about, like, well, I don't know what
kind of experience they might have because they have been
in jail since they were kids, and so I don't
you know, that'd be kind of the thing. Plus, I
might be concerned about not so much that they might
murder someone or something, just more about what the trauma
of their experience might do to their ability. Again, it's
(05:01):
it's it's probably not fair for me to discriminate on that.
I'm just saying, like, what would literally go through my
head if if those resumes come through my desk.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Well, from my understanding, they did a lot of things
in prison that were job skills related. I suppose they
could also teach tennis. Now that I think about it.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
That's true. They were both really good. Yeah, that's a
good point.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
I can also see them opening like a restaurant or something.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Oh gosh, yeah, well that's where that's where it would be.
Just like, Okay, our name is famous, so you know,
come to Menendez and Bros.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Right, what sort of business would it be?
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Well, it'd be California cuisine for sure, and it'd be
you know.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
You could you could lean into the well the preppy
Beverly Hills. You of course wouldn't want anything on the
menu like the kill your Parents Burger anyth No.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
But like I would freeze the early nineties, like late eighties,
early nineties, I would freeze that in time in their.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Yea, you could that like having those sort of stereos
that you would take out of your car, remember that health.
I feel like younger people if you told them what
we used to do with our car stereos.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
It wouldn't make sense.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Yeah, they'd be like, why why did you do that?
Another question from Patron Maya from San Francisco. She says,
do you think they'd continue living together? Well, they don't
really live together now, right, they don't. They're at different prisons.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
But I mean, I think the good question is, given
that they they were so separated for so many years,
and they cared for each other so much, would they
actually make a choice to live at the very least
very close. I would imagine they would at least want
to live close by. But there's also some very complex,
complex dynamics between them right.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
I mean, I wonder what their relationship is like. Yeah,
do they ride each other a lot. I'm sure they
have some fond feelings towards each other, but by this point,
thirty years later, they be quite distant.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
One thing I didn't cover enough in our deep dive
is there was this long period of time where they
were separated in different prisons and they weren't allowed to
see each other at all. It was many, many years,
I forget how long, And then there was a moment
where they were allowed to see each other. They were
brought to the same prison or something. They were allowed
to see each other and it was a huge breakdown
(07:22):
into tears kind of thing for them. But you know,
that doesn't mean you can live together successfully with someone.
It just means that they missed each other a lot.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
I would imagine that they would want to be close
the way that you would be with your brother, but
not necessarily overlapping in your life. They probably just want
to each have their own life. Last question, I believe
one or both of them got married from within prison.
Can you speak about that? End of email. I actually
looked up the details. Do you know anything about this?
Speaker 2 (07:55):
I forget? I know that there was the first girlfriend
that Lyle had that broke up, but then I know
he had a second one that they they met while
he was in jail, and then I think that became something,
but I don't remember their details.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Yeah, it's kind of interesting. So Lyle got married in
nineteen ninety six to Anna Erickson. She was a model
and then she was something else after that. But she
wrote him letters after watching his trial on TV, and
then they got married after letters correspondence I think, and
(08:32):
maybe some conjugal visits or something.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
I don't think they were allowed conjugal visits from what
I remember in the so I think they might have
just gotten married.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Just based on the texts the letters, letters, Yeah, meaning
that I mean conjugal or not. But we don't even
know if they met in person, it.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Would have been it would have been it's our one thing,
just not conjugal.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
Yeah, you would hope that they would have some face
to face or something, but their wedding was actually or
the phone, which kind of lends itself to the idea
that maybe they hadn't met in person and maybe they
only could meet in person after they were married.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
I don't know about that. All I know is that
I remember explicitly when I was going through all the
materials they were they explicitly called out that conjugal visits
were not allowed.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
And this is early so and Lyle's the older one. Yeah,
and so Lyle got married to Anna the day he
was sentenced, So it was like twenty six, so this
would have happened fairly quickly on the timeline on the
grand scheme. They got divorced five years later, reportedly after
(09:38):
she discovered he had been writing other women. Oh so cheating,
I guess is the way you would look at that,
which you know, emotional cheating. But still then he got
married two years later to Rebecca Snead, a magazine journalist
and later an attorney. They met again through prison correspondence.
(09:59):
Brisumme she reached out to him because I would have
a hard time I met. Well, maybe Lyle reach out
her or no. And then they had been separated. By
the end of last year twenty twenty four, Rebecca Sneed
publicly shared that they have been separated quote unquote for
a while now, although they do remain close and committed
(10:22):
to advocating for their brother's release. So separated is a
funny word where you've never been actually together, right, but
I guess it's emotionally separated.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
That is very interesting. I could see that in a
relationship that starts in person, but then they have, you know,
for work or for whatever reason, their relationship becomes a
long distance relationship, and then at that point they might
say let's separate, and they're still separated by distance, but
now they're actually like not talking or whatever. But in
this case, there was never even that initial phase.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Whether well, and if it's a long distance relationship, presumably
there are times when you're living together for a week
or something here or there, and because now sometimes they
let people like this out for a week or something
with an ankle monitor or something. But I don't think so. Yeah,
(11:14):
Eric the younger brother. He married Tammy Ruth Suckelman in
nineteen ninety nine, so also pretty early. She saw him
in a documentary and wrote to him. Their relationship developed
over years of communication, and reportedly their wedding cake was
a twinkie because they got married, so what mayo.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
It wasn't in the shape of a twinkie, it was
an actual twinkie.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Because they get married in prison, you can't bring stuff
in because there could be a gun in the cake
or something, so you have to get something from the
vending from the vending machine. I assume you know, so Berto,
why would someone marry someone? You know that this happens
all the time? Yeah, Charlie Manson, why would someone do this?
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Well, okay, so I guess there's a couple of different
aspects here. One is why would someone be okay with
physical separation and yet establish a serious, committed relationship. Yeah,
that's a great question. I mean for me personally, I
find that very difficult to imagine. It's not as difficult
to imagine once I have, let's say, with my wife,
(12:28):
if we had to be separated for some reason. Of course,
I'm not going to be like, well that's that.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
But if you're on Tinder, you come across someone that
is permanently behind bars, are you swiping right or left?
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Right? Exactly? So in my case, I can't relate to it.
But if I'm trying to put myself in other people's shoes,
and at first I'm going to tackle this not from
the perspective of they are also there's something maybe difficult
about them, maybe they were also abuseful. I'm just going
to put all that aside and say, what legitimately might
I feel that would make me think? So there's a
few things. One I could come across someone whose life
(13:02):
story seems so interesting and compelling. Maybe we have similar
interests or something. You know. Let's say that I was
swiping right and I see Eric and I'm like, oh
my gosh. I also was pushed to be a tennis
pro by my father and it was horrible, And we
have that in common.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
And yeah, I guess it's kind of broadcasting a version
of your personality, right, the documentaries and the TV coach,
there's a wide net that's being cast in terms of, like,
if we just look at the surface level, I wonder
if me and that person might hit it off, you know.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
So there's that factor that already happens with any celebrity, right,
Like a lot of people, myself included, they think of
certain celebrities and think, oh, man, I would be great
with that person just because of what you think you
know about them. Right, So I can understand that from
their perspective, and from the perspective of the incarcerated person, Well,
it's not like they have a lot of other things going, right,
So it's like, might as well get a relationship going
(13:58):
with someone said, there is another part of this which
is a little darker, especially when we saw it with
you know, like the tud Bundyes and other Jeffrey Dahmers
and things, which is a fascination with the acts themselves, like, oh,
these people are murderers, these people are serial killers. And
that could be anything from they are intrigued or they're
(14:21):
fascinated by the macabre, or they literally I don't know,
worship the fact that they can kill people or something.
That to me seems more troubling because you know, yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:30):
Although as long as it's not harmy anyone, it's it's
an innocent manifestation of a fucked up impulse.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
You know, maybe I kinda yeah, maybe I just think
it's like, oh, that seems like the kind of person
that was gonna follow Charles Manson into a downward spiral.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Yeah. Well, okay, So some other factors than those are good.
One is just celebrity fascination. Ye, nothing makes someone more
attractive than being a celebrity. All you have to do
is look at Christy Brinkley and Billy Joel for that one.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Hey, he writes great songs.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
In case in point. Also, wanting attention is another possible factor.
I'm not accusing the individuals with Lyle and Eric of this.
