FPF 05-17-25 The One About the Menendez Brothers, part 1

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello friends, you have a moment so that we may
discuss our Lord and Savior minarchy. No, seriously, I'm just kidding.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
Hi.

Speaker 1 (00:09):
My name is Rick Robinson. I am the general manager
of Klrnradio dot com. We are probably the largest independent
podcast network that you've never heard of.

Speaker 3 (00:19):
We have a little bit of everything, and by that
what I mean to tell you is we have news,
pop cultures, special events, inspire, attainment, true crime, mental health shows,
drama productions, and pretty much everything in between. So if
you're looking for a new podcast home to grab a
little bit of everything that you love all in one place,
come check us out.

Speaker 1 (00:38):
You can find us on x under at klr and Radio.
You can find us on our rumble and our YouTube
channels under the same names. We can also find us
at klrnradio dot com and pretty much every podcast catcher
and known demand. So again, feel free to come check
us out anytime you like at klr and Radio.

Speaker 4 (01:02):
Are you ready to reach for the stars? Tune in
to The Lost Wonderer, the number one monthly podcast on
Good Pods in Astronomy. Join our host Jeff as he
takes you on an interstellar adventure to explore the mysteries
of space and the wonders of science, from rocket launches
and distant galaxies to the latest discoveries in astronomy. Each
episode is a thrilling ride through the cosmos. Don't just

(01:26):
gaze at the stars. Come explore the universe with us.
Follow the Lost Wonder wherever you get your podcasts, and
let's discover the stars together.

Speaker 2 (01:44):
My God is really.

Speaker 5 (01:45):
Really special and I love my dad law.

Speaker 6 (01:51):
I'm proud of him and that even though he isn't
here with us, but he died as a true hero.

Speaker 7 (02:01):
I much everything about.

Speaker 8 (02:02):
Him, and the moment that the officers and I had
to come see the children, my biggest reaction was, I
don't have seven arms. I have seven children who just
lost their father, and I don't have seven arms to
wrap around them.

Speaker 9 (02:18):
I'm Frank Cla, chairman of the steven Sila Tunnel to
Talis Foundation. Our foundation is committed to delivering mortgage free
homes for gold Star families and fall and first respond
to families.

Speaker 10 (02:29):
To not have to worry financially is a huge peace
of mind. The thought of what in the world will
I possibly do to pay the bills? How will I
possibly let the children have a life that feels normal.
I don't want them to have to quit their piano
lessons or their basketball. I don't want them to feel
that we have to move into a little apartment and
struggle financially. In addition to the emotional weight, there are

(02:50):
over one thousand families that need our help.

Speaker 11 (02:53):
Punel to Talis is honoring.

Speaker 10 (02:54):
Those heroes that risk their lives by providing them with
mortgage free homes. Those who serve of us and then
lay down their lives protecting our freedoms and our safety.
The least we can do is eleven dollars a month
to give them that piece of always knowing there's a home.
There's that sanctuary when life feels like it's been tipped
upside down, because it has when you lose a parent

(03:15):
in the line of duty, to know you can go home,
you can be safe, there's no risk of losing your home.
That's a peace of mind that I can't believe you
can get for eleven dollars a month.

Speaker 12 (03:25):
I'd like to ask you to contribute eleven dollars a
month to support their efforts.

Speaker 9 (03:29):
Please donate eleven dollars a month by calling one eight
four four Bravest or visit Tunnel to Towers dot org.

Speaker 13 (03:42):
Hi everyone, this is JJ, the co founder of good Pods.
If you haven't heard of it yet, good Pods is
like good Reads or Instagram, but for podcasts. It's new,
it's social, it's different, and it's growing really fast.

Speaker 7 (03:55):
There are more.

Speaker 13 (03:55):
Than two million podcasts and we know that it is
impossible to figure out what to listen to on good Pods.
You follow your friends and podcasters to see what they like.
That is the number one way to discover new shows
and episodes. You can find good Pods on the web
or download the app Happy Listening.

Speaker 11 (04:18):
KLRN Radio has advertising rates available.

Speaker 4 (04:22):
We have rates to fit almost any budget.

Speaker 11 (04:24):
Contact us at advertising at k l r N radio
dot com.

Speaker 7 (04:36):
The following program contains course language and adult themes. Listener
and Discretion is advice, listen to.

Speaker 6 (04:54):
A lot of true crime that night, girl time, scary stories.

Speaker 2 (05:07):
Of Welcome to front Ports for insis I am your
co host bump stock Ken and sitting here with me
is the hostess with the mostest bump stock Barbie.

Speaker 6 (05:29):
Hey, guys, thanks for joining us.

Speaker 2 (05:30):
An yep and uh we're here at I want to
welcome to klri Nradio dot com. Friends and family, thank
you for joining us. Grab a friend and uh bring
let them listen to or set the phone speaker down
in the basement so they can hear it while you
got them tied up, whatever the case may be.

Speaker 4 (05:51):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (05:51):
Like I said, this is front Ports for Insance, where
true crime meets conversation. Oh, I'm sitting here with my
cup of call. My beautiful wife's got her bedrooms and choice.
Would invite you to pull up a chair on our
front porch and john this while we shine the front
porch light on the Menendez brothers tonight. That's right, this

(06:14):
is front Ports for Insance, the one about the Menendez brothers.

Speaker 6 (06:19):
Yeah, we're taking it back to nineteen eighty nine, actually,
but it's because they're back in the news today with
Newport hearings.

Speaker 2 (06:28):
So yeah, so you may remember the headlines. Two very polished,
very well dressed brothers from Beverly.

Speaker 6 (06:36):
Hills, very attractive boys Slaton.

Speaker 2 (06:39):
Yep, and they was convicted in the early nineteen nineties
of brutally murdering their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez. You
can't get more of a name Beverly Hills name than
Kitty Kenny.

Speaker 6 (06:51):
Her name was Mary Louise, but everybody called her Kitty
because she was a beauty queen. She did like the
beauty pageants and everything. Yeah, I mean.

Speaker 2 (07:00):
Tracks, So most of everybody out there are familiar with
the photos. Maybe you'll even have to see some of
the trial what was happening, But the photos of the
brothers in the courtroom are pretty popular. I think most
everybody has seen those.

Speaker 6 (07:15):
I said, it was so saturated in the media at
the time. I mean I was only six years old
when they got convicted. Ruh, which was nineteen ninety six.
I was six years old, like or no, no, I
was eighty seven, so I was nine years old. Never mind,
So well that was what I was thinking. Nineteen ninety
sixty nine years old.

Speaker 2 (07:35):
You was probably already watched your tent Stephen King book
by that point. Probably, so the trials of the Meninda's
brothers were at media circus. You couldn't go anywhere without
not seeing something about the trials as it was going on.

