December 31, 2024 • 45 mins
The Menendez brothers story and their crime has captured the nations interest twice - both when the crime actually was convicted, and now, with renewed focus on the plight men can experience dealing with sexual assault. We go into the history of the brothers, their first and second trial, and what new evidence has come to light!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome back to another episode of Pocketball Talks.
(00:14):
This is your host, Brad.
Over at the controls as usual is Devin.
How's it going?
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year to all of our listeners out there.
At the time this is recording, it is between the two holidays, so we'll be getting this
published out a little bit, I think, before New Year's Day.
So hopefully all of you had some good celebrations with your loved ones.
We're going to talk about a not so loving incident between loved ones from the past
(00:39):
for quite a while ago.
And that's the Eric and Lyle Menendez brothers and their double homicide of their parents,
Jose and Kitty Menendez.
It's an interesting case that happened.
I remember it as I'm old enough to do that.
Devin was still a little wonder in his parents' eyes back in those days.
He was in my dad's ball sack.
(01:04):
He didn't really know about it until all this came back up again, but it's something I can
remember the time happening.
It's come back to light now, I think, just because of the change in the dynamics of how
society looks at different things.
And we'll jump into the history of this case a little bit, talk about why it's being discussed
again now and maybe where this thing will end up going.
So there's actually some interesting things.
(01:26):
This isn't necessarily new in the media.
It's new again, but this was a big deal back when it first happened.
There was a Dateline series on it.
There was that shitty Netflix show, Monsters, which dramatized a bunch of it and a lot of
it being incorrect.
And obviously the producers and directors had the opinion that Lyle and Eric weren't
molested and whatnot.
(01:46):
Be kind of shitty if it was a producer that, to find out if they were actually molested,
then this producer just went on this massive, hugely popular show.
That basically says they're not.
Imagine being that guy that claims a bunch of kids that were molested weren't and trying
to slam them.
And they really were.
(02:06):
Yeah.
But there was some interesting stuff.
A lot of the stuff that the judge left out, even bringing up the fact that they were molested,
they couldn't bring up in the second trial, so of course they were convicted.
Brad brought up a good point, which we'll bring up more later, in a defense they could
no longer use because they weren't female, which doesn't make any sense.
So I see a lot of parallels to this with the Richard Allen case, in that there was a lot
(02:29):
of imperfectness on the side of the state and some very questionable decisions in terms
of the evidence and what they allowed in and things like that.
Yeah, it's really interesting.
Does the media talk a lot about that at all, or is it just about the charges?
Well, the documentaries that I've watched or have taken a look at, it was really good
(02:54):
and kind of fun to go back and watch all this again because you remember the light you saw
through the time when it happened.
And I can remember, honestly, I didn't remember initially that there were two trials.
I remember once it started coming up, I was like, oh gosh, I forgot this thing got hung
first, and then it came back and got tried again.
But you were left with the impression that this was the right conclusion, I guess.
(03:19):
But they didn't get into the details of the evidence.
You didn't get to see that as much as I guess you would now.
And this was the very, very beginning of Court TV.
If people remember that, the Court TV channel, this was like their first big trial that was
ever put on television.
And the first one was fully televised, but then the second one was not.
(03:41):
The judge cut the television out.
The whole thing too is it's not even about if they should be exonerated or anything,
it's necessarily the argument is that they've been given too long of a sentence.
And I'd seen a lot of stats that most murderers in California get out after 13 years, which
is really short.
13 years?
Yeah, that's like the average.
I don't know if that's, obviously that's probably not the end of their sentence.
(04:02):
They still have parole and whatnot.
But most of them get out after 13 years.
Well, that's a different degree of murderers too.
That's probably taken into account all the different types.
All the different kinds.
Yeah.
But I feel like the media never really talks about the improperness or the evidence that
was let out and whatnot.
That was not something that I can remember back.
So this was really weird in its timing.
(04:23):
So the first trial, it was everything in the news.
And then, and just to give a little history of this, this happened back in the summer
of 1989.
The two brothers were 18 and 21 years old.
I think Eric was the oldest, Lyle was the youngest.
They end up, both parents end up dead.
(04:44):
They call it into the police themselves, say that they came into the house and found them
that way.
That story quickly unravels and is easily pretty dispelled.
And it becomes pretty clear that they were the ones that did it.
And they eventually admit to being the ones that do it.
And their defense turns into a defense related to allegations of a long history of sexual
(05:06):
abuse.
Eric, the oldest brother, first says that he was being sexually abused by his father
between the ages of six to eight.
And then at eight years old, it apparently starts turning over to his brother Lyle.
His brother Lyle says that he's molested basically from the age of eight all the way until they
(05:26):
kill their parents when he's 18.
And as the way that the story goes, as they would say it, the Lyle was 18 years old, looking
forward to going to college away from home so that he knew that that would bring an end
to this sort of nightmare he's been living in.
And his dad announces to him or tells Lyle and Eric both that Lyle is not going to go
(05:48):
to college out of the area.
They lived in Beverly Hills, but he's going to go to a local college and he's going to
stay home and live at home during college.
Well, it's at that point, according to Eric and Lyle, that Lyle and Eric realize he's
basically just committed him to four more years of being sexually tormented by his father.
(06:08):
And that's including anal sex, you know, the whole nine, everything, everything you could
do to do to another person that included all those.
And it's at that point they they they decide that the only way out is to kill their parents.
And so that's sort of the sets the whole stage for what happens in the in the in the trials.
(06:29):
Yeah.
So they claim they told the police at first that they threatened to expose their father
because he was a wealthy executive at an entertainment company.
And the founder of that company had ties to the pornography industry.
Of course, in this era, it's easy to think that the pornography industry would be like
something that is rife with guns and drugs and gangs, you know, just stuff that result
(06:52):
in a murder.
Right.
It's not it's not any of that.
But in that era, especially that era, yeah, they would think that that's all super bad
and because it's sex, they're all bad dudes.
And did you also know that ironically, because the second trial of Menendez Brothers gets
usurped by the O.J. Simpson trial.
But did you know his father is the person who hired O.J. to do the Hertz TV commercials
(07:14):
back in the day?
I didn't know that.
Very ironic.
Yep.
So after threatening to expose their father, they claim he became hostile and violent and
they grabbed the shotguns and they murdered their parents.
Full murders by brutally, like literally, you hear the story of the father's the back
of the father's head is blown off.
And while they were there investigating it, his brain spill out of his head onto the floor.
(07:37):
Well, it is a shotgun.
So unlike what most movies show, a shotgun will shred you right.
House like that's why I don't understand why people got shot in the chest or stomach.
I don't understand why people have those weapons for home defense, because it's like you're
not even going to want to live in a house and destroy your house.
And you're going to survive, though.
Yeah, but you're not going to want to live there anymore.
Knowing that there was a pool of human guts like right there.
If it's a rifle, yeah, they're still going to bleed, but they're not going to be you
(07:59):
know, they're going to win.
Turn in the gut dust.
So, yeah, they claim they murdered their mother as well.
They claim that she was complicit in the sexual assault and knew what was going on the entire
time without stopping it.
I had seen other claims that she was actually involved in the molestations, but they're
not backed up as much.
So I don't know how much of that is here saying what isn't, but she was killed as well.
So they went on lavish shopping sprees and this is where their whole defense kind of
(08:23):
fell apart.
They didn't believe them and they thought that these were just some greedy rich kids
that wanted their parents money.
They did.
They they stood and inherited a fortune, but also there was like 14 million dollars in
insurance policies.
Well, yeah.
So they went on shopping sprees and they also were trying to get their father's will.
I'm pretty sure Eric was trying to do that as they believed they would be disinherited
(08:43):
from the house and the cops knew that they were trying to do that.
They contacted somebody who had the will and that person, of course, turned around and
notified the police.
So that looks really suspicious.
They did this like the second or third day after their parents death.
So they waited for nothing to settle in at all.
Because at first they were not they were not even treated as suspects.
(09:05):
They were completely looked as just, you know, the surviving children of people had brutally
murdered by some sort of violent act and that the kids were terribly distraught and acted
as if they were distraught at the time.
The members swooped in and started caring for them and supporting them.
(09:25):
It was not until several months later that they started being investigated as suspects.
Right.
So, you know, the brothers told police their father's dealing in the pornography business
and said the killings could have been linked to their father's job.
Obviously, the police don't believe that at all because they're not going in with the
whole, you know, sexist, satanism, satanism type thing that was going on at the time.
Authorities quickly found no evidence to support this and began focusing on the brothers.
(09:48):
Their suspicions were further heightened by finding out that the Menendez brothers shopping
sprees and their attempts at gaining their father's will, as we had said prior, in March
the following year, the brothers were arrested.
So it did take them quite some time to get arrested.
Yeah, about nine months, I believe.
Yeah.
At the time, Eric was actually in Israel for a tennis tournament.
And so Lyle was arrested first and Eric was arrested on the way back.
They actually let him finish his tennis tournament, which is quite nice.
(10:09):
So he was out of the country.
Yeah.
But I mean, we're pretty friendly with Israel.
You think we'd have an extradition thing there?
Maybe.
Yeah.
So they were waiting for him when he got off the airplane.
Yeah, they were.
They were waiting for him at the airport.
So when their trial began three years later, the brothers relied on a legal doctrine that's
as far as I know, only in three different states called imperfect self-defense and spoke
(10:29):
heavily about the abuse they experienced at the hands of their father.
Neighbors spoke on the weird and reclusive nature of the family and that, quote, something
wasn't right with them.
So now we'll talk a little bit about imperfect self-defense.
It's the concept that although not all elements of self-defense were proved, extenuating circumstances,
nonetheless, partially excuse the act that caused death.
And it's basically a way to argue for.
(10:51):
It's not a it's not a way when it's when it says imperfect.
It's not a way to be found not guilty, but it is a way to be for a jury to mitigate.
Yes.
One of the lesser types of murder, like murder to and voluntary are the options that they
had in this case.