I'm just saying these are the factors that we often
will assess for I suppose if we were asked to
do so. But you know, people will do a lot
for attention, do a lot for fame because you're instantly famous. Yeah,
(15:30):
and if you are appealing to this very famous person,
then you know that's a great point.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
I didn't think of that. The fact that no matter what,
if you're well, especially the more that they're still in
the news or whatever, you're likely going to end up
in the news.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
Yeah. Yeah, and you will have a Wikipedia entry. And
so if that's what you're striving you and if you
wanted to parlay that into an Instagram following or a book,
an influencer stack a murderer, then you know you got
that going for it. Another factors rescue fantasy.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Oh sure.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
Given that some adults had a childhood role of being
forced to rescue people or being loved because they rescued people,
then as an adult they might seek an underfunctioner to rescue.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
You know, I've literally suffered from this or been this
with with guys, you know, and I think it was
a result of me, you know, having to deal with
a father who had, you know, things where I felt
like I needed to try to rescue him, right, and
then later in life feeling like, oh, I need I
need to rescue this this person, this this guy friend,
(16:45):
or this random stranger who seems to be in trouble
and I feel like I need to rescue him.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Yeah. The most dark example of this was when you
were thinking, no, you did you took in a homeless guy.
That's right who you were. You know, from my memory,
it was a very altruistic and you know, not wrongheaded impulse.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
Really well, it was very The way I did it
was in retrospect was very dangerous to me. But at
the time I don't know why I didn't. I just
I've always and I talked with my therapist about this
at one point. Is I sometimes view the world in
a very kind of safe way, or like I should
(17:25):
be able to deal with anything that the world throws
at me, and not maybe taking into account the real
risks that I might be incurring. And that was one
of those cases where I could have still tried to
help that person, but in that time. I actually let
them move into an empty room in my place and
for free, you know, because I was like helping them,
(17:46):
and like that could have led to you.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
Well, and you're also married.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
I was married at the time, but even if I
were alone, or maybe you're still married, way you said it,
I'm saying, I'm saying that like that could have too,
I mean slit throats in the middle of the night
or broke ins or not like not likely, right, but
knowing what kind of friends that person had, Yeah, I
actually did kind of dodge a if not a bullet,
(18:12):
I dodged a break in, right.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
Burglary was much more likely. Yeah, for you know, meth money.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
The person themselves, they were I think, really trying, but
they were surrounded by some horrible quote friends.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
But he ended up not, you know, lasting very long. Yeah,
you were gonna get How did you meet him? Did
you meet him on the street?
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Yeah. So the story was it was one of those
late Seattle nights. I was drunk and I had left
the club and I was walking by myself, and in
an example of not understanding that the world isn't always safe,
I just went up to a group of what looked
to be like street people and just started talking to them.
And this is like fifteen.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
Years ago ish or twenty years ago.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
It was two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Okay, oh yeah, seventeen years yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
So then I went up and I was like, oh, blah, blah.
And then I'm just asking them questions, what do you
do blah? And then I'm like you're homeless? And this
person was seventeen. I'm like, oh my god, that's crazy.
And so then I said, okay, listen, if you want
to try to do something about your life, give me
a call. And then I gave my phone number, and
then I think about maybe two weeks or a month later,
(19:25):
I got a call or a text or something saying, hey,
I want to do something about my life or some
so am I right. So I'm like, okay, meet me
at the you know, the downtown the cheesecake factory. Meet
me at the cheesey. So we went and we had lunch,
and I was like, all right, what's going on? And
I found out, well, they had been kicked out of
their house because dad found marijuana or something, and they
(19:48):
were homeless. And I'm like, okay, well why can't You're young,
you're fit you're not like hurting, So why don't you
try to get a job? Why can't Why not? Well
I don't have a social security I'm like, oh, what
of course you have a social security? Well I don't
have a license. Okay, but we can, Okay, you can
get all those things like no, no, my dad said
I can't. So he had been fed a whole bunch
of false information. So I helped him get a license,
(20:10):
get a social Security number, all these things, and get
a job, you know, and then the idea. Eventually he
moved out of my place and started renting a place,
but unfortunately he was surrounded by people that were criminals,
and eventually he just got back to drugs and left
his job. And I don't know what it ended up
(20:31):
happening after that, but it was it was unfortunate.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know more of the details obviously
than I do. But you're framing it as people around
him when he might have had trauma that resulted in
oh undibturally.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm not just saying like they forced
him or something. I'm just saying that, like I feel like,
left in a little vacuum, he might have had better
of a chance. But I know directly because what he
would say is he would tell me, well, my friends
such and such said to me, and it was like
horrible misinformation, horrible like lies about what's possible and not possible,
what they should what he should do, and all these things.
(21:09):
And I was like, but clearly there was a point
at which he was no longer like listening to me.
So I'm like, okay, And.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
He lived with you for like a month or something.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
A little longer than that, but then he moved out.
It's maybe it was three months, yeah, okay.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
I mean, it's a nice thing that you did, and
it could have worked, and maybe it did. Maybe it
planted a seed, you know, those three months might have
helped him.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
I don't necessarily regret a lot of it, Like I
don't regret trying to help him get his license and
his he did, he got his license at social Security number,
get a job. All this I do retrocatively, would not
have invited him into my home. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that
was Yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
I have a similar naivete, optimistic hope, and a belief
in the goodness of other people and also in just life,
working out or something. As you know, most poignantly evidenced
by the time I pulgoed off my own head crashing
(22:07):
my bike. I at no point did I think maybe
I should not go on this obstacle course with this
electric bike that is not designed for that kind of thing.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
You know, like what's the opposite of a light bulb,
so you know, yeah, a short circuit.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Yeah. Another factor that we sometimes point to to explain
why someone would marry someone in prison is idealization. So
when we first date someone, we will often fall in
love and idealize them because we haven't seen the dark
side of them or the bad side of them, because
(22:45):
we haven't spent much time with them, and so they
seem perfect to us. And they are marrying someone in prison.
You're permanently in the dating zone essentially.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
That's a really good point because you're not actually, I
mean unless the texting or writing or whatever turns dark,
but you're right, you're not spending the actual time where
your dishes are dirty, or where they didn't they took
your car without asking, or they ran over your dog
and buried it in the yard and never told you,
and you know, all those things.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
For example. Another is that it's a controlled intimate context
that it's safer for people that might need that based
on past traumas, right, And it might be perceived that
it's harder for that person in prison to cheat or
leave you. Right, they seem like, well, even if it's
(23:33):
not a conscious thought, it's like they're a safer bet.
You know. It's sort of like how some people will
date involved people people that are married. For example, Oh,
I see, because there's a barrier. There's a barrier there,
and there's an inherent lack of risk because you're you're
not fully involved, you know. So it's kind of like that.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
That's interesting.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Another more darker reason is that people that want to
control their spouse because you can have the upper hand
if you're the person that is outside prison, right, because
you're free to move, you're free to come and go.
You can choose not to see them. They can't, you know,
(24:18):
if you go to sea, you know, they can refuse,
refuse to see you, but they can't come to you,
and you can hang a lot of things over their head.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
A huge imbalance.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Yeah, there's a lot of imbalance of power.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:30):
Now, you know, I'm not saying anything about lyle and erics.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
No, no, no, just in general, like that would always be
an imbalance another.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
Just blanket or broad term. It's just past traumas that
could lead to someone seeking someone to recreate a past relationship,
you know, for various reasons. You know, if they had
an abusive parent or even a parent who killed someone,
as an effort to recreate that to have it work
out differently this time, you could seek someone that's incarcerated.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
By the way, in the part about like the barrier
or sorry, the imbalance of power, it also occurs to
me that you would know more, of course, but in
a lot of the ninety day fiance type scenarios, there's
often an imbalance of power too, even though it's not
an incarceration thing, but it is like, hey, I hold
(25:20):
your future in this country in my hands.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
Yeah, there's actually a lot of parallels. I hadn't thought
about that, the idealization, because they're often forced to date
in this very surface way, and it often is the
case that once they start to actually live in the
same house or the same town, all of a sudden
they hate each other. Right because it was all sweet
(25:43):
nothings and lovey dovey, because it was fifteen minutes a
day on zoom every day, you know, all right, just
take a break, get back. More emails about the Menindaz brothers,
deep dive. What do you say, Burrow, Let's do it
all right, We're back from the break. This next emails
from patron Miriam. She says, hey, doctor Hannah and Arbardo,
(26:06):
thank you for covering this case. What struck me most
was the generational aspect of the abuse in both families.
So Miriam basically writes a lot of details, but basically
what she's saying is that Kitty the mom her sister
said that her father sexually abused their brother. So Kitty's
(26:27):
brother may have been sexually abused by Kitty's father. Going
on here. When Lyle testified about the abuse, he mentioned
that his father told him stories about sexual relationships between
soldiers and athletes and reference Greek mythology you mentioned es Burdo.
He even gave him texts to read about it. More disturbingly,
(26:48):
he told Lyle, he told Lyle, who are we talking about?
Speaker 2 (26:52):
The dead? Oh?
Speaker 1 (26:53):
The debt. More disturbingly, the dad told Lyle this was
a tradition in their family, something that happened between father
and their firstborn sons, and that Lyle would one day
do the same with his own son. I wonder how
far this goes back. Could it have been connected to
brewt to the brutality they experienced or inflicted? Okay, well,
(27:15):
first off, before going into that question, any thoughts on that.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Well, yeah, I mean even so interesting because there were
a lot of different stories too. There were anecdotes from
the family members that Katie had been directly abused herself.