Speaker 6 (07:49):
Yeah, again we're talking media saturation. Seeing in MSNBC, like
all the legacy media places were carrying this. It was
the trial of the century basically.

Speaker 2 (07:59):
Yeah, it was like I said a circus. It was
full of court room tears, tales of abuse, and ultimately
a nation divided on whether these two were cold blooded
killers or just a bunch of a couple of kids
who was having to fight back against the monsters.

Speaker 6 (08:15):
Right.

Speaker 2 (08:16):
But now, over three decades later, the men indezk cases
back in the spotlight and it's not just another Netflix
documentary or some TikTok theory this time, but they are
back in the courts themselves, in the court system. That's
what's brought them back into the foreground. Nothing, no type

(08:37):
of crazy conspiracy said.

Speaker 6 (08:39):
They didn't They didn't like do anything bad or anything.
They're just they're back in the system and everything because
all of their appeals and everything, like they've they've kind
of learned how to go about this and so they're
trying different things.

Speaker 2 (08:53):
Yeah, because of new laws of shifting views on childhood
trauma and actually some fresh evidence are forcing a second
look and maybe a second chance for the Menindez brothers.
And tonight's episode will break down the original case. We
will revisit the herring testimony that gripped the nation, and

(09:15):
it's for one of the Menindes brothers could be heading.
Well not could be, but did go back to court
this past week for a trial on resentencing, which I
think spoiler alert here they won that.

Speaker 6 (09:30):
They won that trial. It was supposed to go for
two days. The judge actually ruled on it after the
end of day one.

Speaker 2 (09:36):
So yep. So basically, we're going to start with looking
at the old the original case.

Speaker 6 (09:44):
We're going to establish our baseline. We're going to go
back over the original murder, what got them convicted, what
put them in prison, We're going to go over all
that first.

Speaker 2 (09:53):
Okay, well, I'll turn that over to you, and I
also know I won't let Ay Buty know. We do
have a guest with us tonight who'll be chiming the end.

Speaker 6 (10:01):
Yeah, this is this is actually one of like mine
and Rick's friends and a coworker at Twitchy who is
a lawyer. His name is Aaron and he's joining us
so we can pick his brain on the legal aspects
of this. So we have him joining us tonight too,
and I'm very excited about that because I have questions.

(10:21):
But right now we're gonna take this back to August
of nineteen eighty nine, So August twentieth of eighty nine,
Eric and Lohman and Deez shot their parents, Jose and Kitty,
whose real name was Mary Louise, but she was always
called Kitty by everybody ever since she was young. They
shot them a total of sixteen times with two twelve

(10:43):
gauge Mossburg shotguns. So we usually like give the disclaimer
at the beginning and everything you hear the recording that
you know it does involve, you know, graphic content and everything.
I am going to go over the autopsy findings in
this app so too. So when I get to that point,
I'll tell y'all who are a little bit more squeamish

(11:04):
about it, that it's time to get up and like
go get a cup of coffee or do whatever you
need to do, because it's gonna be it's gonna be rough.
The boys were found guilty at first degree murder and
conspiracy to commit murder in nineteen ninety six and send
us to life without the possibility of parole. And uh,

(11:27):
I'm actually going to let Rick play. Then I'm on
one call because one thing I definitely want to do
is let everybody hear the first words somebody shot our parents. Somebody.
I think that's worth pointing out. But I also do
want to see if Aaron and Daniel pick up on
something else that I've picked up on in listening to

(11:50):
the full nine to one one call the night of
the murders. Rick's got that ready, we'll go aha and
play that really of emergency.

Speaker 10 (12:02):
Yes, what's the problem?

Speaker 5 (12:06):
Sounds? Uh, what's the problem? What's the problem? I'm sorry, Joe,
my parents? Pardon me?

Speaker 6 (12:15):
What?

Speaker 5 (12:16):
Who are they still there? The people? Were they shot?

Speaker 1 (12:24):
There?

Speaker 5 (12:25):
Were they shocked? If they were shocked? I didn't see
something like, don't want to what happened that? I have
a hysterical person and we're trying to get putting further
out of thing that was funny? Is the person still there?

(12:50):
What happened? We have un your own what happened?

Speaker 6 (12:56):
Who shot?

Speaker 5 (13:00):
He came home and found who shot Rob? Yeah? You're
not what that's doing? The house that people have did
the shooting? Yeah, get away? Okay, Hey, let me talk
to Eric. Let you let who is the person that
was shot?

Speaker 3 (13:23):
Mom and dad?

Speaker 5 (13:25):
Yeah, okay, hold on a second, Okay, run away over
there with an ambulance. Oyeah, I gotta go.

Speaker 2 (13:34):
Okay.

Speaker 6 (13:38):
There was something extremely telling beyond just the claim that
someone shot my parents, and Daniel immediately looked at me
when he saw it. But I kind of want to
see if Aaron peeped up on this.

Speaker 12 (13:53):
Uh not sure what you again, except in the strictest
sense they aren't lying and they just started saying we
did it, you know.

Speaker 6 (14:03):
Yeah again, it's it's beyond just the someone killed our
parents claim. That was that was said that I picked
up on.

Speaker 12 (14:14):
I admit I couldn't pick it up.

Speaker 2 (14:16):
Yeah, I said when when she first said who are
they still there?

Speaker 6 (14:20):
When you is the shooter still there?

Speaker 2 (14:23):
He slips up.

Speaker 6 (14:24):
He says yes, and then immediately goes no, no, no, no no, yeah, yeah, no,
there was that Freudian slip there in the nine to
one one call. Is the person who shot them still there? Yes? Oh,
I mean no. So I want everybody to kind of
keep that in mind, because again I'm not I'm only

(14:46):
expressing like my opinions here and how I work through
the logic on this to reach that opinion.

Speaker 2 (14:54):
While you're go ahead and introduce yourself there and yeah
that you just spoken out. But I know who you
are where they can find you.

Speaker 12 (15:02):
My name is Aaron Walker. You can find me mostly
on Twitter. It's called Aaron Worthing on Twitter because that's
an old pseudonym I used to have. But it's just
the same guy, Aaron Walker. And I'm a lawyer down
here in Virginia. I also write for twitchy, usually obsessing
on either video games or law, sometimes both. And you know,

(15:26):
other than that, not much else to say.

Speaker 6 (15:30):
Yeah, we're pretty simple people, so it's easy to find us.

Speaker 2 (15:35):
We're glad you're here. We're glad you could join us.

Speaker 12 (15:37):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (15:37):
Absolutely, I've been looking forward ever since you said you
were going to be able to come on the show.
I've been looking forward to pick your brain about this.

Speaker 2 (15:44):
Right.