Yeah.
It basically means the element of malice necessary for a murder conviction is not there and that
(11:11):
the person believed that they were in harm and danger and they had to use deadly force
to get out of it, but that was unreasonable belief.
Yeah, it was an honest belief was not.
It was unreasonable because under the, you know, as the prosecution will hammer home
throughout the trial, this case is look at all the options they had.
They were both adults.
(11:32):
They could have gone to the police.
They could have gone to other family.
They could have gone to clergy.
They could have gone to people at their school.
All the different options they had to try to get out of this while it were all options.
That's what makes this an imperfect self defense because there were other options they could
have used or could have taken that they chose not to.
Yeah, which is interesting because it says it's lacking malice.
(11:57):
So I imagine they have something like that.
I mean, how would that work in like what do we have a negligent manslaughter or reckless
homicide reckless homicide?
Right.
You know, mouse isn't there and that's all right.
And well, that's why it's a significantly lesser penalty for reckless homicide and significantly
less.
So California recognizes this.
(12:17):
Michigan recognizes this.
However, the doctrine can only be used where the defendant would have would have had a right
to self defense, but for the fact that the defendant was the initial aggressor.
So of course, in a situation where two people start fighting and one guy started the fight,
but the other one pulls out a gun and then that guy shoots him.
I imagine probably he would get imperfect self defense in the U.S. state of California.
Defendant can be convicted of manslaughter, but not murder when imperfect self defense
(12:39):
is successfully proven.
And that's what the defense strategy was.
Right.
So there was an example out of California that I pulled.
If someone threatens a person with a red toy gun and that person unreasonable unreasonably,
but genuinely believes there's a real gun and kills the person holding the gun because
of that belief, the person would be guilty, not a first degree murder, only voluntary
manslaughter, which OK, I guess you're being a little bit nice.
(13:00):
But if you really think guns being pointed at you, you know, you're really going you're
going to react.
You know what I mean?
And two cops do that all the time and they're kind of just cool with it.
Like it just happens.
Well, well, OK.
That's a whole nother show.
A lot of time.
The difference in Indiana for voluntary manslaughter, you have to show that it killed another person
in the heat of passion.
(13:22):
So in a heightened sense of passion without the it's very similar to this because it's
like it's saying you didn't have the thoughtfulness of went behind killing somebody like in a
homicide.
It was in the heat of the moment you responded like in a snap decision and killed somebody.
The classic decision, the classic example of voluntary manslaughter in Indiana is where
(13:43):
somebody like walks in on their wife cheating on their husband, cheating on cheating on
them with somebody else.
The person snaps and kills the kiss, kills the spouse, kills the cheating person, whoever
kills them both.
That's a classic voluntary manslaughter.
Not Indiana voluntary manslaughter still carries a very hefty penalty, not nearly as lenient
as is in California.
So not always the same strategy would be implemented in a defense case because you're still talking
(14:08):
about committing your client to quite a lengthy prison sentence on a voluntary manslaughter
charge in Indiana.
But in California, voluntary manslaughter could be quite a lesser sentence in terms
of its length.
And so in this case, the Menendez brothers have two separate attorneys, one as a hired
attorney who's got a very good reputation, well known in the criminal ring.
(14:32):
And then the other one has a public defender who actually turns out to do a really exceptional
job for him as well.
So why is that?
I don't know.
I found that very odd that they came up with the money to hire an attorney for one, but
not the other.
I'm just not I don't know if the family, I guess maybe the family strategy was the one
hired attorney would kind of do work for both of them, even though they had their own separate
(14:54):
attorneys and they would get the benefit of that.
I'm not I'm just not sure.
I have no idea.
But that's what happened.
And so they go forward with with that as their defense, and it is a very lengthy trial goes
on for months.
They got to call a number of experts, I think seven or eight, nine experts.
(15:15):
They talked about the.
Their cousin or their aunt.
Yeah, I do.
Yeah.
So one of their cousins testified that when I believe it was the oldest brother was eight
years old, he confided in her.
He was being molested.
She summons the boy's mother's down to the basement and told her about it.
And she basically told the girl to mind her own business and to leave it alone.
(15:38):
And so she did.
She thought she wasn't supposed to say anything.
In addition to that, that cousin testifying, they also had several experts that were therapists
that had worked with the Melendez brothers and testified about their the impact of this
repeated abuse, as they had said it was.
Now the defense, the prosecution argued two fronts.
(16:00):
One, you know, they could be lying that they just make this all up just to garner sympathy
from the from the jury.
And then two, regardless of that is true, no matter how big of a monster the dad was,
that's not a not a reason to ever justify killing somebody.
And if you kill, kill somebody in cold blood like that, it's still murder.
Period.
End of game.
(16:21):
Meanwhile, American officials write their name and signatures on bombs that were going
to deliver to Middle East children.
Right in the killing people in cold blood is a bad, bad thing.
Killing pedophiles are very bad.
Right.
Well, so we can bomb children just because they're born on the wrong side of the ocean.
What interesting perspective on the on the spin of this.
(16:43):
But the at the at the conclusion of the trial, this jury is made up, I think, of half men
and half women.
Men don't care unless they're not.
Dad's not on trial.
If he's a dead, he's a monster, but he didn't deserve to be killed in cold blood.
There's lots of other options for these two boys and they didn't choose to take him.
So now they get to be convicted of murder.
(17:06):
Defense was this is a horrific scene.
They thought they had no way out.
They felt like they were in a corner.
The brother had just found out that he was going to be stuck in this sole scenario for
four more years.
Yeah.
I mean, imagine a kid in high school when you're in high school, you feel like high school
is everything.
So you're going to tell a kid to go against their parents when that's like their whole
life.
(17:26):
One is that as this is a famous well, we're not.
Yeah.
Rich is like I just I would feel like I had schools, not an option going to families,
not an option.
You tried to believe it.
I believe me.
Yeah.
Right.
And so that's their defense is that this is voluntary manslaughter.
They reacted while in a genuine way for them and, you know, imperfect in a self-defense
(17:48):
sort of traditional way.
So they should be hit with volunteer voluntary.
They would probably gotten there on the 10, 12 year range.
Everybody thought that would be fine result from the defense perspective.
And so that's what they argued for.
This case gets turned over to the jury and it is a whole month of deliberations.
They came back and reported to the judge that they were stuck and hung and not going to
(18:10):
change their mind for quite a period of time, several times in a row.
And the judge kept sending him back and telling him to continue to deliberate.
And from the very beginning, it was split men versus women.
And all the men on the jury 100 percent wanted to be convicted of murder.
All the men did all the men did all the women on the jury wanted to convict them of voluntary
manslaughter.
(18:31):
So odd.
And over a month's time, nobody's vote changed.
That's that's unheard of in the jury dynamic world.
Now beforehand, you said something that at this time, you know, it was not that long
ago, more people thought that like men couldn't be raped, et cetera, et cetera.
Do you think that's where that men's decision of wanting to convict comes from?
(18:52):
Yeah, from what I was learning from watching the documentary over and there's some jurors
that that talked in this, but I don't believe any of the male jurors did from the first
trial.
There were from the second trial, but the women reported that the men were of the mindset
that the dad would never have done these things to the boys.
They just didn't believe it.
(19:14):
They didn't believe a guy like him would molest children.
And this was before sexual assault of men was really a thing.
I know that's hard to like fathom, but it just wasn't a thing.
And so probably and this is covered in the documentary to probably.
(19:36):
I don't know, maybe it was six months to a year after the first trial.
Oprah Winfrey did and I can remember this, I can remember this episode of Oprah.
Oprah Winfrey did a an episode of her show that she, you know, everybody knows she had
a talk show for years and years and years where she had filled the entire audience with
(19:57):
men.
And, you know, in the shows, nobody knew what the show was when it started.
And you look around the room and the entire audience is men.
Well, that's unusual for an Oprah show.
Oprah show was usually, you know, two to one women.
And the entire audience is men.
They all stand up and are all holding pictures of young boys in their hands.
And she starts out the show with them standing up with all having a picture of a young boy
(20:20):
in their hands.
And she says, I've got two hundred and fifteen men in my studio audience.
They're all holding a picture of themselves when they were first sexually assaulted.
And that changed the dynamic in the U.S. culture in the U.S. mindset about men being sexually
assaulted.
And it was just something that wasn't talked about and people pretended like it didn't
(20:41):
exist.
And when she did that show, it was like eye opening for everybody because in watching
this documentary, I remember that happened and everybody's like, what the fuck is this
problem that real?
Has it been happening like that all these years and we never we never knew about it?
And it just changed the dynamic.
It opened up a whole floodgate of discussion that had never been talked about before.
(21:05):
And these guys all had like that you could see like this giant, this giant like relief
lifted off these guys in this room that that hadn't been able to be talked about.
There are other people my age, 40, 50 year old guys.
And so that changed the dynamic.
Started the discussion of changing the dynamic that sexual assault was a female only thing.
(21:26):
And that's what the jurors thought on that first trial, the male jurors.
Unfortunately, it was not enough because the second trial, the brothers were not allowed
to invoke perfect and perfect self-defense after a ruling from the state's high court.
They were not allowed to bring up the fact that they were sexually molested.
I'm pretty sure.
Yeah.
So the judge in the second trial basically let them testify about what happened to them,
(21:50):
but did not allow the cousin to testify that corroborated that they had reported it before.
There was an uncle who had testified in the first trial that he watched as the father
set one of the boys on his lap when he was like five years old and punched him in the
face with a closed fist, which was consistent with the fear and abuse that they said they
(22:12):
had undergone their whole lives.
That guy was not allowed to testify.
I think almost none, either one or none of the psychologists from the first trial were
allowed to testify.
And so in the second trial, the lead.
So all their defense is thrown out, kind of like what we've seen with another case.
(22:33):
Yeah.
There is Richard Allen has his main defense stone.
Now it's kind of the same thing.
At the time this and also the first trial was televised.