There was also anecdotes that it was the mom that
had abused Jose, and but Lyle, you know, directly testified
(27:43):
about that whole story of like, you know, and so
who knows was that just his excuse for doing it
or had that actually happened to him, you know, but
it's quite possible that he had been abused himself.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Yeah, given Jose's level of abuse, it seems highly likely
that the father was abused or witnessed abuse. And you know,
there are cases when that's not the case for sure,
But it is actually one of the more disturbing aspects
(28:17):
of cases like this that I've worked on, where you
pull at that thread on the sweater and everything comes unraveled.
You start to just see abuse going all sorts of
directions and back in time, in the generations, and it's
(28:37):
a really horrific thing to reckon with, you know, Like
a common scenario would be I would be working with
a family after it came out that someone was, you know,
maybe the mother or the father, the older brother, the
uncle of the aunt or someone grandparent was sexually abusing
one of the kids. And then at first you hear
(29:02):
these very light stories like, well, grandpa was being a
little inappropriate.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
Put them on their lap.
Speaker 1 (29:09):
And then you pull at that string and you discover
the kinds of stories that you hear at the Menanda's brothers,
you know, that the cinnamon and the the lemon juice
and the mean sex, you know, and you know, each
thread is like oh my god. And then you say, well, wait,
(29:30):
did did the father say that he his father, his
father did this and you know grandpa, you know, And
so you pull out that string and and you hear
it was even worse for the dad and you and
you say, oh, well, what about the three other kids?
And you ask them you pull at that string, and
they're like yeah, And then those other kids and and
(29:51):
their kidids, and then and then the mom, you know,
and you and the mom you know, eventually comment. Scenario
would be that you would say, well, you know, hearing
all this and thinking about it all the time, I'm
starting to think that the way that I framed my
childhood is a little wrong because I just normalized the
(30:12):
kind of stuff that my mom did to me, sure
in the bathtub, and now I'm seeing in this and
it's at every why in the road. There are massive
incentives to repress and to go into denial because it's
horrific to think about, you know, and that's why these
things get suppressed in families.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Absolutely, I've had those thoughts about what happened to me
when I was five because the babysitter who was twelve,
there were two of us, for example, so it wasn't
just me who was being abused. At the very least,
there were two of us, and it's possible there were others, right,
And I've often thought, oh, I'm pretty sure she was
being abused because her knowledge and intention at twelve doesn't compute,
(30:59):
except maybe maybe she found a weird book and got
when Bananas, But I don't think so. Right, So then
there's that story, like you're saying, and if you pull
out that thread, what are you going to find? And
I've thought about that, how like how horrible it is
that there's all these secrets hiding in plain sight, affecting
so many people's lives and ruining their psychees and causing
(31:23):
all this stress and and damage to other generations.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
And yeah, that people would rather kill themselves or kill
their people than pull on that string. A question for Miriam.
She says, could it have been connected to the brutality
the experience or inflicted as colonizers? Uh, do you know
what this question is getting at?
Speaker 2 (31:46):
As colonizers?
Speaker 1 (31:48):
I think she's saying that Jose's lineage is with the Spanish.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
Oh you're saying, oh yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, oh yeah, okay.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
So from that angle, so trying to cause you pull
the string and then you think will Jose's dad, Well,
then you think hoose Day's grandfather.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
So this is a this is a thing that we
were discussing in the other episode. Actually, most of the
initial waves that came to the Americas from Spain to
the so called we get ready to be upset New World. Ah,
I triggered you no, but a lot of those waves
from Spain were not healthy, like god fearing family members
(32:35):
that just wanted to have like an No, they were
in many cases criminals are at the very least vicious soldiers,
and they came and they took and they took everything,
and so yeah, you could imagine an immediate lineage of
abuse started, let alone if some of them were, on
top of just doing the normal raping and villaging, were
(32:56):
also psychopaths, which there might have been quite a few
of them that volunteered to go around like because you know,
I'm like, hell, should I go on this trip like
into the nothingness or should I stay here with all
the things that I value and all the life that
I vout?
Speaker 1 (33:10):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Yeah, I'll go into the nothingness.
Speaker 1 (33:11):
Yeah, it's something that we don't think about that the
people of the sixteen seventeen hundreds would be motivated by
the same things that we see today. We know that
there are pedophiles from around the world that flock to
Southeast Asia, for example. You know certain towns or red
(33:33):
light districts that look the other way, or there are
no over there's no oversight, or there's no regulations that
will protect children, and so there are migrations if you will,
to areas because people know or they've heard, and so
it's hard for us to see that because that's not
what's depicted in the period pieces, the Shakespeare kind of
(33:58):
stuff that we see. We don't usually see some creep
that's just like ha ha ha. I hear that there
are little kiddies on the Polynesian Islands that I can
go rape, you know, but you would absolutely imagine that
would be the case.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
Yep. So yeah, it's it's I could see that. So
that's an interesting question. I had not considered that angle.
That's very interesting.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
Another question, or did it originate in Spain, possibly even
contributing to Jose leaving the country when he was fifteen
years old?
Speaker 2 (34:25):
Well she she means Cuba.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
Yeah, so could it have originated in Cuba?
Speaker 2 (34:31):
Yeah, I mean all those countries were there was there
was a lot of miceive practices.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
Might Jose have left because of that? But there's so
many other reasons why people left, Well, the.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
And the state, Yeah, you're right, and who knows. But
the stated reasons were literally that they they lost all
their stuff as a result of the revolution, and they
sent him to the States. But maybe he also saw
it as a as an escape.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
Who knows, right, All right, let's take another break. What
do you say, let's do it all right? Back from
the break annual patron Sarah from Italy. She says, I
really love the Menendez Brothers deep Dive, but please please
do follow ups. There's a lot more information, For example,
(35:17):
the dramatization Monsters, the mini series on Netflix twenty twenty four.
Sarah says, a lot of that show is not factual.
Just chiming in. Do you know anything about that?
Speaker 2 (35:33):
Yeah, I mean I watched it. It's really good. But
they also filled in the blanks. Well, I mean, to
be fair, I don't.
Speaker 1 (35:42):
They filled in all the blanks because they don't. They
only were going off of the accounts.
Speaker 2 (35:46):
Right and what To be fair, though, we also don't
know what didn't happen, right. I mean, that's not a
great way to put it, because when you're making a show,
you're taking a stance on what each scene is right.
So granted, more likely than not, there's tons of stuff
that's wrong. But at the same time, it wasn't all
just invented out of thin air, like everything they at
(36:07):
least everything I saw in that show I could trace
to some some account from some relative or some you know.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
A reasonable extrapolation on the data, except there was one
detail that the shower scene something right.
Speaker 2 (36:23):
Yeah, so there was there was a shower scene where
the two brothers are having sexual encounter and the mom
walks in on them. Actually, that's probably not the only
To be fair, I'm sure there were more scenes, not
remembering every single detail, but that one in particular was
called out as like, well, that's why do you add that,
Like that's ridiculous, And that's fair because the Menanda's brothers
(36:46):
did admit that there was abuse when he was younger,
but they didn't say like, oh, and we were having
an active homosexual relationship.
Speaker 1 (36:51):
Right right, the kinds of things that they might embellish on.
Like when I watched it as well, there's an initial
scene when the two brothers are talking and it's when Eric,
the younger one, is starting to burst at the seams
(37:12):
regarding the traumas that and the emotional struggles and is
alluding to it, and then the older brother is caring
and loving but also telling him like, you've got to
keep that under wraps, You've got to turn that into
agger or something, because that can't come out, you know.
And that scene was pretty specific and was you know,
(37:35):
extrapolating on data, but also there were there were things
that they were depicting and saying essentially about their relationship
and the way that it was that was extremely speculative. Sure,
now you know, you've got to cut some corners at
some point.
Speaker 2 (37:50):
Because it's a dramatization. So we could point to any
Ted Bundy.
Speaker 1 (37:55):
But my point is is that that extrapolation is I
think more inner animal than having the two of them
in a shower. Having them in a shower together as
young men is salacious. The only reason why you're doing
that is because you want to create a splash with
your stupid TV show.
Speaker 2 (38:12):
That I can totally agree with, Yeah, because that first
of all, it didn't it didn't like sort of add
any information that was pertinent to why they would kill
their parents, right, And there was zero accounts or evidence
that that was going on, right.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
Yeah, I mean if there were, then okay, But there weren't,
So why would you just invent that going on? Also,
Sarah says the Menendez Brothers podcast some actual direct information
from the brothers on the lead up to the murder.
Eric says he believes to this day that his father
(38:52):
was about to kill him. What do you think about
that one?