Speaker 6 (15:46):
So yeah, the again this note one one call, they
first say that someone shot our parents, and then again
the dispatch asked, is the person is the shooter basically
still in the house, and he says yes, but then
realize that he says and says no, no, no, So
I do still want to keep that, like the in

(16:09):
the forefront of everybody's mind. Like the original trial and
everything resulted in hung jury. They had a second trial
that's the one that resulted in the convictions. But I
do want to touch on and again this is it's

(16:29):
a tough subject to talk about because we do actually
have to delve into sexual abuse of children for this,
because these boys stories changed at least twice. Like, first off,
you get the nine one one call someone killed our parents.
When the cops showed up investigators, there are some that

(16:50):
were quoted as saying that it was immense carnage because
keep in mind, these were shotgun killings. Shotguns are not pretty,
Like when it comes to really shooting anything with a shotgun,
it's not pretty. The cops thought, originally because of the

(17:13):
level of brutality they're at the crime scene, that it
was a mafia hit, and the boys kind of leaned
into that. They openly, you know, kind of yeah, it
was it had to be the mob. You know, they
very very much leaned into this. But then once all

(17:34):
the evidence started coming out and everything that it could
have only been then that did the murders. Then this
is where we see this shift into oh, well we
had to because our father had been sexually abusing us
for years. Now.

Speaker 2 (17:47):
At what point did they make that shift before core.

Speaker 6 (17:50):
Or I'm not exactly sure about the timeline, just that
the story did shift. My impression is defense used that argument.

Speaker 12 (18:03):
My impression is it didn't come up until literally the
defense had their turn in the first court case. And
to be very blunt, that's usually when you bring up
this sort of stuff because you you know, you don't
want to get a prosecution any warning if you can
get away with it.

Speaker 6 (18:21):
Right, because they would have had time to build a
case against that, right. So I mean, yeah, that tracks
at least as far as the defense and everything. But
I think even at the funeral service or memorial service,
whatever it was they had, I think the boys still
were like walking into the church and everything, talking about,

(18:43):
you know, oh, if the mafia wants to come at us,
we've already been through so much, bring it, you know,
kind of leaning into that argument of it. Yeah, But
then they could no longer make that argument after the
investigation proceeded and everything in the evidence started coming out.
So this is where we see this shift in the story.

(19:04):
And usually the defendant changes their story so drastically. It's
usually because they're lying about one or the other. And like,
obviously we know this was not a mob hit. Like
we are thirty some odd years later, we know this now,
it absolutely was not true. The only question here is

(19:26):
whether we believe their story. That they were abused or not.

Speaker 2 (19:30):
No, they're not denying that they've done to shooting.

Speaker 6 (19:32):
Yeah, they no longer deny that they actually committed the murders.
And even in court during the whole trial and everything
for it, they did not deny this at any point.
It's just the entire argument was that they were abused
for so long. And this was me and Aaron actually
talked about this a few days ago just over on

(19:55):
x What it's called the battered woman syndrome or I
think it's now like battered person syndrome in legal parlots.
I don't know, but it ultimately boils down to the
same thing, like their parents did not pose an imminent
threat to them at the time, but the build up
of years and years and years of abuse is what

(20:16):
caused them to finally snap basically and decide the only
way that I can escape this abuse is to kill
my abuser. And then this is what brings me into
the autopsy findings. So again, if anybody is kind of squeamish,
I am going to go into cindegory detail here with

(20:37):
the autopsy findings because the brutality of the crime it
we have to go into that because for the context
of the discussion we're going to be having tonight, we
have to go into how awful this was. But I
also and I'll point this out towards the end of

(20:59):
the autopsy findings, but the autopsy reports concluded that forty
five year old Jose suffered from quote an explosive decapitation
with a visceration of the brain. Doctor Irwin Goldwyn of
the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office was quoted as saying
that the wound was quote so large that a person

(21:20):
could put a fist through it. And keep in mind,
this is a head wound, so there is nothing recognizable
about this person anymore, like nothing that you could actually
look at them and say, oh, that's so and so
everything that all those identifying facial features are now gone.

Speaker 9 (21:42):
Uh.

Speaker 6 (21:42):
The wound was actually covered in soot and gunpowder residue,
which suggests that the shotgun was placed against the back
of Jose's head. He was also shot twice in the
right arm, once in the left elbow, and once in
the left knee, but doctor Irwin Golden was unable to
determine which shot was fired first. Like obviously, we could

(22:05):
reason that the headshot was the kill shot. But we
don't know if that happened first or if it happened
like some other time during this attack. There's no way
to know it. He said that because of just the
severity of the wounds, he had no like it was
just the cause of death was listed as just multiple

(22:26):
gunshot wounds. But here's where I kind of find this
interesting as far as the claim of abuse, because the
mother kitty, she suffered far worse wounds than the.

Speaker 2 (22:42):
Father did, didn't I read somewhere that she had ten
of the sixteen shots, ten of them was on her.

Speaker 6 (22:48):
Yeah, she was shot in her left cheek, which fractured
her upper jaw and caused at least four teeth to
fall out that they know of. That's what they found.
But keep in mind again we're talking about shotgun. So
fourteen were known to be found and were listed in
the autopsy report, a total of three wounds to her

(23:11):
face with a shotgun, which is extremely personal. Like every
time we have ever covered a case where it's been
just extreme graphic violence to a person, it's because there's
some kind of anger or animosity towards that person, right,
And this was to her face, their mother's face, like

(23:35):
that is absolutely worth noting. Psychologically, this is their own
mother and they destroyed everything that identified her.

Speaker 2 (23:44):
You know now that the Menandez brothers aren't serial killers,
but we have seen that mirrored in several other serial killers.
We talked about that animosity and the violence toward their
mother edkin, sure, for example, just off the top of
my head, and that's something.

Speaker 6 (24:04):
He's spent a lot of time abusing that corpse.

Speaker 2 (24:06):
Right, Yeah, I's say that's something psychologically that stands out
with these kind of killings, I think, yeah, and obviously
completely their style.

Speaker 6 (24:17):
Yeah, yeah, these are not serial killers or anything, but
we do see this again, like you said, mirrored in
other killings.

Speaker 2 (24:25):
Just that, and I think part of that is because
in human nature, even even in animal nature too, for
the most part, the mother is the one that's supposed
to be the safe the safe spot.

Speaker 6 (24:37):
Yeah, though the winds, that's your safety.

Speaker 2 (24:40):
Yeah, that's the wing that you hide under, is the mother.
And uh so that's supposed to be the softer side,
that's supposed to be your your safe haven. And you
see it played out in movies and stuff too, where
the male figure, the father's stepfather or whatever it might be,
is the one who's always bringing the pain, so to speak,
and the mother is the one who fights back to protect.