The second trial was not allowed to be on television.
They did televised the motions where they were talking about keeping these things out.
And in that the lead defense attorney or the paid defense attorney, since she was the lead,
(22:53):
she was the one of the two defense attorneys was very emotional, literally screaming at
the judge, telling him that, you know, you are preventing our clients from having a fair
trial.
This is not wise evidence that was allowed and relevant in the first trial, somehow not
relevant and allowed in the second trial.
Those two rulings are completely consistent.
(23:14):
It doesn't make any sense.
And then in a press conference around the same time, she was saying the judge just put
a shotgun to my client's head and pulled it.
We don't have a chance of winning this trial.
And she was right.
The jury pretty swiftly came back.
That's already the case with hung trials, too.
Like you're like 95 percent more likely to get convicted the second time.
Right.
(23:34):
A second trial is a highly advantageous to the state.
And this is exactly why.
Well, they threw a bunch of shit out.
Well, but OK, but the state does a lot of things to change the narrative.
Because they know they now know exactly what the defense is going to do.
They'll go in and be able to attack the witnesses in ways they weren't able to because they
(23:54):
now have a whole game plan for what they're going to do.
And they they decide we're going to attack this defense beforehand and try to keep it
out.
And it worked this time.
And so the sex don't get that from a judge perspective, though, like why it was a lot
of the first time.
Yeah.
I'm hard to understand.
Really, really, really hard to understand.
I mean, I can understand legally the ruling behind it.
(24:18):
But the inconsistency of the two rulings, I just don't understand how it could be relevant
the first time and not the second time.
He also took the court, the cameras out of the courtroom.
So nobody got to see the trial and how it played out in the second time around.
There were some jail phone calls recorded by an individual with the oldest brother where
(24:40):
he implied that perhaps he had or that he would be willing to lie to get out of some
of the trouble he was in.
But because of some evidentiary issues, none of those phone calls came in in the second
trial.
So the but because of that, Lyle didn't testify the second time because he asked a friend
and an ex-girlfriend to make those false claims.
So Lyle didn't testify the second time.
Right.
(25:01):
And so the trial came out completely different.
A lot of things were changed.
And so now the evidence comes about completely different in their their sentenced or they're
convicted of first degree murder, unanimous verdict didn't take that long, especially
compared to the first one.
At this point, the OJ Simpson trial is underway.
(25:21):
So America has sort of flipped their interest.
They don't care anymore.
They're watching the whole OJ thing.
It made news when the convictions came out.
Both brothers were sentenced to life.
They were led to believe that they were going to be put in the same prison together and
(25:41):
pretty I mean, all depending on how you look at it, but a pretty heartbreaking part of
the documentary, the two brothers are at the county jail have been in the same county jail
now for like six years and they find out that they're not going to the same prison.
They're handcuffed and they get put in two separate vans and the one brother is screaming
(26:02):
out the top of his lungs for the other brother through the the van doors because they had
been led to believe they were going to be put in the same prisons.
They are then they then go to prison have been there for 25, 35 years, whatever it is
now in separate prisons until recently about I think six or seven maybe years ago.
(26:25):
I could be a little off on that date after lots of petitions from the brothers.
They actually let them be reunited in the same prison.
They now see each other every day.
So now it's kind of where the story picks up where.
Yep, here's modern day.
I speak a little bit faster than Brad slow rambling because he thinks at the same time
(26:46):
he speaks much more professional and entertaining voice, though.
No, it is not.
I fall asleep.
I don't know how you guys aren't falling asleep.
Anyways, Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon announced that he would seek
to have the brothers resentenced to 50 years to life, which makes them immediately eligible
for sorry.
Talk so fast.
I couldn't hear that.
Do you need me to repeat it?
(27:08):
I'll speak like you do.
Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon.
Wow.
Announced.
Very impressive.
Anyways, so he said that while their crimes were brutal and premeditated, that the brothers
had been exceptional inmates who helped others behind bars, remained out of trouble and took
college courses.
(27:29):
I'm sure Lyle really enjoys that now that he can do that without being molested.
After losing the election, the new DA Nathan Hockman said he would review the facts of
the case before making a request for resensing.
So little blurb.
The old prosecutor was super left liberal, whatever you want to call it.
This new guy is a lot more right wing.
I think there's like a huge right wing surge going through California right now.
(27:52):
So it was postponed.
This was originally supposed to happen like November, beginning of December, and they're
pushing it back to January 30th and 31st.
They're doing them separately, which means that they could be separated again.
Don't really understand how, but I guess the facts of what's possible.
It's possible that they could be.
I mean, they play different roles in this, so it's possible one could be modified and
one couldn't do.
You think that the facts of the case are pretty much identical unless you're going to be like
(28:14):
this guy pulled a trigger and this guy didn't.
Yeah, but the idea of of doing this was a little bit more of the older brother's idea.
So he was a little bit more of the mastermind behind it.
So you can see where they could potentially the and the one was 18.
So you could see where they could potentially treat them differently.
I don't think that's going to happen.
I think if they're going to modify, they're probably both going to get modified.
(28:36):
So the old prosecutor, Grassohn, also said his office was reviewing a petition for the
brothers that challenges their convictions, not just tries to reduce their sentencing.
This petition includes two pieces of evidence to support the petition, including a photocopied
letter that Eric said he wrote to a cousin months before the murders.
And so that's what Brad had talked about.
This same cousin was the one who spoke at the first trial.
(28:59):
The second trial they weren't allowed in.
I think because it was argued it was hearsay because, you know, she was saying what was
something else was said to him.
Now she actually had this photocopied letter that Eric wrote to her.
So it was like proof that this actually.
So one of the reasons you can get a new trial post conviction and it's under what's called
post conviction relief is if there's new evidence discovered that was not able to have been
(29:20):
known at the time of the trial.
Yeah.
So that letter apparently appears to show Eric telling the cousin that the about the
abuse and saying it's getting worse.
Years ago when it was happening, when it was happening.
Yeah, when it was happening.
Right.
So now here's after the fact you've you're pretty much all up to speed, but there is
a couple more little bits of information I found to be really interesting that all the
documentaries either leave out another piece of information to what the band.
(29:45):
Yeah, I was going to get on that.
All the documentaries either leave out or mentioned like in a way that doesn't seem
like it's that important, but it is.
Lyle began losing his hair at just 14 and that's an indication of the psychological
toll he had as a kid.
They'd also they also suffered from arrest development with Lyle, for instance, still
(30:05):
playing with stuffed animals and wetting his bed as a teenager due to the lasting effects
of the abuse and Eric struggling with learning disabilities that went unaddressed by his
parents.
I've heard of kids that were molested like still being as they get older.
I've heard of that being a thing.
I don't know why.
Maybe to like protect themselves in their sleep because, you know, you don't want to
play with a pissy kid or perhaps.
Yeah, some of might have been when they would leave the bedroom for any reason, they got
(30:28):
pulled into another room.
So if they left the red room to go to the bathroom, it was dangerous.
Roy Rossello, this is what Brad was just talking about.
He was a former member of the boy band Menudo, who revealed that he was abused by Jose Menendez,
the Menendez, the brother's father.
So this was another kid who was abused in the same way that Eric and Lyle had said.
I don't think this guy spoke at any of the trials.
(30:51):
I don't think this was public.
No, he was not known.
And it never came out or provided that information prior to either two trials.
Yeah.
So nobody knew this.
So there's four.
There's more.
Very new information.
Yeah, that's new.
And now this to me is the most and he is somebody that the the the the the Menendez father would
have had contact with like the timing where he says it happened.
(31:13):
Access to that kid was to he had access to that kid at the time.
So it isn't like somebody's just making up a story that if somebody that didn't even
know the dad, this dad actually had interactions with this kid during the time frame.
He says he was molested by him.
Right.
This to me is what gave me the most goosebumps.
This is the last bit.
And then we'll leave you off with this for the holidays.
Eric wrote to his cousin Andy in 1988, the essay written by 14 year old Lyle says, I
(31:37):
will change your verdict.
And it is about a man soon to be executed for killing a child molester and the length
of the testimonies from dozens of relatives, coaches, neighbors and friends that substantiated
the brothers claims.
So it's almost like.
He spoke of his his.
So the way that the that letter is written is almost like his future path that he goes
(32:00):
down like it talks about all these family members pouring in support to the courts and
the courts not accepting it and convicting the guy anyways.
And the letter is basically about how you would convict someone of murder.
But I will change your verdict because then you find out the murder is a pedophile.
Or the killer or the guy that died, you know, victim, whatever is a molester, et cetera,
(32:23):
et cetera, et cetera.
He wrote this when he was 14 and then goes through this exact same thing four years later.
Yeah.
And that's that's a double edged sword.
I mean, some of the some of the prosecution would say that that was just, you know, a
sign that as he had this meditated masterminded thing and made up this story eons before he
(32:44):
enforced it.
Others would say that's a very sign of a kid that's going through trauma and is trying
to figure out how to do that.
Yeah.
I mean, pretty, pretty warped, to say the least.
It's very interesting to the.
The family is still mostly supportive of the brothers.
Even the grandmother who's you know, this is one of her kids was killed in this kid.
(33:06):
Now there's a lives a brother.
So an uncle of the mother who's adamantly against the brothers and thinks that, you
know, maintains the father would never have done anything like this.
The mother wouldn't have stood for it.
The mother, if if you believe what the story is for the menendez frame of mind, the mother
(33:31):
is this pretty, pretty almost evil character in this because she's really into her societal
appearances.
She's very much into her status as this rich wife in Beverly Hills.
Of course, she'd want to keep that shit quiet.
Her status is at risk.
Right.
And so she's protective of that over the health of her own children.
(33:57):
It's there's no doubt if these things happen to the two brothers, the Menendez brothers.
And you know, if you listen to it, it's pretty compelling that something did happen.
But you're left with the feeling that there's no doubt the mother knew about it and was
helping cover it up because she didn't want them and their lifestyle to be exposed.