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Well, they stated that they actually never well this is
kind of funny to say, because they did as a
way to close the book on their story so that
they would essentially be eligible for even being reconsidered in
their sentencing. They did take full responsibility, and they said
(39:16):
they don't blame anyone, and they killed their parents, end
of story, right now. At the same time, they didn't
say and the abuse didn't happen, right Like, they never
recanted that, But from the start and throughout the trial,
they did claim that they had that fear. And given
that they both testified that they had confronted the father
(39:36):
about the ongoing abuse and that they were going to
talk about it, and that the father was getting concerned
about the therapist and knowing what they knew about their father.
I mean, I guess they would be naive or abuse
victims to not think that their father might kill them,
you know, but you know, how do you know exactly?
Speaker 1 (39:56):
Also, they say he also believed, Eric believed all those
years that he was protecting his mother from the truth,
and his world collapsed when he discovered she knew all along.
So that's another detail.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
Yeah, Yeah, one thing that I mean I appreciated about
that dramatization even if it's incorrect. Maybe, but I don't know,
I have no way to know. Is there is this
aspect where they showed both perspectives. They showed like the
last few days from the parents perspective, and they tried
(40:32):
to show it without like there was no They didn't
show scenes where the father was secretly winking at the
mirror and going like, aha, I might get away with it. No,
there were just like two people going about their business
and they were still acting like they were a loving
couple even though And I like that for two reasons. One,
there's this perception because we all watched so much media
(40:54):
that like, if there's abuse going on, then it's obvious
at all times in every context, right. And then too
that there's only one side to every story, right, And
so I kind of appreciated that they kind of showed that.
They didn't say which one is the right thing, They
just kind of showed like, this is what was happening
according to the accounts. Because to be fair, the account
(41:16):
from the prosecution and from others that were not as
invested in their defense was that you know that this
came out of nowhere. And that the parents were fine, right,
So you.
Speaker 1 (41:27):
Know, yeah, they didn't show Eric having difficult emotions in
a way that made it seem unjustified, So they reflected
I think reality well in that way. But yeah, they
also didn't show Jose and Kitty. But I guess we're
(41:49):
Jose the father as some creepizoid who's obviously evil and
is winking at the camera in another sort of way.
Speaker 2 (42:00):
Yeah, Like they showed the scenes that would have been
like the public evidence sort of again obviously dramatized, but
like when he's yelling at them at the tennis court,
and obviously anyone that would be watching that would be like, man,
what an asshole, Right, But that doesn't mean that same
person is secretly brutally violating the right sun right.
Speaker 1 (42:17):
And they didn't show flashbacks of the boys being sexually
abused or anything, so they kept to the facts in
that way. And I appreciate it also because it reflects
the ambiguity of these kinds of accounts. That's almost always
inherent with these sorts of accounts, and it reflects accurately
(42:40):
that abusers like this don't show any signs if you're
just a fly in the wall, as they're having dinner
with their kids, or they're at work, you know.
Speaker 2 (42:50):
And there was those other interesting scenes where and actually
this was according to their account, so there's some reason
to believe that kind of unfolded this way. When they
discover that Lyle doesn't have hair, you know, like he's
got a hair piece, and the father switches from it
from he was completely irate about stuff right to when
(43:10):
she rips off. When the mother rips off the hair piece,
the father switches to concern for his firstborn and he's
like and it's again shows that dichotomy of like, well,
how would it be possible that's such a monster. But
that's the thing is, like these people are humans with complex.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
Yeah, and it also kind of made Lyle into a
bit of a pompous jerk face, you know what I mean.
I mean, not horribly, but he the way he comes
across is a little douchebaggy, you know.
Speaker 2 (43:40):
Yeah. And now at the same time you have to consider, like,
you know, a why did he lose the hair in
the first place, and be the pressure of because you
can tell like a lot of the father's ego is
invested in his son's being perfect, right, So what a
bald Son at that young age would mean to his ego.
Speaker 1 (43:59):
Yeah, Now, what I'll say to anyone who was concerned
or something that in the Deep Dive we didn't go
over every single detail, I would say that we would
still be talking about it every day. If we're going
over every day. There are certain things that you just
have to exclude for time. And you know, the Deep
(44:20):
Dive took several chapters, so.
Speaker 2 (44:22):
And what's funny is that if we hadn't, if we
hadn't taken so long, if that hadn't been so much content,
there's some stuff we wouldn't have gotten to record, which
was happening as we were recording, which was the latest
judgment about their their ability to be to be eligible
for parole.
Speaker 1 (44:37):
Yeah, last email annual page anonymous patrons. She says, if
you're doing a follow up on the parole outcome, I
think doctor Honda would especially appreciate. The Two Angry Men
podcast episode, the brothers are on the podcast and discussed
and this discussed their current mindset, accountability and apologize apology
(44:58):
and offered insight into their behavior in perspective. They explain
how despite not expecting expecting to ever be released, they
explained how they've undertaken remarkable self rehabilitation in prison, like
they have created and ran prison programs to support fellow
inmates with trauma and meditation me ME meditation UH in
(45:25):
with trauma, working in hospice care, and with the disabled.
They've done that. They've earned college degrees, so I guess
that gets that if there's employability. They have contributed to
California's green Space initiatives, and they've run a therapy dog
program in prison. They also share their potential post prison plans,
(45:48):
like wanting to continue working with the prison system to
support inmates and victims. Interesting fact, Lyle and Eric helped Mentor,
a famous hip hop artist named x rated in prison
and assisted him in gaining the possibility of parole and
his eventual release. This artist now, in turn, advocates for
(46:08):
the brother's parole, including testifying for them and even writing
a song called Sins of the Father in their honor.
I listened to the song and it's a hip hop song. Wow.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
You know what churse to me is that they are
also their father's sons in the good ways, meaning his father,
their father was clearly a very intelligent and industrious person,
right and Therefore, it's not too shocking that they reportedly
(46:41):
the mother was also very intelligent herself, so it wouldn't
be too shocking that the two of them would have
the capability to do a lot of good things if
they apply themselves. So that's encouraging to hear.
Speaker 1 (46:51):
So. Final word on this final episode of our deep
dive on the men and his brothers Berto.
Speaker 2 (46:57):
Yeah, I have remained in my position, which is I
ultimately although not you know, I can't say, hey, you know,
it's great, just go murder someone and break the law.
I do still believe that they were traumatized, and I
believe that there were extenuating circumstances to those murders, and
(47:18):
so I do believe that they should be eligible for paroles.
So I'm I'm glad from that perspective.
Speaker 1 (47:23):
And.
Speaker 2 (47:26):
I if they do, it'd be interesting to see if
they do positive things with the remainder part of their life,
that'd be really great.
Speaker 1 (47:34):
Maybe they'll come on our podcast.
Speaker 2 (47:35):
Yeah, I like to talk about it
Speaker 1 (47:37):
And everyone out there please take care of yourself because
you deserve it.
So Berto, we did a deep dive on the Menandez brothers,
and we asked for follow up emails and we got
a few. So let's read those and respond. What do
you say?
Speaker 2 (00:10):
I think it sounds great.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
This is the Psychology in Seattle podcast. I'm your host,
doctor Kirkanda. I'm a therapist and I'm also a professor.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
My name is Umberto Casn and I am a calligraphy
dick deconstructionist. See, I can't even say my job titles.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
He almost said calligraphy construction.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Construction is was what I used to call myself.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
I see. So patron Maya from San Francisco, She says, Hi,
I think Berto did did an incredible job slowly unraveling
the details of the Menendez story. I wanted to see
what you guys think life on the outside would be
like if the Menindaz brothers are released. So here's the
first question, Burto. Would either of them be able to
(00:47):
get a job?
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Yes, elaborate depends what we define it jobs, but as
long as it's something that pays the money, yeah, absolutely.
First of all, in today's world, they could be any
number of influencing capacities, right like they could do podcasts.
They could do YouTube channels, whether with or without the haters,
you know, like people could hate them and whatever, they
could still do that. Second, I could see them being
(01:10):
contributors on channels for like legal contributors or whatever, you know.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
And again it'd be hard to make money doing that though,
you know, as someone who is a contributor on those things,
they often don't pay or they.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
That might be fair, yeah, they barely. Then they also
could write books about their experiences, probably as long as
they don't say anything about the victims or something.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
I don't know, Well, that's a good question.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
If they're victims, are their parents?
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Yeah, it's weird, right, it's.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Like, but anyways, I'm thinking they could definitely make money
now as far as like could they go and apply, Yes,
there are a lot of businesses that I think would
turn their resume away just because they probably don't want
the mails from that comes with it.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
But if they're just like a regular person at at
a regular job, right that that isn't public facing, like
they're a bookkeeper for business or something, you know.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Well, and legally they shouldn't be able to discriminate against
them if they've been you know, properly.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Released well, and a lot of people have a lot
of sympathy, so I could see it going either way.