(25:03):
And I think when and it may played into how
they responded to her and her and her killing, is
that maybe they felt that was broken, that that was
a worse a worse thing to happen to be because
it was so unnatural.

Speaker 6 (25:23):
Versus what their father allegedly.

Speaker 2 (25:25):
Did, because it's absolutely the feather's away from what's supposed
to be safe.

Speaker 6 (25:31):
Another thing in the autopsy report that kind of speaks
to me is that her right thumb was nearly severed.
So this woman put her hand up like in front
of the gun. This was a defensive wound because her
hand was injured, and we only ever see that really
indefensive wounds in murder victims. She put her hand up

(25:52):
because I'm assuming at this point she is begging for
her signs to spare her. But her right thumb is
nearly severed by a gunshot wound, severe trauma to that hand.
She was also shot in both her arms, her chest,
and in her legs. So to me, this is actually

(26:14):
an odd amount of trauma to this woman's body for
her being the non abuser in this situation.

Speaker 2 (26:23):
That's what I was saying, kind of leads to there
was something more going on with the mother than and maybe.

Speaker 6 (26:29):
If their allegations are true, sure that would mean that
whatever she did or did not do they saw was
worse than what their father was doing, so they were
more angry with her.

Speaker 2 (26:42):
That's where I was kind of going with that earlier.

Speaker 6 (26:45):
But one of the boys, one of their original claims,
was that they killed their mother because they didn't want
her to have to suffer a life without her husband.
They didn't want her to be upset by.

Speaker 2 (26:58):
That was a mercy killer. Yeah, the way they killed
or was not a mercy killer.

Speaker 6 (27:03):
No, absolutely not, Like just again the sheer level of
brutality that was not reflected in the father.

Speaker 2 (27:11):
I heard that in one of the reports talking about
the calculated retirement, that they actually had to stop and
reloaded at one point they did.

Speaker 6 (27:20):
It was a total of sixteen shots between both parents,
and bird shot was found in Kitty's wounds. So yes,
that means that the boys had to stop and reload
at some point.

Speaker 2 (27:33):
Well, did they mention what kind of shotguns they were?

Speaker 6 (27:36):
Twelve gage moss birds.

Speaker 2 (27:37):
So you're looking at probably five shots and at the
most six if there's one in the chamber, all right,
because that's your standard, right standard mothsburg soon as the
five hundred or five ninety, more than likely five hundred,
okay five shots in the team want in the chamber,
so six they had to reload. That had been twelve.
They would have to reload again to get to sixteen

(27:58):
unless they had two shotguns.

Speaker 6 (28:00):
This was not a spur of the moment thing, just
based on that evidence alone, like.

Speaker 2 (28:05):
And the fact that it was bird shot. I mean,
it's obviously still enough to kill, but it's not like
a plug or a buck shot.

Speaker 4 (28:13):
You know.

Speaker 6 (28:13):
Yeah, the father was killed where he sat on the couch,
and I know rick I sent him some of the
crime scene photos. You can see the blood spatter like
around the couch and everything because they were both sitting
on the couch when they were attacked. Father died right
where he sat. My personal guess is that the headshot

(28:38):
the back of the head was the first one.

Speaker 2 (28:43):
Walked up behind them and shot.

Speaker 6 (28:44):
Because he would have been the one to fight them
back if they had just come up right in front
of them and everything. But they did move to the
front of the couch and.

Speaker 2 (28:52):
Everything like the way you said all the places he
was shot, he would think he would at least put
his hands up.

Speaker 6 (29:01):
There were no defensive on him. So I do think
that he was taken out just immediately, just to get
him out of the way. And I mean that sounds callous,
but it's also if you put yourself in that mindset,
it's also logical, like you need to take out the
because Jose was not an unfit man, like he was

(29:24):
in good health, like he was in good shape for
his age. He could have easily fought back, you know,
maybe wrestled the gun away from one of the suns,
and that would have, you know, put their whole plan
in jeopardy, like they wouldn't have been able to complete it.
But Kitty, her body was in front of the couch

(29:46):
because the initial shots that she suffered, and again they
don't know, they cannot tell why, or cannot determine which
shot was fired first. I would assume the hand shot,
like when she saw the gun and everything, she put
her hand up, that was the first.

Speaker 2 (30:02):
One, and you said part of it hit her in
the face. I wonder if that was the same shot
through the hand into the jawline.

Speaker 6 (30:10):
I mean it could have been, but again, the corner
had no way of telling, because this was just so
there was so much trauma to these bodies that they
could not really differentiate which one would have happened first
or simultaneously or anything else. So, but her body was
actually found in front of the couch because Lyle even

(30:33):
says that the initial shots did not kill her, so
they had to shoot her more. Like he openly admits this,
like she was trying to crawl away, crawl around from
the coffee table, and like I said, we've got the
pictures up so you can see where, you know, the
couch was, where the coffee table is, where the bloodstains are.

(30:56):
Jose dies right there on the couchmediately, like his body
is still there when cobs arrive, just sitting on the couch.
Kitty is on the ground between the couch and the
coffee table. And she was actively, according to the boys,
trying to crawl away because the initial shots did not

(31:17):
kill her. So maybe that's also why there was just
more trauma visited on her body, because they needed more
shots to kill her.

Speaker 2 (31:26):
She was actively moving away. Yeah, but like I said,
being a bird shot, it's going to take a lot more.

Speaker 6 (31:33):
Than I say. This wasn't like Buckshot or anything like that,
where it's a heavier pellet, I guess, but again you
gotta think like this is, like I said, the brutality alone,
I think speaks to motive because Aaron had pointed it

(31:57):
out before when we were talking about this on X
that they had to actually go outside of the house.
They said that they were going to a movie. But
I think it was Lyle that forgot his wallet and
had to come home and get it and everything, and
that's when they decided to do all this. So they
had transportation, they could have just left. And I do

(32:18):
think it was Lyle later on in the in the
in the hearings and everything in the trial that said
that the reason they didn't just flee, that they didn't
just leave like take the take the truck and go,
was because they said that their father was rich and
he would never waste any money or anything trying to

(32:40):
find them again, like he would continue to pursue them
found them. Yeah, this was their argument in court. This
was the defense's case that the reason that they couldn't
just flee was because it wouldn't have ended them. So
their argument is this whole battered woman type syndrome or

(33:00):
a bettered person syndrome where the person postes no immediate
threat to you in that moment, but because of the
built up abuse and everything, you just snap and you
have to get rid of the abuser. Is basically where
their argument boiled down to you. I'm not entirely convinced

(33:22):
of that, because again, the story changed the slip on
the nine one one call, Like, I think these boys
knew exactly what they were doing and they planned.

Speaker 2 (33:31):
It from the evidence that we've seen and watching it
from that logically, yeah, that's what it sounds That's what
it sounds like, right.