(34:18):
She saw she's portrayed as a pretty cold hearted individual that's not really invested in her
children a whole lot.
She's invested in their lifestyle.
And so she kind of just lets us all ride by.
And in the meantime, you know, if you believe what happened to both brothers and by the
(34:39):
way, one of the most emotional parts of the testimony, because in the documentary, they
actually show lots of clips from the actual testimony in the first trial, the older brother
Eric testifies that when he's like nine years old, he takes Lyle out into the woods and
molests him just like their dad did to them.
(35:02):
And it's it's it's it to me, it was the most compelling part of the testimony in believing
their side of the story and that they are either two of the best actors ever or something
really happened because Eric's very emotional about molesting his brother and telling that
side of the story.
And he starts getting extremely choked up.
(35:24):
And in the testimony, he cries out, I'm so sorry.
And when his brother hears the apology, he starts sobbing like shaking uncontrollably,
sobbing at the at the apologies he's just heard from his brother.
And he later tested or talks about it in the documentary.
He's like, you know, that happened to me.
(35:44):
And I also felt terrible about what my brother did to me.
And he never ever apologized to me for it before.
And until then, and he goes, we were a lot older and it happened when we were younger.
So I kind of decided to let it go.
Then he goes, when he apologized to me in public on the stand for it, it just like hit
me in a really raw way.
And if you look at the emotions, they were both, you know, jaws quivering stuff that
(36:08):
is pretty high level acting if you're if you're doing it.
And these aren't trained actors.
I mean, they're that looks real.
And the first jury, the women on the jury felt that it was real.
And it was really interesting, too.
And they interviewed the female jurors, the dynamic.
They were like, I guess it's like a lot of us, a lot of us females had dealt with some
(36:28):
sort of sexual abuse.
And so we could relate to what we were hearing.
And maybe the men on our jury had never had that.
And they didn't want to believe that something like that could happen by a father, especially
a father of this stature.
They said that we were just a polar opposites of it.
You know, he said women were adamant that why are we not cutting these guys a break?
I think men also just react different to someone crying.
(36:49):
I guess I get older, someone crying immediately, like actually makes me less likely to take
their side because I've seen that used as manipulation so many times.
Yeah.
But to me, that's like instant.
No, no.
But don't you get don't you feel like there's a sense that you can sense when like crying
is more visceral?
Yeah, I guess.
Like, yeah, I know you mean, you know, like when you see somebody crying at a funeral
(37:13):
and they're like, yeah, it's a whole body.
And it's yeah, yeah, that's what they were doing.
And it and it reached its peak, not where they were talking about the abuse from their
father, but where they talked about the abuse between the two of them.
And he apologized for it was the most where they were both most of both the most emotionally
saw him throughout the trial.
I mean, I haven't seen the trial, but just from hearing it to me, it seems like but,
(37:36):
you know, also hindsight's twenty twenty, but seems kind of hard.
To envision that and then think that I wouldn't believe them, you know, I mean, yeah, I, you
know, having set in numerous trials where I've seen lots of people testify.
And I know for a fact that people take the stand and lie happens in our business, regardless
of what anybody says or system.
(37:58):
You swear people under oath and it's meaningless to most people or a lot of people take the
stand.
It's meaningless.
But you get a good sense of when people are being legit.
And when you watch that moment between the two brothers where it hit the brother that
it was the one that was molested and it was it was visceral.
(38:19):
It was it was believable.
And so, yeah, it makes you you definitely left with the impression that.
At least more likely than not, highly more likely than not that this dad did something
to these boys.
And so do they deserve life without parole ever?
I mean, that's hard to imagine.
(38:39):
They don't deserve something less than that.
It's so odd to me, because you said this earlier and anyone is bringing up then because it
would totally derail the conversation.
But you had said the prosecutor said something along the lines of even if this did happen
and this guy was a monster, he's not the one on trial and he didn't deserve to die.
Right.
Yet everybody, everybody, except for those that maybe view themselves as paragons of
(39:01):
Christianity or religion or whatever.
When you hear of a person that's a monster, you kind of like fantasize about them dying
or envision that it'd be better if they died.
Or as a culture, we imprison these people forever.
I've heard plenty of people say it'd be better for them to be dead instead of taking taxpayers
money or whatever.
As a country, we take out other leaders sometimes that we feel right.
(39:25):
So it's so odd to be like, oh, he's a monster, but he didn't deserve to die.
But as a culture, we kill monsters and we imprison them all the time.
Right.
So just seems like a faulty argument.
Yeah.
And I think that's where the first jury was left.
I mean, I think the the women of the jury were like this.
These guys don't deserve to do the rest of their life in prison.
Had they been convicted of the voluntary, they would have about 20 some years ago.
(39:47):
How, how much worse?
Like if they didn't go on that spending spree, do you think shit would have been different?
Because that tainted all of it.
That made them look like greedy, self-serving.
Yeah.
I mean, it's, it's hard to say.
I mean, when they're, if they're kids in Beverly Hills, California, they probably their whole
life was a spinning spree.
Right.
And I think they, they continued to live their life the way they had always lived it, which
(40:09):
is a pretty lavish lifestyle.
I mean, they were, they had professional tennis lessons and everything to them was seen it
on a silver spoon.
I don't know.
To me, if you see kids that are continuing to live the Beverly Hills lifestyle, you're
probably saying, oh, look at him living the lavish lifestyle.
That's what they grew up with.
That was their life change.
(40:30):
Yeah.
And interestingly enough though, the, the Menendez family, the mother and father immigrated
here.
They were first, they were first level immigrants to the United States.
Didn't come from any money at all.
Had made some money in their home country, but lost it all when they left.
And he started it up and from scratch and build a, build an empire.
(40:51):
But it was one of the things that interesting in the documentary, they said when they tried
to find somebody that would testify positively about his character, they couldn't find anyone,
not even family would come and testify positively about the dad's character as a businessman.
He was considered an asshole.
They said literally the only person they could find that would write a nice letter for him
was his personal assistant.
(41:13):
Nobody else.
That was it.
So that gives you a little idea of, you know, he was also somebody that was considered a
perfectionist and demanded perfection from the kids at all times.
So they were, I was always on top of them and said, you cannot screw this up.
You cannot screw that up and anything less than perfect wasn't accepted.
And obviously as one of the uncles testified, they would get hit in the face if something
(41:35):
was going awry.
So very toxic environment.
I think it is pretty, pretty clear.
A atmosphere and so odd to be a perfectionist, but then be so screwy in your fucking head
that you molest your kids.
Yeah.
And it was, it was also an interesting dynamic too, cause the boys have a love for their
mother, but then also a sense of betrayal from their mother too, because they, they
(42:00):
also felt like that their father was very abusive to the mother and in many ways was
kind of holding her hostage.
Like they did hurt him.
I feel like as you get older too, and you experience something like that, cause a grand,
I wasn't molester anything, but I was beat on as a kid.
As you get older, it's like a new wave of understanding because when you're a kid, you
don't really understand.
Then become a teenager and you understand what happened.
(42:22):
When you become an adult and you don't understand how someone could do that to you and you would
never do that to your kids.
Right.
And as you get older, you just keep like thinking like, learn how more fucked up it is.
Yeah.
Like you, cause you know, you, you start thinking like, okay, well now it's my time to have
these kids.
Could I see myself doing that?
Could I marry someone who would let me do that?
And it just, you, it just continuously gets more fucked up.
Well, that's why there's a cycle of a repetitive behavior when it comes to child molestation
(42:47):
because kids that grow up, especially like the, the, um, younger Menendez brother who's
molested for almost his entire developmental years, that is normal to him.
That is his normal, right?
Yeah.
That's why something that's completely abnormal and, uh, you know, abhorrent to everyone else
in society is normal to him because that's all he knows.
(43:08):
Right.
And so that leads to future child molesters because in their brain they've been conditioned
to think that that's a, yeah, that's a normal behavior.
So it tends to repeat itself.
Very interesting though.
The, the, um, the brothers have become sort of a beacon of, uh, male sexual assault survivors.
Yeah.
And inside the prison system, uh, and they provide, they've kind of provide counseling
(43:31):
in that way.
They, they have been role models in terms of their, uh, how they've acted in prison,
everything they've done in prison, they're liked inside the prison, they're given jobs
to do inside the prison.
They've behaved and not just behave, but also achieved in terms of making themselves better,
getting degrees and things of that nature.
Yeah.
What's the point of getting a degree if you're in college, like, or if you're in jail like
(43:52):
this though?
Well, I mean, I think, you know, they've, they have gotten to their self, their self
with the support of social media, which, you know, there are, there are some really bad,
I think mostly bad things about social media, but one of the things that can do is sometimes
bring to light some, uh, some injustices or some inequities that wouldn't otherwise get
attention.
This case I think falls into that category.
(44:13):
It's getting a whole new breath of attention that never got before or didn't get in years.
And now the people that can do something about it and the prosecutor, um, is looking at whether
he would agree to just letting them have a rescinds and hearing where the judge could
re sentence them altogether.
If, if that happens, I'd say there's a very high degree of probability that the judge
will give them a time served sentence and not, um, make them do any more time in prison.
(44:40):
Yeah, this, this prosecutor is supposedly like very right wing.
So I wouldn't be surprised if there's another wrench thrown into this before it's over.
Yeah.
He's been saying, I think since October he was going to consider it needs some more time
to understand it.
The judge has given them more time because there is a pending litigation on that post
conviction relief, um, where he can decide to do something different.
(45:01):
Hopefully hopefully he'll take a fresh look at it.
I mean, if you think that the brothers are telling, if you think the brothers telling
the truth, then it's hard, hard to believe that they don't deserve a second opportunity
here for sure.
Yeah.
So we'll keep an eye on this one.
Um, and the developments may or may not be worthy of another episode in the future.
We'll have to see how it pans out, but that's the latest on them and that Menendez brothers
(45:21):
and their current, uh, uh, attempts to try to get out of jail a little bit early.