In fact, I would imagine most people would have tremendous
sympathy for them, and they serve their time and do
you think that what they're going to kill the boss
or something? Yeah, but there is but there well, so
I think we should absolutely acknowledge that on average, there's
(02:27):
a lot of discrimination against people who were incarcerated. People
if they have two or three resumes and one resume
as someone who was incarcerated, a lot of people, even
though they might not admit it, that would put that
one aside because well, who knows. I mean, even if
it's a low risk that they're going to fly off
(02:48):
the handle and kill someone at my work, I don't
want that worry. And so anywhere from there to full
on you know misinformation that once a criminal, always a
criminal kind of thing. So yeah, I think it would different.
I think another opportunity for people like this is the
speaking circuit. You can give speeches, you know, like conventions
(03:12):
and other kind of professional organization meetings. I always have
like keynote speakers, and it's kind of interesting, like the
industry and the economy of that kind of occupation of
people like Monica Lewinsky and other kinds of people and
maybe deservedly so that the way that it seems to
(03:34):
me when I've attended these things is that when you
go to a professional organization get together, and you can
walk away saying, a famous person you know, you know,
like Monica Lewinsky or something, or one of the meninda'z
brothers gave a talk. Even if the talk isn't like fantastic.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Right, it adds exactly.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
Yeah, and if you're Meninda's brothers, you could absolutely cobble
together arious different talks, whether it's inspirational or transformational, or
media savvy or.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Survive trauma r trauma.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
So you know, there's all sorts of inspirational or informational
types of or apologizing.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Yeah, you know the thing I would personally, so like
if I was hiring, Let's say I was hiring and
I got their resumes, and depending what the job is,
of course, like if I'm trying to find survivors of
abuse that spend time in jail and are famous and
I need these kinds of applicants, well then of course,
But if it's more like I have a quote unquote
normal business and I get their resumes across my desk.
(04:39):
The thing that might worry me if I know their
background is more about, like, well, I don't know what
kind of experience they might have because they have been
in jail since they were kids, and so I don't
you know, that'd be kind of the thing. Plus, I
might be concerned about not so much that they might
murder someone or something, just more about what the trauma
of their experience might do to their ability. Again, it's
(05:01):
it's it's probably not fair for me to discriminate on that.
I'm just saying, like, what would literally go through my
head if if those resumes come through my desk.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Well, from my understanding, they did a lot of things
in prison that were job skills related. I suppose they
could also teach tennis. Now that I think about it.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
That's true. They were both really good. Yeah, that's a
good point.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
I can also see them opening like a restaurant or something.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Oh gosh, yeah, well that's where that's where it would be.
Just like, Okay, our name is famous, so you know,
come to Menendez and Bros.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Right, what sort of business would it be?
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Well, it'd be California cuisine for sure, and it'd be
you know.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
You could you could lean into the well the preppy
Beverly Hills. You of course wouldn't want anything on the
menu like the kill your Parents Burger anyth No.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
But like I would freeze the early nineties, like late eighties,
early nineties, I would freeze that in time in their.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Yea, you could that like having those sort of stereos
that you would take out of your car, remember that health.
I feel like younger people if you told them what
we used to do with our car stereos.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
It wouldn't make sense.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Yeah, they'd be like, why why did you do that?
Another question from Patron Maya from San Francisco. She says,
do you think they'd continue living together? Well, they don't
really live together now, right, they don't. They're at different prisons.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
But I mean, I think the good question is, given
that they they were so separated for so many years,
and they cared for each other so much, would they
actually make a choice to live at the very least
very close. I would imagine they would at least want
to live close by. But there's also some very complex,
complex dynamics between them right.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
I mean, I wonder what their relationship is like. Yeah,
do they ride each other a lot. I'm sure they
have some fond feelings towards each other, but by this point,
thirty years later, they be quite distant.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
One thing I didn't cover enough in our deep dive
is there was this long period of time where they
were separated in different prisons and they weren't allowed to
see each other at all. It was many, many years,
I forget how long, And then there was a moment
where they were allowed to see each other. They were
brought to the same prison or something. They were allowed
to see each other and it was a huge breakdown
(07:22):
into tears kind of thing for them. But you know,
that doesn't mean you can live together successfully with someone.
It just means that they missed each other a lot.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
I would imagine that they would want to be close
the way that you would be with your brother, but
not necessarily overlapping in your life. They probably just want
to each have their own life. Last question, I believe
one or both of them got married from within prison.
Can you speak about that? End of email. I actually
looked up the details. Do you know anything about this?
Speaker 2 (07:55):
I forget? I know that there was the first girlfriend
that Lyle had that broke up, but then I know
he had a second one that they they met while
he was in jail, and then I think that became something,
but I don't remember their details.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Yeah, it's kind of interesting. So Lyle got married in
nineteen ninety six to Anna Erickson. She was a model
and then she was something else after that. But she
wrote him letters after watching his trial on TV, and
then they got married after letters correspondence I think, and
(08:32):
maybe some conjugal visits or something.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
I don't think they were allowed conjugal visits from what
I remember in the so I think they might have
just gotten married.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Just based on the texts the letters, letters, Yeah, meaning
that I mean conjugal or not. But we don't even
know if they met in person, it.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Would have been it would have been it's our one thing,
just not conjugal.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
Yeah, you would hope that they would have some face
to face or something, but their wedding was actually or
the phone, which kind of lends itself to the idea
that maybe they hadn't met in person and maybe they
only could meet in person after they were married.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
I don't know about that. All I know is that
I remember explicitly when I was going through all the
materials they were they explicitly called out that conjugal visits
were not allowed.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
And this is early so and Lyle's the older one. Yeah,
and so Lyle got married to Anna the day he
was sentenced, So it was like twenty six, so this
would have happened fairly quickly on the timeline on the
grand scheme. They got divorced five years later, reportedly after
(09:38):
she discovered he had been writing other women. Oh so cheating,
I guess is the way you would look at that,
which you know, emotional cheating. But still then he got
married two years later to Rebecca Snead, a magazine journalist
and later an attorney. They met again through prison correspondence.
(09:59):
Brisumme she reached out to him because I would have
a hard time I met. Well, maybe Lyle reach out
her or no. And then they had been separated. By
the end of last year twenty twenty four, Rebecca Sneed
publicly shared that they have been separated quote unquote for
a while now, although they do remain close and committed
(10:22):
to advocating for their brother's release. So separated is a
funny word where you've never been actually together, right, but
I guess it's emotionally separated.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
That is very interesting. I could see that in a
relationship that starts in person, but then they have, you know,
for work or for whatever reason, their relationship becomes a
long distance relationship, and then at that point they might
say let's separate, and they're still separated by distance, but
now they're actually like not talking or whatever. But in
this case, there was never even that initial phase.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Whether well, and if it's a long distance relationship, presumably
there are times when you're living together for a week
or something here or there, and because now sometimes they
let people like this out for a week or something
with an ankle monitor or something. But I don't think so. Yeah,
(11:14):
Eric the younger brother. He married Tammy Ruth Suckelman in
nineteen ninety nine, so also pretty early. She saw him
in a documentary and wrote to him. Their relationship developed
over years of communication, and reportedly their wedding cake was
a twinkie because they got married, so what mayo.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
It wasn't in the shape of a twinkie, it was
an actual twinkie.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Because they get married in prison, you can't bring stuff
in because there could be a gun in the cake
or something, so you have to get something from the
vending from the vending machine. I assume you know, so Berto,
why would someone marry someone? You know that this happens
all the time? Yeah, Charlie Manson, why would someone do this?
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Well, okay, so I guess there's a couple of different
aspects here. One is why would someone be okay with
physical separation and yet establish a serious, committed relationship. Yeah,
that's a great question. I mean for me personally, I
find that very difficult to imagine. It's not as difficult
to imagine once I have, let's say, with my wife,
(12:28):
if we had to be separated for some reason. Of course,
I'm not going to be like, well that's that.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
But if you're on Tinder, you come across someone that
is permanently behind bars, are you swiping right or left?
Speaker 2 (12:40):
Right? Exactly? So in my case, I can't relate to it.