Speaker 12 (33:43):
And I mean I've always said, what kind of unzips
This whole thing for me is killing the mother wholly
Apart from the brutality that you mentioned here, right, I
don't see any argument of self defense against her. Know,
in the Netflix special, the only argument was, well, well

(34:04):
she couldn't possibly live without that. Well that's yeah, that's
one hundred percent not a legal defense. That's not a
moral defense either, you know. I mean, even if she
would have wanted to die without her husband, that she
should have made that choice, you know, right, And and
you don't end up with defensive wounds when you want
to die, you know.

Speaker 6 (34:24):
Typically exactly like it. Just the story did not add
up to me. And then we got a couple all
of this with their behavior afterwards. Jose was worth like
fourteen million dollars at the time of his death, and
within six months the boys spent seven hundred thousand dollars.

(34:47):
Lyle bought Rolex watches, a porche, fancy clothes and everything,
and even a restaurant in Princeton, where incidentally he was
enrolled for a time, but he got suspended for a
year for plagiarism. And then Eric, who was I guess
slightly more pragmatic, bought a jeep wrangler and not you know,

(35:09):
something fancy. He bought a jeep wrangler, a fifty thousand
dollars tennis coach because he was at this point a
nationally ranked player in his age bracket, and then a
forty thousand dollars investment in a rock concert that never
happened with the fire is no, that was way later.

(35:29):
That's more my generation. But that's exactly what I thought too,
And I mean they took exotic vacations. This is not
the behavior of two boys, you know that were upset
about what they did. And there's also that part of
me though that if the allegations of abuse are true,

(35:53):
if we believe that, then it actually does kind of
make sense because that sense of freedom then like this
abusier is gone. They can never hurt you again. That's
going to give you this immense sense of freedom, and
you're probably going to go nuts if you've never had
that that feeling before. So on the one hand, like

(36:14):
the argument could be made, at least psychologically for the
case of abuse.

Speaker 12 (36:22):
Well, I'll say, you know, I did watch that Netflix documentary.
I wasn't convinced about the allegations of real abuse, but
I did feel they made a credible case that the father,
Jose might have been very hard on them.

Speaker 6 (36:38):
You know, Oh, I absolutely agree. I mean I think
like tough.

Speaker 12 (36:42):
Father, right, and I think he was trying to create
very like like just ruthless winners. He wanted his kids
to be ruthless winners in life. And so I do
think it is possible that they became essentially, you know,
the monster that he made, the monster that killed them.
You know what I'm saying that they just said at

(37:05):
some point, I want I want the money. I don't
want to wait till you guys die. I don't want
to be controlled by your money. So what the hell,
let's just kill you guys, you know, and we'll make
it look like, you know, a cartel killed you or
something like that. Yeah, you know, that was something they
tried at one point, and you know, and and that

(37:27):
and thus, okay, now we get to live on. And
that also lines up with the relief and fun of
oh boy, now we don't have to live underneath these people.
You know what I'm saying. It matches up just as
much as the abuse theory in terms of the relief
and freedom from abuse.

Speaker 6 (37:42):
Oh yeah, I mean entitled. These were very, very privileged
and entitled boy. So the prosecution actually argued that the
reason they really killed their mother is because if they
only killed their father, the money always went to the mother, right,
and they didn't want that. They wanted the money themselves.

Speaker 12 (38:00):
They were the next in line, right, And the mother
would not have gone along with the self defense thing,
and she probably witnessed enough to know it wasn't self defense.
I mean, if the father was sitting on the couch,
it's very hard to argue it's self defense. I mean,
you can obviously pick up a gun and shoot at
somebody from a couch, but you're not going to get
up very quickly from that. And you know, the second

(38:21):
time they had a trial, they were not even allowed
to put a self defense instruction to the jury because
they didn't present enough evidence to allow them to do it.
You have to present some evidence that's competent to you know,
to self defense. And basically the judge said, is even

(38:42):
if we believe everything you guys are saying, you left
the house, went to the car, got the guns, went
back in the house, and shot them.

Speaker 6 (38:51):
They actually came back to the house from being at
the movies, was their story. So they were already out
of the house. They could have just like walked away
and disappeared into the.

Speaker 12 (39:02):
Night, right.

Speaker 6 (39:04):
And so that argument was that, Okay, Daddy's never going
to stop looking for us, so we have to.

Speaker 12 (39:09):
Kill him, right, And I mean, I have some sympathy
in some radical societies where there just isn't justice for
someone to do something like that. Like one thing that
came up in my mind was I had read of
a case in China where this woman was was in
a slave marriage, that is literally she was bought and

(39:33):
put into this marriage. And you know, one day she's
stuck at home and she sees a policeman walk by.
She goes out to the cops says, oh, you got
to help me. I've been trapped by this guy for
you know, all this time. And it turned out it
was actually his cousin. Oh no, and an outcomes the

(39:53):
husband and you know, I'm not sure how you know
how much we want to censorrself, but let's just say
did awful things to her because it was a setup.
He purposely sent the cousin there, who was a real cop,
to give her the message of you can't go to
the police. Now the woman in that position kills her husband,

(40:15):
you know, morally, and I think legally even we should
say that's fine.

Speaker 6 (40:21):
Yeah, you know, absolutely put some stock into the whole
battered woman syndrome. Like, you know, this woman is stuck
in this she literally can't get out for some whatever reason,
and then she finally snaps one night and like kills
her Uwser in his sleep. I can absolutely understand that. Well,
it would be very easy for me to have been

(40:42):
in that same situation at one point.

Speaker 12 (40:44):
Well, and I think a lot of that is often
brought up more as an issue of insanity. You know,
Like I think back to the Lorraina Bobbitt case and her.

Speaker 6 (40:56):
Just thinking about, yeah.

Speaker 12 (40:58):
Well we just had one woman who apparently said hold
my beer on that one. But yeah, uh and you know,
in that case, yeah, and I think to a certain extent,
it was a little bit of wink wink to the jury,
you know, just let her off. But she argued that
that he had raked her enough that she just just

(41:20):
completely lost it. You know, she couldn't. She didn't believe
she could divorce him, just morally, she didn't think that
was right. So like so in her mind, the only
way to stop that was to take away his weapon,
if you will.

Speaker 6 (41:35):
You know, yeah, pretty much.

Speaker 14 (41:38):
And you know, and so that that ended up kind
of cases we can all understand.

Speaker 12 (41:44):
But well and she and she won on insanity.