Thank you for joining us for another episode of pocketball talks.
See you.
Welcome back to another episode of Pocketball Talks.
(00:14):
This is your host, Brad.
Over at the controls as usual is Devin.
How's it going?
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year to all of our listeners out there.
At the time this is recording, it is between the two holidays, so we'll be getting this
published out a little bit, I think, before New Year's Day.
So hopefully all of you had some good celebrations with your loved ones.
We're going to talk about a not so loving incident between loved ones from the past
(00:39):
for quite a while ago.
And that's the Eric and Lyle Menendez brothers and their double homicide of their parents,
Jose and Kitty Menendez.
It's an interesting case that happened.
I remember it as I'm old enough to do that.
Devin was still a little wonder in his parents' eyes back in those days.
He was in my dad's ball sack.
(01:04):
He didn't really know about it until all this came back up again, but it's something I can
remember the time happening.
It's come back to light now, I think, just because of the change in the dynamics of how
society looks at different things.
And we'll jump into the history of this case a little bit, talk about why it's being discussed
again now and maybe where this thing will end up going.
So there's actually some interesting things.
(01:26):
This isn't necessarily new in the media.
It's new again, but this was a big deal back when it first happened.
There was a Dateline series on it.
There was that shitty Netflix show, Monsters, which dramatized a bunch of it and a lot of
it being incorrect.
And obviously the producers and directors had the opinion that Lyle and Eric weren't
molested and whatnot.
(01:46):
Be kind of shitty if it was a producer that, to find out if they were actually molested,
then this producer just went on this massive, hugely popular show.
That basically says they're not.
Imagine being that guy that claims a bunch of kids that were molested weren't and trying
to slam them.
And they really were.
(02:06):
Yeah.
But there was some interesting stuff.
A lot of the stuff that the judge left out, even bringing up the fact that they were molested,
they couldn't bring up in the second trial, so of course they were convicted.
Brad brought up a good point, which we'll bring up more later, in a defense they could
no longer use because they weren't female, which doesn't make any sense.
So I see a lot of parallels to this with the Richard Allen case, in that there was a lot
(02:29):
of imperfectness on the side of the state and some very questionable decisions in terms
of the evidence and what they allowed in and things like that.
Yeah, it's really interesting.
Does the media talk a lot about that at all, or is it just about the charges?
Well, the documentaries that I've watched or have taken a look at, it was really good
(02:54):
and kind of fun to go back and watch all this again because you remember the light you saw
through the time when it happened.
And I can remember, honestly, I didn't remember initially that there were two trials.
I remember once it started coming up, I was like, oh gosh, I forgot this thing got hung
first, and then it came back and got tried again.
But you were left with the impression that this was the right conclusion, I guess.
(03:19):
But they didn't get into the details of the evidence.
You didn't get to see that as much as I guess you would now.
And this was the very, very beginning of Court TV.
If people remember that, the Court TV channel, this was like their first big trial that was
ever put on television.
And the first one was fully televised, but then the second one was not.
(03:41):
The judge cut the television out.
The whole thing too is it's not even about if they should be exonerated or anything,
it's necessarily the argument is that they've been given too long of a sentence.
And I'd seen a lot of stats that most murderers in California get out after 13 years, which
is really short.
13 years?
Yeah, that's like the average.
I don't know if that's, obviously that's probably not the end of their sentence.
(04:02):
They still have parole and whatnot.
But most of them get out after 13 years.
Well, that's a different degree of murderers too.
That's probably taken into account all the different types.
All the different kinds.
Yeah.
But I feel like the media never really talks about the improperness or the evidence that
was let out and whatnot.
That was not something that I can remember back.
So this was really weird in its timing.
(04:23):
So the first trial, it was everything in the news.
And then, and just to give a little history of this, this happened back in the summer
of 1989.
The two brothers were 18 and 21 years old.
I think Eric was the oldest, Lyle was the youngest.
They end up, both parents end up dead.
(04:44):
They call it into the police themselves, say that they came into the house and found them
that way.
That story quickly unravels and is easily pretty dispelled.
And it becomes pretty clear that they were the ones that did it.
And they eventually admit to being the ones that do it.
And their defense turns into a defense related to allegations of a long history of sexual
(05:06):
abuse.
Eric, the oldest brother, first says that he was being sexually abused by his father
between the ages of six to eight.
And then at eight years old, it apparently starts turning over to his brother Lyle.
His brother Lyle says that he's molested basically from the age of eight all the way until they
(05:26):
kill their parents when he's 18.
And as the way that the story goes, as they would say it, the Lyle was 18 years old, looking
forward to going to college away from home so that he knew that that would bring an end
to this sort of nightmare he's been living in.
And his dad announces to him or tells Lyle and Eric both that Lyle is not going to go
(05:48):
to college out of the area.
They lived in Beverly Hills, but he's going to go to a local college and he's going to
stay home and live at home during college.
Well, it's at that point, according to Eric and Lyle, that Lyle and Eric realize he's
basically just committed him to four more years of being sexually tormented by his father.
(06:08):
And that's including anal sex, you know, the whole nine, everything, everything you could
do to do to another person that included all those.
And it's at that point they they they decide that the only way out is to kill their parents.
And so that's sort of the sets the whole stage for what happens in the in the in the trials.
(06:29):
Yeah.
So they claim they told the police at first that they threatened to expose their father
because he was a wealthy executive at an entertainment company.
And the founder of that company had ties to the pornography industry.
Of course, in this era, it's easy to think that the pornography industry would be like
something that is rife with guns and drugs and gangs, you know, just stuff that result
(06:52):
in a murder.
Right.
It's not it's not any of that.
But in that era, especially that era, yeah, they would think that that's all super bad
and because it's sex, they're all bad dudes.
And did you also know that ironically, because the second trial of Menendez Brothers gets
usurped by the O.J. Simpson trial.
But did you know his father is the person who hired O.J. to do the Hertz TV commercials
(07:14):
back in the day?
I didn't know that.
Very ironic.
Yep.
So after threatening to expose their father, they claim he became hostile and violent and
they grabbed the shotguns and they murdered their parents.
Full murders by brutally, like literally, you hear the story of the father's the back
of the father's head is blown off.
And while they were there investigating it, his brain spill out of his head onto the floor.
(07:37):
Well, it is a shotgun.
So unlike what most movies show, a shotgun will shred you right.
House like that's why I don't understand why people got shot in the chest or stomach.
I don't understand why people have those weapons for home defense, because it's like you're
not even going to want to live in a house and destroy your house.
And you're going to survive, though.
Yeah, but you're not going to want to live there anymore.
Knowing that there was a pool of human guts like right there.
If it's a rifle, yeah, they're still going to bleed, but they're not going to be you
(07:59):
know, they're going to win.
Turn in the gut dust.
So, yeah, they claim they murdered their mother as well.
They claim that she was complicit in the sexual assault and knew what was going on the entire
time without stopping it.
I had seen other claims that she was actually involved in the molestations, but they're
not backed up as much.
So I don't know how much of that is here saying what isn't, but she was killed as well.
So they went on lavish shopping sprees and this is where their whole defense kind of
(08:23):
fell apart.
They didn't believe them and they thought that these were just some greedy rich kids
that wanted their parents money.
They did.
They they stood and inherited a fortune, but also there was like 14 million dollars in
insurance policies.
Well, yeah.
So they went on shopping sprees and they also were trying to get their father's will.
I'm pretty sure Eric was trying to do that as they believed they would be disinherited
(08:43):
from the house and the cops knew that they were trying to do that.
They contacted somebody who had the will and that person, of course, turned around and
notified the police.
So that looks really suspicious.
They did this like the second or third day after their parents death.
So they waited for nothing to settle in at all.
Because at first they were not they were not even treated as suspects.
(09:05):
They were completely looked as just, you know, the surviving children of people had brutally
murdered by some sort of violent act and that the kids were terribly distraught and acted
as if they were distraught at the time.
The members swooped in and started caring for them and supporting them.
(09:25):
It was not until several months later that they started being investigated as suspects.
Right.
So, you know, the brothers told police their father's dealing in the pornography business
and said the killings could have been linked to their father's job.
Obviously, the police don't believe that at all because they're not going in with the
whole, you know, sexist, satanism, satanism type thing that was going on at the time.
Authorities quickly found no evidence to support this and began focusing on the brothers.
(09:48):
Their suspicions were further heightened by finding out that the Menendez brothers shopping
sprees and their attempts at gaining their father's will, as we had said prior, in March
the following year, the brothers were arrested.
So it did take them quite some time to get arrested.
Yeah, about nine months, I believe.
Yeah.
At the time, Eric was actually in Israel for a tennis tournament.
And so Lyle was arrested first and Eric was arrested on the way back.
They actually let him finish his tennis tournament, which is quite nice.
(10:09):
So he was out of the country.
Yeah.
But I mean, we're pretty friendly with Israel.
You think we'd have an extradition thing there?
Maybe.
Yeah.
So they were waiting for him when he got off the airplane.
Yeah, they were.
They were waiting for him at the airport.
So when their trial began three years later, the brothers relied on a legal doctrine that's
as far as I know, only in three different states called imperfect self-defense and spoke
(10:29):
heavily about the abuse they experienced at the hands of their father.
Neighbors spoke on the weird and reclusive nature of the family and that, quote, something
wasn't right with them.
So now we'll talk a little bit about imperfect self-defense.
It's the concept that although not all elements of self-defense were proved, extenuating circumstances,
nonetheless, partially excuse the act that caused death.
And it's basically a way to argue for.
(10:51):
It's not a it's not a way when it's when it says imperfect.
It's not a way to be found not guilty, but it is a way to be for a jury to mitigate.
Yes.
One of the lesser types of murder, like murder to and voluntary are the options that they
had in this case.
Yeah.