But if I'm trying to put myself in other people's shoes,
and at first I'm going to tackle this not from
the perspective of they are also there's something maybe difficult
about them, maybe they were also abuseful. I'm just going
to put all that aside and say, what legitimately might
I feel that would make me think? So there's a
few things. One I could come across someone whose life
(13:02):
story seems so interesting and compelling. Maybe we have similar
interests or something. You know. Let's say that I was
swiping right and I see Eric and I'm like, oh
my gosh. I also was pushed to be a tennis
pro by my father and it was horrible, And we
have that in common.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
And yeah, I guess it's kind of broadcasting a version
of your personality, right, the documentaries and the TV coach,
there's a wide net that's being cast in terms of, like,
if we just look at the surface level, I wonder
if me and that person might hit it off, you know.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
So there's that factor that already happens with any celebrity, right,
Like a lot of people, myself included, they think of
certain celebrities and think, oh, man, I would be great
with that person just because of what you think you
know about them. Right, So I can understand that from
their perspective, and from the perspective of the incarcerated person, Well,
it's not like they have a lot of other things going, right,
So it's like, might as well get a relationship going
(13:58):
with someone said, there is another part of this which
is a little darker, especially when we saw it with
you know, like the tud Bundyes and other Jeffrey Dahmers
and things, which is a fascination with the acts themselves, like, oh,
these people are murderers, these people are serial killers. And
that could be anything from they are intrigued or they're
(14:21):
fascinated by the macabre, or they literally I don't know,
worship the fact that they can kill people or something.
That to me seems more troubling because you know, yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:30):
Although as long as it's not harmy anyone, it's it's
an innocent manifestation of a fucked up impulse.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
You know, maybe I kinda yeah, maybe I just think
it's like, oh, that seems like the kind of person
that was gonna follow Charles Manson into a downward spiral.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Yeah. Well, okay, So some other factors than those are good.
One is just celebrity fascination. Ye, nothing makes someone more
attractive than being a celebrity. All you have to do
is look at Christy Brinkley and Billy Joel for that one.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Hey, he writes great songs.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
In case in point. Also, wanting attention is another possible factor.
I'm not accusing the individuals with Lyle and Eric of this.
I'm just saying these are the factors that we often
will assess for I suppose if we were asked to
do so. But you know, people will do a lot
for attention, do a lot for fame because you're instantly famous. Yeah,
(15:30):
and if you are appealing to this very famous person,
then you know that's a great point.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
I didn't think of that. The fact that no matter what,
if you're well, especially the more that they're still in
the news or whatever, you're likely going to end up
in the news.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
Yeah. Yeah, and you will have a Wikipedia entry. And
so if that's what you're striving you and if you
wanted to parlay that into an Instagram following or a book,
an influencer stack a murderer, then you know you got
that going for it. Another factors rescue fantasy.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Oh sure.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
Given that some adults had a childhood role of being
forced to rescue people or being loved because they rescued people,
then as an adult they might seek an underfunctioner to rescue.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
You know, I've literally suffered from this or been this
with with guys, you know, and I think it was
a result of me, you know, having to deal with
a father who had, you know, things where I felt
like I needed to try to rescue him, right, and
then later in life feeling like, oh, I need I
need to rescue this this person, this this guy friend,
(16:45):
or this random stranger who seems to be in trouble
and I feel like I need to rescue him.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Yeah. The most dark example of this was when you
were thinking, no, you did you took in a homeless guy.
That's right who you were. You know, from my memory,
it was a very altruistic and you know, not wrongheaded impulse.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
Really well, it was very The way I did it
was in retrospect was very dangerous to me. But at
the time I don't know why I didn't. I just
I've always and I talked with my therapist about this
at one point. Is I sometimes view the world in
a very kind of safe way, or like I should
(17:25):
be able to deal with anything that the world throws
at me, and not maybe taking into account the real
risks that I might be incurring. And that was one
of those cases where I could have still tried to
help that person, but in that time. I actually let
them move into an empty room in my place and
for free, you know, because I was like helping them,
(17:46):
and like that could have led to you.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
Well, and you're also married.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
I was married at the time, but even if I
were alone, or maybe you're still married, way you said it,
I'm saying, I'm saying that like that could have too,
I mean slit throats in the middle of the night
or broke ins or not like not likely, right, but
knowing what kind of friends that person had, Yeah, I
actually did kind of dodge a if not a bullet,
(18:12):
I dodged a break in, right.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
Burglary was much more likely. Yeah, for you know, meth money.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
The person themselves, they were I think, really trying, but
they were surrounded by some horrible quote friends.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
But he ended up not, you know, lasting very long. Yeah,
you were gonna get How did you meet him? Did
you meet him on the street?
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Yeah. So the story was it was one of those
late Seattle nights. I was drunk and I had left
the club and I was walking by myself, and in
an example of not understanding that the world isn't always safe,
I just went up to a group of what looked
to be like street people and just started talking to them.
And this is like fifteen.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
Years ago ish or twenty years ago.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
It was two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Okay, oh yeah, seventeen years yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
So then I went up and I was like, oh, blah, blah.
And then I'm just asking them questions, what do you
do blah? And then I'm like you're homeless? And this
person was seventeen. I'm like, oh my god, that's crazy.
And so then I said, okay, listen, if you want
to try to do something about your life, give me
a call. And then I gave my phone number, and
then I think about maybe two weeks or a month later,
(19:25):
I got a call or a text or something saying, hey,
I want to do something about my life or some
so am I right. So I'm like, okay, meet me
at the you know, the downtown the cheesecake factory. Meet
me at the cheesey. So we went and we had lunch,
and I was like, all right, what's going on? And
I found out, well, they had been kicked out of
their house because dad found marijuana or something, and they
(19:48):
were homeless. And I'm like, okay, well why can't You're young,
you're fit you're not like hurting, So why don't you
try to get a job? Why can't Why not? Well
I don't have a social security I'm like, oh, what
of course you have a social security? Well I don't
have a license. Okay, but we can, Okay, you can
get all those things like no, no, my dad said
I can't. So he had been fed a whole bunch
of false information. So I helped him get a license,
(20:10):
get a social Security number, all these things, and get
a job, you know, and then the idea. Eventually he
moved out of my place and started renting a place,
but unfortunately he was surrounded by people that were criminals,
and eventually he just got back to drugs and left
his job. And I don't know what it ended up
(20:31):
happening after that, but it was it was unfortunate.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know more of the details obviously
than I do. But you're framing it as people around
him when he might have had trauma that resulted in
oh undibturally.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm not just saying like they forced
him or something. I'm just saying that, like I feel like,
left in a little vacuum, he might have had better
of a chance. But I know directly because what he
would say is he would tell me, well, my friends
such and such said to me, and it was like
horrible misinformation, horrible like lies about what's possible and not possible,
what they should what he should do, and all these things.
(21:09):
And I was like, but clearly there was a point
at which he was no longer like listening to me.
So I'm like, okay, And.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
He lived with you for like a month or something.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
A little longer than that, but then he moved out.
It's maybe it was three months, yeah, okay.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
I mean, it's a nice thing that you did, and
it could have worked, and maybe it did. Maybe it
planted a seed, you know, those three months might have
helped him.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
I don't necessarily regret a lot of it, Like I
don't regret trying to help him get his license and
his he did, he got his license at social Security number,
get a job. All this I do retrocatively, would not
have invited him into my home. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that
was Yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
I have a similar naivete, optimistic hope, and a belief
in the goodness of other people and also in just life,
working out or something. As you know, most poignantly evidenced
by the time I pulgoed off my own head crashing
(22:07):
my bike. I at no point did I think maybe
I should not go on this obstacle course with this
electric bike that is not designed for that kind of thing.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
You know, like what's the opposite of a light bulb,
so you know, yeah, a short circuit.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Yeah. Another factor that we sometimes point to to explain
why someone would marry someone in prison is idealization. So
when we first date someone, we will often fall in
love and idealize them because we haven't seen the dark
side of them or the bad side of them, because
(22:45):
we haven't spent much time with them, and so they
seem perfect to us. And they are marrying someone in prison.
You're permanently in the dating zone essentially.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
That's a really good point because you're not actually, I
mean unless the texting or writing or whatever turns dark,
but you're right, you're not spending the actual time where
your dishes are dirty, or where they didn't they took
your car without asking, or they ran over your dog
and buried it in the yard and never told you,
and you know, all those things.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
For example. Another is that it's a controlled intimate context
that it's safer for people that might need that based
on past traumas, right, And it might be perceived that
it's harder for that person in prison to cheat or
leave you. Right, they seem like, well, even if it's
(23:33):
not a conscious thought, it's like they're a safer bet.
You know. It's sort of like how some people will
date involved people people that are married. For example, Oh,
I see, because there's a barrier. There's a barrier there,
and there's an inherent lack of risk because you're you're
not fully involved, you know. So it's kind of like that.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
That's interesting.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Another more darker reason is that people that want to
control their spouse because you can have the upper hand
if you're the person that is outside prison, right, because
you're free to move, you're free to come and go.