Speaker 2 (41:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (41:49):
But other than like Jose, other than people saying, yes,
you know, he was a disciplinarian. It was tough on
his boys because like he wanted them to be perfect. Basically,
other than that, there's really no corroborating evidence of any
kind of abuse that was going on, which is not
to say that it still wasn't going on, because abusers

(42:10):
are pretty good at hiding that kind of thing. So
I'm not dismissing it out of hand. I'm just saying, like, logically,
for me, their defense just it really doesn't fly, not
for me anyway.

Speaker 12 (42:25):
Right, And for me, the reason why it doesn't fly
is because of killing her mother.

Speaker 5 (42:29):
And yeah, I.

Speaker 6 (42:30):
Mean the only reason to do that. I mean not
just because oh mom is going to be so sad
without dad and everything. I do think that it was
because with jose did all the money would have gone
to mom and she wasn't going to after that. She
probably wasn't going to give.

Speaker 12 (42:48):
Him a dim right, And I mean, just just to
bring in a couple of things from what I read
about the hearing itself that we had this week. Now,
bear in mind, I don't always trust what the news
tells me about about legal stories because legal reporting is terrible.

Speaker 6 (43:06):
But assuming these are people like me who are not
lawyers at all, and we have like maybe even the
most barely even a rudimentary understanding of the laws.

Speaker 12 (43:16):
So yeah, but anyways, going to go First off, you know,
from what I had read, the recensing happened in part
because the previous District Attorney of Los Angeles moved for it.
And I think it was influenced by things like the
Netflix special and all these TikTokers and all that there.

Speaker 6 (43:38):
I saw even a documentary they're like as young as
fifteen years old TikTok quote unquote influencers siding with the
Menindez brothers, right, Like, that's that's our daughter's age. That's
kind of crazy to me.

Speaker 2 (43:53):
Okay, there's a thing that happens though, because when OJ
was in TYL, right, there was a big push of
like teenagers, young teenagers free the juice type thing. So
we see that you need and we see that today
now with people that's going through trials, the younger generations
of the kids, if you will. They always said to

(44:16):
take the the cheer on the quote unquote bad guy.

Speaker 6 (44:22):
Here que unquote underdog is yeah, the one.

Speaker 2 (44:24):
That's going that's the one that's being in jail because
they sided. I want I say they in general, not
everyone obviously, just like everyone's not with them an Indez
brother's side, but that younger uh genre, that younger group
seemed to get loud about that. Uh.

Speaker 6 (44:42):
They seem to be a lot more sympathetic.

Speaker 2 (44:44):
Yeah, as far as like Benda's brothers again with OJ
because I lived through all that, I saw all those posts.
Not necessarily post, but a lot of people talk about it.
And you said the guy like you mentioned his.

Speaker 6 (44:57):
Name, Yeah, the one that killed the sea.

Speaker 2 (45:00):
Yeah, yeah, that's that's pretty common phenomenon for the younger kids.

Speaker 6 (45:05):
But say they sympathize with these people, they kind of
turn them into the unsung heroes.

Speaker 2 (45:13):
Apathize sympathize with them so much as it's kind of
like they trend or some people say it, they get
views off of it, they get reactions, so a bunch
of other ones phones do the same thing.

Speaker 6 (45:25):
They with whatever gets some of the most positive feedback.

Speaker 12 (45:28):
Or just find that. I also think there's also a
lot of naivety, you know, I mean, for example, yeah,
if someone's you know, when during the Kavanaugh hearing, we
heard people suddenly go believe all women. You know, women
don't lie about rape, that never happens. Yeah, and you know,
of course, I'm fifty two years old and I'm old

(45:48):
enough to remember the Duke Lacrosse case where we had
actual evidence, no question that there was a lie about rape.
You know what I'm saying, and so they Yeah, because
I'm older, I just happen to remember that, and if
you're younger, you're not going to know these kinds of.

Speaker 6 (46:05):
Things, say I do. I actually do remember the Duke
Lacrosse one, and then another one came because it was
actually just recent that like the anniversary of it. But
these two black men got exonerated after twenty six years
in prison because a woman lied about being raped, and
you know, that information came out and like, yes, like

(46:28):
what woman would ever lie about this? Well, I mean.

Speaker 12 (46:34):
It just comes down to any time, anytime, some season advantage.

Speaker 6 (46:39):
About that type of woman.

Speaker 12 (46:40):
But they exist, right, and people can get advantages from
false accusations, or they can just enjoy hurting somebody, or
in the case of Kavanaugh, I think they were trying
to save Roe versus Way.

Speaker 6 (46:53):
To be very blunt, absolutely, that's exactly what they were doing. Yeah,
I mean you see all the proach, all those women
that were out there. That's the only reason they were
there was because a Row versus Way, Right.

Speaker 12 (47:07):
But you know, and I wasn't going to say in
terms of the procedure, was that the previous DA had
moved for it, and then the current DA said, we
really don't support this. And one of the things is
interesting is they said we don't feel they meet the
standards because they're still claiming self defense.

Speaker 2 (47:25):
You know.

Speaker 6 (47:26):
Another prosecution argued that they, I guess we're not sufficiently
like sorry or took responsibility.

Speaker 12 (47:34):
For what they did. Well, if you're if you're claiming
self defense, you're literally saying I did it and I'm right.
You know, there's you know, yeah, there's there's you know,
four at least four basic types of defenses for any
kind of criminal case. One is what we call the elements,
which just amounts to I didn't do it. You know,

(47:54):
you know, I didn't do what the statute says is
the crime. Second is obviously any kind of constitutional challenge.
The third is what we call excuse, which is I
did it. It was wrong for me to do it,
but I have an excuse. And the most famous excuse
is insanity. And I think a lot of time battered
women syndrome is coming up as insanity, as we saw

(48:18):
in the in the Bobbit case.

Speaker 6 (48:21):
And that actually makes a lot of sense because insanity
is actually a legal term. It's not a psychological right.
It just means that in that moment, like they pretty
much weren't aware that what they were doing was a crime.
It's just like they were so like whatever was going
on in their mind kind of blanked all that out.

Speaker 12 (48:44):
Well, it varies by state. I mean, the most minimum
version of insanity is just you don't even understand fully
what you're doing. Like the example, you know, they gave
them when we were studying for the bar exam was
imagine that you think you're squeezing oranges, but you're actually
strangling somebody.

Speaker 8 (49:01):
You know.

Speaker 12 (49:01):
That's that's the least version. Then, of course the lats
of states have added different things like irresistible impulses and
various other types of things. But the last type of
defense was going to get to is what we called justification,
which is, yes, I did it, and I was right
to do it, and it was legal to do it.
And that is self defense defense again of others, various

(49:26):
types of police use of force.

Speaker 6 (49:29):
Yeah, the justifiable homicide.

Speaker 2 (49:31):
More or less.