It basically means the element of malice necessary for a murder conviction is not there and that
(11:11):
the person believed that they were in harm and danger and they had to use deadly force
to get out of it, but that was unreasonable belief.
Yeah, it was an honest belief was not.
It was unreasonable because under the, you know, as the prosecution will hammer home
throughout the trial, this case is look at all the options they had.
They were both adults.
(11:32):
They could have gone to the police.
They could have gone to other family.
They could have gone to clergy.
They could have gone to people at their school.
All the different options they had to try to get out of this while it were all options.
That's what makes this an imperfect self defense because there were other options they could
have used or could have taken that they chose not to.
Yeah, which is interesting because it says it's lacking malice.
(11:57):
So I imagine they have something like that.
I mean, how would that work in like what do we have a negligent manslaughter or reckless
homicide reckless homicide?
Right.
You know, mouse isn't there and that's all right.
And well, that's why it's a significantly lesser penalty for reckless homicide and significantly
less.
So California recognizes this.
(12:17):
Michigan recognizes this.
However, the doctrine can only be used where the defendant would have would have had a right
to self defense, but for the fact that the defendant was the initial aggressor.
So of course, in a situation where two people start fighting and one guy started the fight,
but the other one pulls out a gun and then that guy shoots him.
I imagine probably he would get imperfect self defense in the U.S. state of California.
Defendant can be convicted of manslaughter, but not murder when imperfect self defense
(12:39):
is successfully proven.
And that's what the defense strategy was.
Right.
So there was an example out of California that I pulled.
If someone threatens a person with a red toy gun and that person unreasonable unreasonably,
but genuinely believes there's a real gun and kills the person holding the gun because
of that belief, the person would be guilty, not a first degree murder, only voluntary
manslaughter, which OK, I guess you're being a little bit nice.
(13:00):
But if you really think guns being pointed at you, you know, you're really going you're
going to react.
You know what I mean?
And two cops do that all the time and they're kind of just cool with it.
Like it just happens.
Well, well, OK.
That's a whole nother show.
A lot of time.
The difference in Indiana for voluntary manslaughter, you have to show that it killed another person
in the heat of passion.
(13:22):
So in a heightened sense of passion without the it's very similar to this because it's
like it's saying you didn't have the thoughtfulness of went behind killing somebody like in a
homicide.
It was in the heat of the moment you responded like in a snap decision and killed somebody.
The classic decision, the classic example of voluntary manslaughter in Indiana is where
(13:43):
somebody like walks in on their wife cheating on their husband, cheating on cheating on
them with somebody else.
The person snaps and kills the kiss, kills the spouse, kills the cheating person, whoever
kills them both.
That's a classic voluntary manslaughter.
Not Indiana voluntary manslaughter still carries a very hefty penalty, not nearly as lenient
as is in California.
So not always the same strategy would be implemented in a defense case because you're still talking
(14:08):
about committing your client to quite a lengthy prison sentence on a voluntary manslaughter
charge in Indiana.
But in California, voluntary manslaughter could be quite a lesser sentence in terms
of its length.
And so in this case, the Menendez brothers have two separate attorneys, one as a hired
attorney who's got a very good reputation, well known in the criminal ring.
(14:32):
And then the other one has a public defender who actually turns out to do a really exceptional
job for him as well.
So why is that?
I don't know.
I found that very odd that they came up with the money to hire an attorney for one, but
not the other.
I'm just not I don't know if the family, I guess maybe the family strategy was the one
hired attorney would kind of do work for both of them, even though they had their own separate
(14:54):
attorneys and they would get the benefit of that.
I'm not I'm just not sure.
I have no idea.
But that's what happened.
And so they go forward with with that as their defense, and it is a very lengthy trial goes
on for months.
They got to call a number of experts, I think seven or eight, nine experts.
(15:15):
They talked about the.
Their cousin or their aunt.
Yeah, I do.
Yeah.
So one of their cousins testified that when I believe it was the oldest brother was eight
years old, he confided in her.
He was being molested.
She summons the boy's mother's down to the basement and told her about it.
And she basically told the girl to mind her own business and to leave it alone.
(15:38):
And so she did.
She thought she wasn't supposed to say anything.
In addition to that, that cousin testifying, they also had several experts that were therapists
that had worked with the Melendez brothers and testified about their the impact of this
repeated abuse, as they had said it was.
Now the defense, the prosecution argued two fronts.
(16:00):
One, you know, they could be lying that they just make this all up just to garner sympathy
from the from the jury.
And then two, regardless of that is true, no matter how big of a monster the dad was,
that's not a not a reason to ever justify killing somebody.
And if you kill, kill somebody in cold blood like that, it's still murder.
Period.
End of game.
(16:21):
Meanwhile, American officials write their name and signatures on bombs that were going
to deliver to Middle East children.
Right in the killing people in cold blood is a bad, bad thing.
Killing pedophiles are very bad.
Right.
Well, so we can bomb children just because they're born on the wrong side of the ocean.
What interesting perspective on the on the spin of this.
(16:43):
But the at the at the conclusion of the trial, this jury is made up, I think, of half men
and half women.
Men don't care unless they're not.
Dad's not on trial.
If he's a dead, he's a monster, but he didn't deserve to be killed in cold blood.
There's lots of other options for these two boys and they didn't choose to take him.
So now they get to be convicted of murder.
(17:06):
Defense was this is a horrific scene.
They thought they had no way out.
They felt like they were in a corner.
The brother had just found out that he was going to be stuck in this sole scenario for
four more years.
Yeah.
I mean, imagine a kid in high school when you're in high school, you feel like high school
is everything.
So you're going to tell a kid to go against their parents when that's like their whole
life.
(17:26):
One is that as this is a famous well, we're not.
Yeah.
Rich is like I just I would feel like I had schools, not an option going to families,
not an option.
You tried to believe it.
I believe me.
Yeah.
Right.
And so that's their defense is that this is voluntary manslaughter.
They reacted while in a genuine way for them and, you know, imperfect in a self-defense
(17:48):
sort of traditional way.
So they should be hit with volunteer voluntary.
They would probably gotten there on the 10, 12 year range.
Everybody thought that would be fine result from the defense perspective.
And so that's what they argued for.
This case gets turned over to the jury and it is a whole month of deliberations.
They came back and reported to the judge that they were stuck and hung and not going to
(18:10):
change their mind for quite a period of time, several times in a row.
And the judge kept sending him back and telling him to continue to deliberate.
And from the very beginning, it was split men versus women.
And all the men on the jury 100 percent wanted to be convicted of murder.
All the men did all the men did all the women on the jury wanted to convict them of voluntary
manslaughter.
(18:31):
So odd.
And over a month's time, nobody's vote changed.
That's that's unheard of in the jury dynamic world.
Now beforehand, you said something that at this time, you know, it was not that long
ago, more people thought that like men couldn't be raped, et cetera, et cetera.
Do you think that's where that men's decision of wanting to convict comes from?
(18:52):
Yeah, from what I was learning from watching the documentary over and there's some jurors
that that talked in this, but I don't believe any of the male jurors did from the first
trial.
There were from the second trial, but the women reported that the men were of the mindset
that the dad would never have done these things to the boys.
They just didn't believe it.
(19:14):
They didn't believe a guy like him would molest children.
And this was before sexual assault of men was really a thing.
I know that's hard to like fathom, but it just wasn't a thing.
And so probably and this is covered in the documentary to probably.
(19:36):
I don't know, maybe it was six months to a year after the first trial.
Oprah Winfrey did and I can remember this, I can remember this episode of Oprah.
Oprah Winfrey did a an episode of her show that she, you know, everybody knows she had
a talk show for years and years and years where she had filled the entire audience with
(19:57):
men.
And, you know, in the shows, nobody knew what the show was when it started.
And you look around the room and the entire audience is men.
Well, that's unusual for an Oprah show.
Oprah show was usually, you know, two to one women.
And the entire audience is men.
They all stand up and are all holding pictures of young boys in their hands.
And she starts out the show with them standing up with all having a picture of a young boy
(20:20):
in their hands.
And she says, I've got two hundred and fifteen men in my studio audience.
They're all holding a picture of themselves when they were first sexually assaulted.
And that changed the dynamic in the U.S. culture in the U.S. mindset about men being sexually
assaulted.
And it was just something that wasn't talked about and people pretended like it didn't
(20:41):
exist.
And when she did that show, it was like eye opening for everybody because in watching
this documentary, I remember that happened and everybody's like, what the fuck is this
problem that real?
Has it been happening like that all these years and we never we never knew about it?
And it just changed the dynamic.
It opened up a whole floodgate of discussion that had never been talked about before.
(21:05):
And these guys all had like that you could see like this giant, this giant like relief
lifted off these guys in this room that that hadn't been able to be talked about.
There are other people my age, 40, 50 year old guys.
And so that changed the dynamic.
Started the discussion of changing the dynamic that sexual assault was a female only thing.
(21:26):
And that's what the jurors thought on that first trial, the male jurors.
Unfortunately, it was not enough because the second trial, the brothers were not allowed
to invoke perfect and perfect self-defense after a ruling from the state's high court.
They were not allowed to bring up the fact that they were sexually molested.
I'm pretty sure.
Yeah.
So the judge in the second trial basically let them testify about what happened to them,
(21:50):
but did not allow the cousin to testify that corroborated that they had reported it before.
There was an uncle who had testified in the first trial that he watched as the father
set one of the boys on his lap when he was like five years old and punched him in the
face with a closed fist, which was consistent with the fear and abuse that they said they
(22:12):
had undergone their whole lives.
That guy was not allowed to testify.
I think almost none, either one or none of the psychologists from the first trial were
allowed to testify.
And so in the second trial, the lead.
So all their defense is thrown out, kind of like what we've seen with another case.
(22:33):
Yeah.
There is Richard Allen has his main defense stone.
Now it's kind of the same thing.
At the time this and also the first trial was televised.
The second trial was not allowed to be on television.
They did televised the motions where they were talking about keeping these things out.