You can choose not to see them. They can't, you know,
(24:18):
if you go to sea, you know, they can refuse,
refuse to see you, but they can't come to you,
and you can hang a lot of things over their head.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
A huge imbalance.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Yeah, there's a lot of imbalance of power.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:30):
Now, you know, I'm not saying anything about lyle and erics.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
No, no, no, just in general, like that would always be
an imbalance another.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
Just blanket or broad term. It's just past traumas that
could lead to someone seeking someone to recreate a past relationship,
you know, for various reasons. You know, if they had
an abusive parent or even a parent who killed someone,
as an effort to recreate that to have it work
out differently this time, you could seek someone that's incarcerated.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
By the way, in the part about like the barrier
or sorry, the imbalance of power, it also occurs to
me that you would know more, of course, but in
a lot of the ninety day fiance type scenarios, there's
often an imbalance of power too, even though it's not
an incarceration thing, but it is like, hey, I hold
(25:20):
your future in this country in my hands.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
Yeah, there's actually a lot of parallels. I hadn't thought
about that, the idealization, because they're often forced to date
in this very surface way, and it often is the
case that once they start to actually live in the
same house or the same town, all of a sudden
they hate each other. Right because it was all sweet
(25:43):
nothings and lovey dovey, because it was fifteen minutes a
day on zoom every day, you know, all right, just
take a break, get back. More emails about the Menindaz brothers,
deep dive. What do you say, Burrow, Let's do it
all right, We're back from the break. This next emails
from patron Miriam. She says, hey, doctor Hannah and Arbardo,
(26:06):
thank you for covering this case. What struck me most
was the generational aspect of the abuse in both families.
So Miriam basically writes a lot of details, but basically
what she's saying is that Kitty the mom her sister
said that her father sexually abused their brother. So Kitty's
(26:27):
brother may have been sexually abused by Kitty's father. Going
on here. When Lyle testified about the abuse, he mentioned
that his father told him stories about sexual relationships between
soldiers and athletes and reference Greek mythology you mentioned es Burdo.
He even gave him texts to read about it. More disturbingly,
(26:48):
he told Lyle, he told Lyle, who are we talking about?
Speaker 2 (26:52):
The dead? Oh?
Speaker 1 (26:53):
The debt. More disturbingly, the dad told Lyle this was
a tradition in their family, something that happened between father
and their firstborn sons, and that Lyle would one day
do the same with his own son. I wonder how
far this goes back. Could it have been connected to
brewt to the brutality they experienced or inflicted? Okay, well,
(27:15):
first off, before going into that question, any thoughts on that.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Well, yeah, I mean even so interesting because there were
a lot of different stories too. There were anecdotes from
the family members that Katie had been directly abused herself.
There was also anecdotes that it was the mom that
had abused Jose, and but Lyle, you know, directly testified
(27:43):
about that whole story of like, you know, and so
who knows was that just his excuse for doing it
or had that actually happened to him, you know, but
it's quite possible that he had been abused himself.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Yeah, given Jose's level of abuse, it seems highly likely
that the father was abused or witnessed abuse. And you know,
there are cases when that's not the case for sure,
But it is actually one of the more disturbing aspects
(28:17):
of cases like this that I've worked on, where you
pull at that thread on the sweater and everything comes unraveled.
You start to just see abuse going all sorts of
directions and back in time, in the generations, and it's
(28:37):
a really horrific thing to reckon with, you know, Like
a common scenario would be I would be working with
a family after it came out that someone was, you know,
maybe the mother or the father, the older brother, the
uncle of the aunt or someone grandparent was sexually abusing
one of the kids. And then at first you hear
(29:02):
these very light stories like, well, grandpa was being a
little inappropriate.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
Put them on their lap.
Speaker 1 (29:09):
And then you pull at that string and you discover
the kinds of stories that you hear at the Menanda's brothers,
you know, that the cinnamon and the the lemon juice
and the mean sex, you know, and you know, each
thread is like oh my god. And then you say, well, wait,
(29:30):
did did the father say that he his father, his
father did this and you know grandpa, you know, And
so you pull out that string and and you hear
it was even worse for the dad and you and
you say, oh, well, what about the three other kids?
And you ask them you pull at that string, and
they're like yeah, And then those other kids and and
(29:51):
their kidids, and then and then the mom, you know,
and you and the mom you know, eventually comment. Scenario
would be that you would say, well, you know, hearing
all this and thinking about it all the time, I'm
starting to think that the way that I framed my
childhood is a little wrong because I just normalized the
(30:12):
kind of stuff that my mom did to me, sure
in the bathtub, and now I'm seeing in this and
it's at every why in the road. There are massive
incentives to repress and to go into denial because it's
horrific to think about, you know, and that's why these
things get suppressed in families.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Absolutely, I've had those thoughts about what happened to me
when I was five because the babysitter who was twelve,
there were two of us, for example, so it wasn't
just me who was being abused. At the very least,
there were two of us, and it's possible there were others, right,
And I've often thought, oh, I'm pretty sure she was
being abused because her knowledge and intention at twelve doesn't compute,
(30:59):
except maybe maybe she found a weird book and got
when Bananas, But I don't think so. Right, So then
there's that story, like you're saying, and if you pull
out that thread, what are you going to find? And
I've thought about that, how like how horrible it is
that there's all these secrets hiding in plain sight, affecting
so many people's lives and ruining their psychees and causing
(31:23):
all this stress and and damage to other generations.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
And yeah, that people would rather kill themselves or kill
their people than pull on that string. A question for Miriam.
She says, could it have been connected to the brutality
the experience or inflicted as colonizers? Uh, do you know
what this question is getting at?
Speaker 2 (31:46):
As colonizers?
Speaker 1 (31:48):
I think she's saying that Jose's lineage is with the Spanish.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
Oh you're saying, oh yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, oh yeah, okay.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
So from that angle, so trying to cause you pull
the string and then you think will Jose's dad, Well,
then you think hoose Day's grandfather.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
So this is a this is a thing that we
were discussing in the other episode. Actually, most of the
initial waves that came to the Americas from Spain to
the so called we get ready to be upset New World. Ah,
I triggered you no, but a lot of those waves
from Spain were not healthy, like god fearing family members
(32:35):
that just wanted to have like an No, they were
in many cases criminals are at the very least vicious soldiers,
and they came and they took and they took everything,
and so yeah, you could imagine an immediate lineage of
abuse started, let alone if some of them were, on
top of just doing the normal raping and villaging, were
(32:56):
also psychopaths, which there might have been quite a few
of them that volunteered to go around like because you know,
I'm like, hell, should I go on this trip like
into the nothingness or should I stay here with all
the things that I value and all the life that
I vout?
Speaker 1 (33:10):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Yeah, I'll go into the nothingness.
Speaker 1 (33:11):
Yeah, it's something that we don't think about that the
people of the sixteen seventeen hundreds would be motivated by
the same things that we see today. We know that
there are pedophiles from around the world that flock to
Southeast Asia, for example. You know certain towns or red
(33:33):
light districts that look the other way, or there are
no over there's no oversight, or there's no regulations that
will protect children, and so there are migrations if you will,
to areas because people know or they've heard, and so
it's hard for us to see that because that's not
what's depicted in the period pieces, the Shakespeare kind of
(33:58):
stuff that we see. We don't usually see some creep
that's just like ha ha ha. I hear that there
are little kiddies on the Polynesian Islands that I can
go rape, you know, but you would absolutely imagine that
would be the case.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
Yep. So yeah, it's it's I could see that. So
that's an interesting question. I had not considered that angle.
That's very interesting.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
Another question, or did it originate in Spain, possibly even
contributing to Jose leaving the country when he was fifteen
years old?
Speaker 2 (34:25):
Well she she means Cuba.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
Yeah, so could it have originated in Cuba?
Speaker 2 (34:31):
Yeah, I mean all those countries were there was there
was a lot of miceive practices.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
Might Jose have left because of that? But there's so
many other reasons why people left, Well, the.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
And the state, Yeah, you're right, and who knows. But
the stated reasons were literally that they they lost all
their stuff as a result of the revolution, and they
sent him to the States. But maybe he also saw
it as a as an escape.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
Who knows, right, All right, let's take another break. What
do you say, let's do it all right? Back from
the break annual patron Sarah from Italy. She says, I
really love the Menendez Brothers deep Dive, but please please
do follow ups. There's a lot more information, For example,
(35:17):
the dramatization Monsters, the mini series on Netflix twenty twenty four.
Sarah says, a lot of that show is not factual.
Just chiming in. Do you know anything about that?
Speaker 2 (35:33):
Yeah, I mean I watched it. It's really good. But
they also filled in the blanks. Well, I mean, to
be fair, I don't.
Speaker 1 (35:42):
They filled in all the blanks because they don't. They
only were going off of the accounts.
Speaker 2 (35:46):
Right and what To be fair, though, we also don't
know what didn't happen, right. I mean, that's not a
great way to put it, because when you're making a show,
you're taking a stance on what each scene is right.
So granted, more likely than not, there's tons of stuff
that's wrong. But at the same time, it wasn't all
just invented out of thin air, like everything they at
(36:07):
least everything I saw in that show I could trace
to some some account from some relative or some you know.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
A reasonable extrapolation on the data, except there was one
detail that the shower scene something right.