Speaker 12 (49:32):
Yeah, and uh, and so if they're sitting there saying
we were acting in self defense, then they're telling the
world they didn't even commit a crime. And so then
that's not acceptance of responsibility. You know, if you say
you're innocent by any theory, whether it's I didn't do
it at all, or or you're saying that you know

(49:52):
that that it was self defense or anything like that,
then you're not accepting responsibility in the eyes of the law, right, Yeah,
And I think.

Speaker 6 (50:02):
Their defense either falled in falls into one of the
last two categories you mentioned, the insanity or the just
fible homicide. And I don't think that they presented enough
evidence to make it just fible homicide.

Speaker 12 (50:15):
Well, and I mean, I don't see anything suggesting that
they ever tried to officially claim insanity, so all it
was there was never There.

Speaker 6 (50:25):
Was never an insanity plea in this case.

Speaker 12 (50:28):
And they tried, they tried to argue for self defense
the first time they got the jury instruction, and I
think if I remember correctly, they end up paying the
jury on that one.

Speaker 6 (50:38):
Wee. The first jury. The first trial ended up in
a hung jury.

Speaker 12 (50:42):
The second one is what convicted him, right, And in
that case, what what the judge said was, you have
not presented enough evidence to allow me to give them
that instruction, because you know, you don't get every instruction
under the books, only the ones that are actually justified
by evidence.

Speaker 2 (51:00):
In the case.

Speaker 6 (51:01):
And I mean I agree with that because to me,
like if I was sitting on that jury, they have
not presented any evidence of this alleged abuse, right, and
we have nothing to go on other than their word.
And the only other two people that could have, you know,
come out against them and said, no, this is not true.

Speaker 12 (51:22):
They killed right well, and I was just this kind
of square to circle on the procedure that was going
on this week. Is I see where they're now saying
that they had no justification or excuse for what they did.
One of them said that exact phrase, no justification or excuse.

Speaker 6 (51:42):
I think that was Eric, yeah, the younger one.

Speaker 12 (51:45):
And the point I made to you guys privately is
that sounds like something their lawyer told them to say,
you know, saying That's not the kind of thing that
normal people would say about a crime. You know, they
might say I have no excuse, but you know, but
they wouldn't say like that. So they are officially giving

(52:05):
up any claim of self defense.

Speaker 6 (52:08):
I say, when you say that you have no for
killing someone, yeah, that ultimately rules out self defense if
you had an excuse to kill them. A justification that
would be self defense.

Speaker 12 (52:23):
Well, well, in legal talk, well, self defense is called
a justification because again you're justified in doing it. You're not,
you know, you're not making an excuse. Excuse is I
did it, I was wrong, but I have an excuse.
Justification is I did it, I was right, you know,

(52:44):
and the law says I am So.

Speaker 6 (52:47):
Like the excuse is, Okay, I did this and I
was wrong to do it, but here's my reason for
doing it. That's an excuse. Yeah, they were doing this
to me and I felt, you know, in imminent danger
and everything of grievous bodily harm or imminent death like
this was this was going to harm me. This is

(53:10):
why I did it. This is my justification for it.
So yeah, I see, I see the distinction you're making there.

Speaker 12 (53:17):
And the reason why I'm harping in on is because
they use that phrase, I have no no excuse for justification,
you know, So that that sounds very much like their
lawyer said, you better say this, you know, And that's fine,
but it means also officially they are not even claiming
they are they were defending themselves. Now they could still
say we were abused, and that's all, we hated them,

(53:40):
and you know, I hated that because he abused me.
Hey mom, because you let it happen, you know, something
like that. They could say that still, you know, but
it you know, now, I guess we're on story number three,
you know at least.

Speaker 6 (53:55):
And yeah, like I said, I mean, that's that's my thing,
like my personal reasoning behind where I stand on this
is mainly because their story changed so many times. Well,
if people were innocent, the story is consistent if they're innocent,
because the story doesn't change. This is just what happened. Now.

Speaker 2 (54:17):
Well, she talked about the story changing before we move
too far into the recents in part the mother. You know,
they talked about they killed her so she lived without
the dad. Didn't they change the story on her as well?
About how she was abusive as also.

Speaker 6 (54:35):
Or that she was she knew about it happening and
she didn't stop it.

Speaker 2 (54:39):
And because BZ from BZ Salsas, the argument could be
made that she wasn't enabler talking about the mother.

Speaker 6 (54:46):
Which you know I mentioned that the other night too,
but he said.

Speaker 2 (54:49):
That he wasn't sure that argument had ever been attempted.
Did they did they bring that the argument in court.

Speaker 6 (54:55):
I don't think that that was that argument was ever
made in court. I know we talked about it because
I mentioned it to you the other night, that just
due to my own family history and everything, not me
or my mom or anything, but other women in my family,
like they know the abuse is happening, and they don't

(55:17):
stop it because they're also being abused, you know, Like
it's like they can't stop it. If they do anything
to try and stop it, the abuse for them gets worse,
it escalates. But I don't think that argument was ever made.

Speaker 2 (55:32):
Was part of them No. Now, for the because of
the level of destruction to her body and the brutality
of the murder, I think if abuse was actually happening,
that I could see her being enabled just by not
saying anything or even participating, by actively turning her back

(55:54):
on things, you know, and that could bring out that
patriot to fuel that kind of thing.

Speaker 6 (55:58):
Yeah, But I still would argue that psychologically, the most
severe punishment quote unquote, I guess would be taken out
on the abuser themselves. The non abuser, who might have
even just been the enabler, still would have been lesser
than the actual abuser. But like I mentioned in the beginning,

(56:22):
it could have just been because the original shots didn't
kill her, and that's the reason they shot her more
times than him.

Speaker 2 (56:28):
Yeah, exactly, I'm just talking.

Speaker 6 (56:29):
So that could track that both ways, Like just.

Speaker 2 (56:32):
Bringing up that if she was, you know, that could
be a posible argument. But if she was, if that
was the reason, and if she was an enabler or
a fellow abuser, you think they would have brought that
up during the court cases. And I don't think they did.

Speaker 6 (56:49):
No, I don't think any allegations were ever made against
the mother, only the father. But he was physically and
sexually abusive, and I might even give them the physical
because of just what we know from other witnesses saying
just how hard he was on the boys, like driving
them to be perfect.

Speaker 2 (57:10):
You know.

Speaker 6 (57:12):
That that show that me and Aaron have mentioned on
Netflix that I was watching earlier, that dramatization, It does
actually show accurate witness portrayals of the father, like just
you know, laying into the boys, especially on the tennis
court when they weren't playing perfectly or anything like that.

(57:34):
So I could probably see some physical abuse there and
some emotional abuse there.

Speaker 2 (57:38):
Hey, there's at least five members of a band that
I know of had an extremely abuse of dad, and
they turned out to be great, except for the most
popular one. He had this Neverland ranch that was pretty weird.
But Joe Jackson was pretty rough on them boys, and
they didn't shot got them.