And in that the lead defense attorney or the paid defense attorney, since she was the lead,
(22:53):
she was the one of the two defense attorneys was very emotional, literally screaming at
the judge, telling him that, you know, you are preventing our clients from having a fair
trial.
This is not wise evidence that was allowed and relevant in the first trial, somehow not
relevant and allowed in the second trial.
Those two rulings are completely consistent.
(23:14):
It doesn't make any sense.
And then in a press conference around the same time, she was saying the judge just put
a shotgun to my client's head and pulled it.
We don't have a chance of winning this trial.
And she was right.
The jury pretty swiftly came back.
That's already the case with hung trials, too.
Like you're like 95 percent more likely to get convicted the second time.
Right.
(23:34):
A second trial is a highly advantageous to the state.
And this is exactly why.
Well, they threw a bunch of shit out.
Well, but OK, but the state does a lot of things to change the narrative.
Because they know they now know exactly what the defense is going to do.
They'll go in and be able to attack the witnesses in ways they weren't able to because they
(23:54):
now have a whole game plan for what they're going to do.
And they they decide we're going to attack this defense beforehand and try to keep it
out.
And it worked this time.
And so the sex don't get that from a judge perspective, though, like why it was a lot
of the first time.
Yeah.
I'm hard to understand.
Really, really, really hard to understand.
I mean, I can understand legally the ruling behind it.
(24:18):
But the inconsistency of the two rulings, I just don't understand how it could be relevant
the first time and not the second time.
He also took the court, the cameras out of the courtroom.
So nobody got to see the trial and how it played out in the second time around.
There were some jail phone calls recorded by an individual with the oldest brother where
(24:40):
he implied that perhaps he had or that he would be willing to lie to get out of some
of the trouble he was in.
But because of some evidentiary issues, none of those phone calls came in in the second
trial.
So the but because of that, Lyle didn't testify the second time because he asked a friend
and an ex-girlfriend to make those false claims.
So Lyle didn't testify the second time.
Right.
(25:01):
And so the trial came out completely different.
A lot of things were changed.
And so now the evidence comes about completely different in their their sentenced or they're
convicted of first degree murder, unanimous verdict didn't take that long, especially
compared to the first one.
At this point, the OJ Simpson trial is underway.
(25:21):
So America has sort of flipped their interest.
They don't care anymore.
They're watching the whole OJ thing.
It made news when the convictions came out.
Both brothers were sentenced to life.
They were led to believe that they were going to be put in the same prison together and
(25:41):
pretty I mean, all depending on how you look at it, but a pretty heartbreaking part of
the documentary, the two brothers are at the county jail have been in the same county jail
now for like six years and they find out that they're not going to the same prison.
They're handcuffed and they get put in two separate vans and the one brother is screaming
(26:02):
out the top of his lungs for the other brother through the the van doors because they had
been led to believe they were going to be put in the same prisons.
They are then they then go to prison have been there for 25, 35 years, whatever it is
now in separate prisons until recently about I think six or seven maybe years ago.
(26:25):
I could be a little off on that date after lots of petitions from the brothers.
They actually let them be reunited in the same prison.
They now see each other every day.
So now it's kind of where the story picks up where.
Yep, here's modern day.
I speak a little bit faster than Brad slow rambling because he thinks at the same time
(26:46):
he speaks much more professional and entertaining voice, though.
No, it is not.
I fall asleep.
I don't know how you guys aren't falling asleep.
Anyways, Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon announced that he would seek
to have the brothers resentenced to 50 years to life, which makes them immediately eligible
for sorry.
Talk so fast.
I couldn't hear that.
Do you need me to repeat it?
(27:08):
I'll speak like you do.
Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon.
Wow.
Announced.
Very impressive.
Anyways, so he said that while their crimes were brutal and premeditated, that the brothers
had been exceptional inmates who helped others behind bars, remained out of trouble and took
college courses.
(27:29):
I'm sure Lyle really enjoys that now that he can do that without being molested.
After losing the election, the new DA Nathan Hockman said he would review the facts of
the case before making a request for resensing.
So little blurb.
The old prosecutor was super left liberal, whatever you want to call it.
This new guy is a lot more right wing.
I think there's like a huge right wing surge going through California right now.
(27:52):
So it was postponed.
This was originally supposed to happen like November, beginning of December, and they're
pushing it back to January 30th and 31st.
They're doing them separately, which means that they could be separated again.
Don't really understand how, but I guess the facts of what's possible.
It's possible that they could be.
I mean, they play different roles in this, so it's possible one could be modified and
one couldn't do.
You think that the facts of the case are pretty much identical unless you're going to be like
(28:14):
this guy pulled a trigger and this guy didn't.
Yeah, but the idea of of doing this was a little bit more of the older brother's idea.
So he was a little bit more of the mastermind behind it.
So you can see where they could potentially the and the one was 18.
So you could see where they could potentially treat them differently.
I don't think that's going to happen.
I think if they're going to modify, they're probably both going to get modified.
(28:36):
So the old prosecutor, Grassohn, also said his office was reviewing a petition for the
brothers that challenges their convictions, not just tries to reduce their sentencing.
This petition includes two pieces of evidence to support the petition, including a photocopied
letter that Eric said he wrote to a cousin months before the murders.
And so that's what Brad had talked about.
This same cousin was the one who spoke at the first trial.
(28:59):
The second trial they weren't allowed in.
I think because it was argued it was hearsay because, you know, she was saying what was
something else was said to him.
Now she actually had this photocopied letter that Eric wrote to her.
So it was like proof that this actually.
So one of the reasons you can get a new trial post conviction and it's under what's called
post conviction relief is if there's new evidence discovered that was not able to have been
(29:20):
known at the time of the trial.
Yeah.
So that letter apparently appears to show Eric telling the cousin that the about the
abuse and saying it's getting worse.
Years ago when it was happening, when it was happening.
Yeah, when it was happening.
Right.
So now here's after the fact you've you're pretty much all up to speed, but there is
a couple more little bits of information I found to be really interesting that all the
documentaries either leave out another piece of information to what the band.
(29:45):
Yeah, I was going to get on that.
All the documentaries either leave out or mentioned like in a way that doesn't seem
like it's that important, but it is.
Lyle began losing his hair at just 14 and that's an indication of the psychological
toll he had as a kid.
They'd also they also suffered from arrest development with Lyle, for instance, still
(30:05):
playing with stuffed animals and wetting his bed as a teenager due to the lasting effects
of the abuse and Eric struggling with learning disabilities that went unaddressed by his
parents.
I've heard of kids that were molested like still being as they get older.
I've heard of that being a thing.
I don't know why.
Maybe to like protect themselves in their sleep because, you know, you don't want to
play with a pissy kid or perhaps.
Yeah, some of might have been when they would leave the bedroom for any reason, they got
(30:28):
pulled into another room.
So if they left the red room to go to the bathroom, it was dangerous.
Roy Rossello, this is what Brad was just talking about.
He was a former member of the boy band Menudo, who revealed that he was abused by Jose Menendez,
the Menendez, the brother's father.
So this was another kid who was abused in the same way that Eric and Lyle had said.
I don't think this guy spoke at any of the trials.
(30:51):
I don't think this was public.
No, he was not known.
And it never came out or provided that information prior to either two trials.
Yeah.
So nobody knew this.
So there's four.
There's more.
Very new information.
Yeah, that's new.
And now this to me is the most and he is somebody that the the the the the Menendez father would
have had contact with like the timing where he says it happened.
(31:13):
Access to that kid was to he had access to that kid at the time.
So it isn't like somebody's just making up a story that if somebody that didn't even
know the dad, this dad actually had interactions with this kid during the time frame.
He says he was molested by him.
Right.
This to me is what gave me the most goosebumps.
This is the last bit.
And then we'll leave you off with this for the holidays.
Eric wrote to his cousin Andy in 1988, the essay written by 14 year old Lyle says, I
(31:37):
will change your verdict.
And it is about a man soon to be executed for killing a child molester and the length
of the testimonies from dozens of relatives, coaches, neighbors and friends that substantiated
the brothers claims.
So it's almost like.
He spoke of his his.
So the way that the that letter is written is almost like his future path that he goes
(32:00):
down like it talks about all these family members pouring in support to the courts and
the courts not accepting it and convicting the guy anyways.
And the letter is basically about how you would convict someone of murder.
But I will change your verdict because then you find out the murder is a pedophile.
Or the killer or the guy that died, you know, victim, whatever is a molester, et cetera,
(32:23):
et cetera, et cetera.
He wrote this when he was 14 and then goes through this exact same thing four years later.
Yeah.
And that's that's a double edged sword.
I mean, some of the some of the prosecution would say that that was just, you know, a
sign that as he had this meditated masterminded thing and made up this story eons before he
(32:44):
enforced it.
Others would say that's a very sign of a kid that's going through trauma and is trying
to figure out how to do that.
Yeah.
I mean, pretty, pretty warped, to say the least.
It's very interesting to the.
The family is still mostly supportive of the brothers.
Even the grandmother who's you know, this is one of her kids was killed in this kid.
(33:06):
Now there's a lives a brother.
So an uncle of the mother who's adamantly against the brothers and thinks that, you
know, maintains the father would never have done anything like this.
The mother wouldn't have stood for it.
The mother, if if you believe what the story is for the menendez frame of mind, the mother
(33:31):
is this pretty, pretty almost evil character in this because she's really into her societal
appearances.
She's very much into her status as this rich wife in Beverly Hills.
Of course, she'd want to keep that shit quiet.
Her status is at risk.
Right.
And so she's protective of that over the health of her own children.
(33:57):
It's there's no doubt if these things happen to the two brothers, the Menendez brothers.
And you know, if you listen to it, it's pretty compelling that something did happen.
But you're left with the feeling that there's no doubt the mother knew about it and was
helping cover it up because she didn't want them and their lifestyle to be exposed.
(34:18):
She saw she's portrayed as a pretty cold hearted individual that's not really invested in her
children a whole lot.