Speaker 2 (36:23):
Yeah, so there was there was a shower scene where
the two brothers are having sexual encounter and the mom
walks in on them. Actually, that's probably not the only
To be fair, I'm sure there were more scenes, not
remembering every single detail, but that one in particular was
called out as like, well, that's why do you add that,
Like that's ridiculous, And that's fair because the Menanda's brothers
(36:46):
did admit that there was abuse when he was younger,
but they didn't say like, oh, and we were having
an active homosexual relationship.
Speaker 1 (36:51):
Right right, the kinds of things that they might embellish on.
Like when I watched it as well, there's an initial
scene when the two brothers are talking and it's when Eric,
the younger one, is starting to burst at the seams
(37:12):
regarding the traumas that and the emotional struggles and is
alluding to it, and then the older brother is caring
and loving but also telling him like, you've got to
keep that under wraps, You've got to turn that into
agger or something, because that can't come out, you know.
And that scene was pretty specific and was you know,
(37:35):
extrapolating on data, but also there were there were things
that they were depicting and saying essentially about their relationship
and the way that it was that was extremely speculative. Sure,
now you know, you've got to cut some corners at
some point.
Speaker 2 (37:50):
Because it's a dramatization. So we could point to any
Ted Bundy.
Speaker 1 (37:55):
But my point is is that that extrapolation is I
think more inner animal than having the two of them
in a shower. Having them in a shower together as
young men is salacious. The only reason why you're doing
that is because you want to create a splash with
your stupid TV show.
Speaker 2 (38:12):
That I can totally agree with, Yeah, because that first
of all, it didn't it didn't like sort of add
any information that was pertinent to why they would kill
their parents, right, And there was zero accounts or evidence
that that was going on, right.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
Yeah, I mean if there were, then okay, But there weren't,
So why would you just invent that going on? Also,
Sarah says the Menendez Brothers podcast some actual direct information
from the brothers on the lead up to the murder.
Eric says he believes to this day that his father
(38:52):
was about to kill him. What do you think about
that one?
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Well, they stated that they actually never well this is
kind of funny to say, because they did as a
way to close the book on their story so that
they would essentially be eligible for even being reconsidered in
their sentencing. They did take full responsibility, and they said
(39:16):
they don't blame anyone, and they killed their parents, end
of story, right now. At the same time, they didn't
say and the abuse didn't happen, right Like, they never
recanted that, But from the start and throughout the trial,
they did claim that they had that fear. And given
that they both testified that they had confronted the father
(39:36):
about the ongoing abuse and that they were going to
talk about it, and that the father was getting concerned
about the therapist and knowing what they knew about their father.
I mean, I guess they would be naive or abuse
victims to not think that their father might kill them,
you know, but you know, how do you know exactly?
Speaker 1 (39:56):
Also, they say he also believed, Eric believed all those
years that he was protecting his mother from the truth,
and his world collapsed when he discovered she knew all along.
So that's another detail.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
Yeah, Yeah, one thing that I mean I appreciated about
that dramatization even if it's incorrect. Maybe, but I don't know,
I have no way to know. Is there is this
aspect where they showed both perspectives. They showed like the
last few days from the parents perspective, and they tried
(40:32):
to show it without like there was no They didn't
show scenes where the father was secretly winking at the
mirror and going like, aha, I might get away with it. No,
there were just like two people going about their business
and they were still acting like they were a loving
couple even though And I like that for two reasons. One,
there's this perception because we all watched so much media
(40:54):
that like, if there's abuse going on, then it's obvious
at all times in every context, right. And then too
that there's only one side to every story, right, And
so I kind of appreciated that they kind of showed that.
They didn't say which one is the right thing, They
just kind of showed like, this is what was happening
according to the accounts. Because to be fair, the account
(41:16):
from the prosecution and from others that were not as
invested in their defense was that you know that this
came out of nowhere. And that the parents were fine, right,
So you.
Speaker 1 (41:27):
Know, yeah, they didn't show Eric having difficult emotions in
a way that made it seem unjustified, So they reflected
I think reality well in that way. But yeah, they
also didn't show Jose and Kitty. But I guess we're
(41:49):
Jose the father as some creepizoid who's obviously evil and
is winking at the camera in another sort of way.
Speaker 2 (42:00):
Yeah, Like they showed the scenes that would have been
like the public evidence sort of again obviously dramatized, but
like when he's yelling at them at the tennis court,
and obviously anyone that would be watching that would be like, man,
what an asshole, Right, But that doesn't mean that same
person is secretly brutally violating the right sun right.
Speaker 1 (42:17):
And they didn't show flashbacks of the boys being sexually
abused or anything, so they kept to the facts in
that way. And I appreciate it also because it reflects
the ambiguity of these kinds of accounts. That's almost always
inherent with these sorts of accounts, and it reflects accurately
(42:40):
that abusers like this don't show any signs if you're
just a fly in the wall, as they're having dinner
with their kids, or they're at work, you know.
Speaker 2 (42:50):
And there was those other interesting scenes where and actually
this was according to their account, so there's some reason
to believe that kind of unfolded this way. When they
discover that Lyle doesn't have hair, you know, like he's
got a hair piece, and the father switches from it
from he was completely irate about stuff right to when
(43:10):
she rips off. When the mother rips off the hair piece,
the father switches to concern for his firstborn and he's
like and it's again shows that dichotomy of like, well,
how would it be possible that's such a monster. But
that's the thing is, like these people are humans with complex.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
Yeah, and it also kind of made Lyle into a
bit of a pompous jerk face, you know what I mean.
I mean, not horribly, but he the way he comes
across is a little douchebaggy, you know.
Speaker 2 (43:40):
Yeah. And now at the same time you have to consider, like,
you know, a why did he lose the hair in
the first place, and be the pressure of because you
can tell like a lot of the father's ego is
invested in his son's being perfect, right, So what a
bald Son at that young age would mean to his ego.
Speaker 1 (43:59):
Yeah, Now, what I'll say to anyone who was concerned
or something that in the Deep Dive we didn't go
over every single detail, I would say that we would
still be talking about it every day. If we're going
over every day. There are certain things that you just
have to exclude for time. And you know, the Deep
(44:20):
Dive took several chapters, so.
Speaker 2 (44:22):
And what's funny is that if we hadn't, if we
hadn't taken so long, if that hadn't been so much content,
there's some stuff we wouldn't have gotten to record, which
was happening as we were recording, which was the latest
judgment about their their ability to be to be eligible
for parole.
Speaker 1 (44:37):
Yeah, last email annual page anonymous patrons. She says, if
you're doing a follow up on the parole outcome, I
think doctor Honda would especially appreciate. The Two Angry Men
podcast episode, the brothers are on the podcast and discussed
and this discussed their current mindset, accountability and apologize apology
(44:58):
and offered insight into their behavior in perspective. They explain
how despite not expecting expecting to ever be released, they
explained how they've undertaken remarkable self rehabilitation in prison, like
they have created and ran prison programs to support fellow
inmates with trauma and meditation me ME meditation UH in
(45:25):
with trauma, working in hospice care, and with the disabled.
They've done that. They've earned college degrees, so I guess
that gets that if there's employability. They have contributed to
California's green Space initiatives, and they've run a therapy dog
program in prison. They also share their potential post prison plans,
(45:48):
like wanting to continue working with the prison system to
support inmates and victims. Interesting fact, Lyle and Eric helped Mentor,
a famous hip hop artist named x rated in prison
and assisted him in gaining the possibility of parole and
his eventual release. This artist now, in turn, advocates for
(46:08):
the brother's parole, including testifying for them and even writing
a song called Sins of the Father in their honor.
I listened to the song and it's a hip hop song. Wow.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
You know what churse to me is that they are
also their father's sons in the good ways, meaning his father,
their father was clearly a very intelligent and industrious person,
right and Therefore, it's not too shocking that they reportedly
(46:41):
the mother was also very intelligent herself, so it wouldn't
be too shocking that the two of them would have
the capability to do a lot of good things if
they apply themselves. So that's encouraging to hear.
Speaker 1 (46:51):
So. Final word on this final episode of our deep
dive on the men and his brothers Berto.
Speaker 2 (46:57):
Yeah, I have remained in my position, which is I
ultimately although not you know, I can't say, hey, you know,
it's great, just go murder someone and break the law.
I do still believe that they were traumatized, and I
believe that there were extenuating circumstances to those murders, and
(47:18):
so I do believe that they should be eligible for paroles.
So I'm I'm glad from that perspective.
Speaker 1 (47:23):
And.
Speaker 2 (47:26):
I if they do, it'd be interesting to see if
they do positive things with the remainder part of their life,
that'd be really great.
Speaker 1 (47:34):
Maybe they'll come on our podcast.
Speaker 2 (47:35):
Yeah, I like to talk about it
Speaker 1 (47:37):
And everyone out there please take care of yourself because
you deserve it.
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!
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.