She's invested in their lifestyle.
And so she kind of just lets us all ride by.
And in the meantime, you know, if you believe what happened to both brothers and by the
(34:39):
way, one of the most emotional parts of the testimony, because in the documentary, they
actually show lots of clips from the actual testimony in the first trial, the older brother
Eric testifies that when he's like nine years old, he takes Lyle out into the woods and
molests him just like their dad did to them.
(35:02):
And it's it's it's it to me, it was the most compelling part of the testimony in believing
their side of the story and that they are either two of the best actors ever or something
really happened because Eric's very emotional about molesting his brother and telling that
side of the story.
And he starts getting extremely choked up.
(35:24):
And in the testimony, he cries out, I'm so sorry.
And when his brother hears the apology, he starts sobbing like shaking uncontrollably,
sobbing at the at the apologies he's just heard from his brother.
And he later tested or talks about it in the documentary.
He's like, you know, that happened to me.
(35:44):
And I also felt terrible about what my brother did to me.
And he never ever apologized to me for it before.
And until then, and he goes, we were a lot older and it happened when we were younger.
So I kind of decided to let it go.
Then he goes, when he apologized to me in public on the stand for it, it just like hit
me in a really raw way.
And if you look at the emotions, they were both, you know, jaws quivering stuff that
(36:08):
is pretty high level acting if you're if you're doing it.
And these aren't trained actors.
I mean, they're that looks real.
And the first jury, the women on the jury felt that it was real.
And it was really interesting, too.
And they interviewed the female jurors, the dynamic.
They were like, I guess it's like a lot of us, a lot of us females had dealt with some
(36:28):
sort of sexual abuse.
And so we could relate to what we were hearing.
And maybe the men on our jury had never had that.
And they didn't want to believe that something like that could happen by a father, especially
a father of this stature.
They said that we were just a polar opposites of it.
You know, he said women were adamant that why are we not cutting these guys a break?
I think men also just react different to someone crying.
(36:49):
I guess I get older, someone crying immediately, like actually makes me less likely to take
their side because I've seen that used as manipulation so many times.
Yeah.
But to me, that's like instant.
No, no.
But don't you get don't you feel like there's a sense that you can sense when like crying
is more visceral?
Yeah, I guess.
Like, yeah, I know you mean, you know, like when you see somebody crying at a funeral
(37:13):
and they're like, yeah, it's a whole body.
And it's yeah, yeah, that's what they were doing.
And it and it reached its peak, not where they were talking about the abuse from their
father, but where they talked about the abuse between the two of them.
And he apologized for it was the most where they were both most of both the most emotionally
saw him throughout the trial.
I mean, I haven't seen the trial, but just from hearing it to me, it seems like but,
(37:36):
you know, also hindsight's twenty twenty, but seems kind of hard.
To envision that and then think that I wouldn't believe them, you know, I mean, yeah, I, you
know, having set in numerous trials where I've seen lots of people testify.
And I know for a fact that people take the stand and lie happens in our business, regardless
of what anybody says or system.
(37:58):
You swear people under oath and it's meaningless to most people or a lot of people take the
stand.
It's meaningless.
But you get a good sense of when people are being legit.
And when you watch that moment between the two brothers where it hit the brother that
it was the one that was molested and it was it was visceral.
(38:19):
It was it was believable.
And so, yeah, it makes you you definitely left with the impression that.
At least more likely than not, highly more likely than not that this dad did something
to these boys.
And so do they deserve life without parole ever?
I mean, that's hard to imagine.
(38:39):
They don't deserve something less than that.
It's so odd to me, because you said this earlier and anyone is bringing up then because it
would totally derail the conversation.
But you had said the prosecutor said something along the lines of even if this did happen
and this guy was a monster, he's not the one on trial and he didn't deserve to die.
Right.
Yet everybody, everybody, except for those that maybe view themselves as paragons of
(39:01):
Christianity or religion or whatever.
When you hear of a person that's a monster, you kind of like fantasize about them dying
or envision that it'd be better if they died.
Or as a culture, we imprison these people forever.
I've heard plenty of people say it'd be better for them to be dead instead of taking taxpayers
money or whatever.
As a country, we take out other leaders sometimes that we feel right.
(39:25):
So it's so odd to be like, oh, he's a monster, but he didn't deserve to die.
But as a culture, we kill monsters and we imprison them all the time.
Right.
So just seems like a faulty argument.
Yeah.
And I think that's where the first jury was left.
I mean, I think the the women of the jury were like this.
These guys don't deserve to do the rest of their life in prison.
Had they been convicted of the voluntary, they would have about 20 some years ago.
(39:47):
How, how much worse?
Like if they didn't go on that spending spree, do you think shit would have been different?
Because that tainted all of it.
That made them look like greedy, self-serving.
Yeah.
I mean, it's, it's hard to say.
I mean, when they're, if they're kids in Beverly Hills, California, they probably their whole
life was a spinning spree.
Right.
And I think they, they continued to live their life the way they had always lived it, which
(40:09):
is a pretty lavish lifestyle.
I mean, they were, they had professional tennis lessons and everything to them was seen it
on a silver spoon.
I don't know.
To me, if you see kids that are continuing to live the Beverly Hills lifestyle, you're
probably saying, oh, look at him living the lavish lifestyle.
That's what they grew up with.
That was their life change.
(40:30):
Yeah.
And interestingly enough though, the, the Menendez family, the mother and father immigrated
here.
They were first, they were first level immigrants to the United States.
Didn't come from any money at all.
Had made some money in their home country, but lost it all when they left.
And he started it up and from scratch and build a, build an empire.
(40:51):
But it was one of the things that interesting in the documentary, they said when they tried
to find somebody that would testify positively about his character, they couldn't find anyone,
not even family would come and testify positively about the dad's character as a businessman.
He was considered an asshole.
They said literally the only person they could find that would write a nice letter for him
was his personal assistant.
(41:13):
Nobody else.
That was it.
So that gives you a little idea of, you know, he was also somebody that was considered a
perfectionist and demanded perfection from the kids at all times.
So they were, I was always on top of them and said, you cannot screw this up.
You cannot screw that up and anything less than perfect wasn't accepted.
And obviously as one of the uncles testified, they would get hit in the face if something
(41:35):
was going awry.
So very toxic environment.
I think it is pretty, pretty clear.
A atmosphere and so odd to be a perfectionist, but then be so screwy in your fucking head
that you molest your kids.
Yeah.
And it was, it was also an interesting dynamic too, cause the boys have a love for their
mother, but then also a sense of betrayal from their mother too, because they, they
(42:00):
also felt like that their father was very abusive to the mother and in many ways was
kind of holding her hostage.
Like they did hurt him.
I feel like as you get older too, and you experience something like that, cause a grand,
I wasn't molester anything, but I was beat on as a kid.
As you get older, it's like a new wave of understanding because when you're a kid, you
don't really understand.
Then become a teenager and you understand what happened.
(42:22):
When you become an adult and you don't understand how someone could do that to you and you would
never do that to your kids.
Right.
And as you get older, you just keep like thinking like, learn how more fucked up it is.
Yeah.
Like you, cause you know, you, you start thinking like, okay, well now it's my time to have
these kids.
Could I see myself doing that?
Could I marry someone who would let me do that?
And it just, you, it just continuously gets more fucked up.
Well, that's why there's a cycle of a repetitive behavior when it comes to child molestation
(42:47):
because kids that grow up, especially like the, the, um, younger Menendez brother who's
molested for almost his entire developmental years, that is normal to him.
That is his normal, right?
Yeah.
That's why something that's completely abnormal and, uh, you know, abhorrent to everyone else
in society is normal to him because that's all he knows.
(43:08):
Right.
And so that leads to future child molesters because in their brain they've been conditioned
to think that that's a, yeah, that's a normal behavior.
So it tends to repeat itself.
Very interesting though.
The, the, um, the brothers have become sort of a beacon of, uh, male sexual assault survivors.
Yeah.
And inside the prison system, uh, and they provide, they've kind of provide counseling
(43:31):
in that way.
They, they have been role models in terms of their, uh, how they've acted in prison,
everything they've done in prison, they're liked inside the prison, they're given jobs
to do inside the prison.
They've behaved and not just behave, but also achieved in terms of making themselves better,
getting degrees and things of that nature.
Yeah.
What's the point of getting a degree if you're in college, like, or if you're in jail like
(43:52):
this though?
Well, I mean, I think, you know, they've, they have gotten to their self, their self
with the support of social media, which, you know, there are, there are some really bad,
I think mostly bad things about social media, but one of the things that can do is sometimes
bring to light some, uh, some injustices or some inequities that wouldn't otherwise get
attention.
This case I think falls into that category.
(44:13):
It's getting a whole new breath of attention that never got before or didn't get in years.
And now the people that can do something about it and the prosecutor, um, is looking at whether
he would agree to just letting them have a rescinds and hearing where the judge could
re sentence them altogether.
If, if that happens, I'd say there's a very high degree of probability that the judge
will give them a time served sentence and not, um, make them do any more time in prison.
(44:40):
Yeah, this, this prosecutor is supposedly like very right wing.
So I wouldn't be surprised if there's another wrench thrown into this before it's over.
Yeah.
He's been saying, I think since October he was going to consider it needs some more time
to understand it.
The judge has given them more time because there is a pending litigation on that post
conviction relief, um, where he can decide to do something different.
(45:01):
Hopefully hopefully he'll take a fresh look at it.
I mean, if you think that the brothers are telling, if you think the brothers telling
the truth, then it's hard, hard to believe that they don't deserve a second opportunity
here for sure.
Yeah.
So we'll keep an eye on this one.
Um, and the developments may or may not be worthy of another episode in the future.
We'll have to see how it pans out, but that's the latest on them and that Menendez brothers
(45:21):
and their current, uh, uh, attempts to try to get out of jail a little bit early.
Thank you for joining us for another episode of pocketball talks.
See you.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.