Speaker 6 (57:56):
They might should have for him, though, like that one,
I could being justified, Like that's a little bit different,
I think, because we actually do know what was happening.
Like the other kids talked about it happening. Other witnesses
talked about it happening, like, yeah, we know this dude
was bad.

Speaker 2 (58:16):
But as Jose to other witnesses around them, they did
say he was pretty harsh and oh.

Speaker 6 (58:22):
Yeah, very very straight, very disciplinarian. And to me, again
it's just my gut instinct with these boys that these
are just very entitled, privileged boys and for some reason
they got told no on something and they snapped and
they wanted the money. It is easy, too, Yes, that's

(58:44):
a very very easy, easy thing, and I absolutely get that.
But I mean, you do hear me saying like it
is plausible. The explanation that they're presenting it is plausible.
I absolutely give it that there's just if I was
on the jury, then that's where I put myself here

(59:05):
in this situation. If I'm on the jury, there just
was not enough evidence to support that allegation about the Yeah,
there just was not enough evidence to support it.

Speaker 2 (59:19):
And their reactions and attitudes afterwards also kind of lean more.

Speaker 6 (59:26):
Yeah, the money was a big thing because they went
on a massive spending spree. And again I also did mention, yes,
it is plausible that just that sense of freedom is
what caused that if they were being abused, My gut
just says that's not the case. But that's just me.

(59:47):
That's my speculation. That's my personal opinion.

Speaker 2 (59:54):
Do you reckon if you mentioned that they was easy
to dislike because Beverly Hills, rich, privileged white kids and
all that. Do you reckon if they were from say
Georgia or or one of the Midwestern states, right middle
anywhere else, middle to lower income, still white and all

(01:00:14):
that kind of stuff, still same circumstances. Do you think
they would have had the same kind of knee jerk hate.

Speaker 6 (01:00:21):
Or probably probably would not, because I bet that happens
day in and day out all the time. The media
doesn't cover it. We don't get the attention from the
media that the rich boys and the rich family.

Speaker 2 (01:00:34):
The privilege what is what do they call it? The
entitled Yeah, we just we.

Speaker 6 (01:00:41):
Don't see this kind of media attention with any other cases.

Speaker 12 (01:00:47):
Well, I mean, also was back then court TV was
riding really high, you know, And I think this was
after the O. J. Simpson case too, And and neelas
to say, the media was real exciting to find another
case that would get everybody talking and fill up air
tis Yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:01:04):
Another they were. This is like the height of where
true crime really started to build as a genre and
as something that it was. I'll go ahead and do
the meme like white.

Speaker 2 (01:01:16):
Women like me love, I mean O J. Simpson, the
Menandez Brothers, Lorraina, Bob, They's all kind of right here,
the same yeah, same few years.

Speaker 6 (01:01:24):
Right there, like late nineties or Yeah, we're getting into
that time period where this interest in criminal cases and
everything is starting to build. And thus this is kind
of the birth of the whole true crime genre.

Speaker 12 (01:01:41):
And naturally, back then it was more of a mainstream
media kind of driven thing. Now it's it's more of
the dispersed media, you know, podcasts like you guys, but yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:01:54):
Saying there weren't like the niche channels like you know,
Lifetime or Oxygen or ID Channel or something.

Speaker 2 (01:02:00):
He Court TV because I used to watch it.

Speaker 6 (01:02:02):
Oh, I mean this Core TV is still around and
I'll still watch it, like right, But I'm just I've
always been that. I don't know, I kind of see
myself as almost the hipster when it comes to the
true crime genre, Like I was in this before it
was a thing, Oh Dahmer's address when I was nine

(01:02:24):
years old.

Speaker 12 (01:02:24):
I'll also say that, you know, at the time. At
the same time, I do think there were a lot
of women I heard at the time who thought the
Menendez brothers were very handsome, and there was this oh, they.

Speaker 6 (01:02:38):
Were very attractive. Yeah, I mean I'll even give them that, like,
these were attractive young.

Speaker 12 (01:02:43):
I was was going to say. On top of that,
there was this deliberate strategy to make them look cuddly
in those sweaters. You know that it was very blatant
that the lawyers said, where are the sweaters in court?
You look all cuddly to everybody and soft, and that
will help your kicks, you know.

Speaker 6 (01:03:02):
Oh, but you see this with lawyers just in general,
like if they want especially in like a case where
they're trying to get some kind of leniency. You will
see the lawyers either bob like a suit or an
outfit for their client and tell them you need to
wear this because it's going to make you look better.

Speaker 2 (01:03:20):
Like that's part of their training and how they react,
how to display themselves.

Speaker 6 (01:03:26):
The visuals actually are important.

Speaker 2 (01:03:28):
And the brothers even screwed that up in the courtroom.
They didn't even appear if.

Speaker 6 (01:03:33):
I say, look at their body language, and especially the way,
oh I cannot get past this, the way that Lyle
looks his younger brother Eric all the time during the trial.
That is a look of an older brother saying you
need to stick to the story or there's going to
be trouble.

Speaker 12 (01:03:51):
Right well, and yeah, I mean in general. You know,
one thing as a lawyer that drives me crazy is
I will usually tell my clients please show up in
some kind of suit to cork, and they'll show up,
like they'll show up in a marijuana T shirt or
something like that. And you're like, you're you're telling everybody
you're guilty of a crime right now, you.

Speaker 6 (01:04:13):
Know, like you need to make yourself presentable, like you
actually respect this process in.

Speaker 12 (01:04:19):
Everything, right, right, I mean a sweater would have been
an improvement. But you know, just as a funny kind
of story, years ago, my wife happened to be a
witness to a car accident. And the person who was
the victim, the one who wasn't at fault, he had
bad enough brain damage that he couldn't remember what happened.

(01:04:41):
So she was an absolutely crucial witness to him. And
so she asked, you, what do I do? You know,
what what's your advice is? That will show up in
a suit. And apparently she did show up in a
blazer and all that, and the whole day they assumed
she was a lawyer because no one else there's a
suit to cork.

Speaker 6 (01:05:02):
Let's say. I actually, when we were going through all
the crap with the Timy Tyrant's biological father, like I remember,
I was just sitting there and I was just wearing
like just a plain gray dress, like nothing fancy about it.
But another lawyer that we know come up and sat
down next to me and told me, like you basically
offered me a job that like, because of my research

(01:05:25):
on other issues and everything, she would absolutely hire me
as a paralegal.

Speaker 2 (01:05:29):
Right, yeah, well, let's move on more to the procedural that.

Speaker 6 (01:05:36):
We we got to get back to this recent week.
And again this was supposed to go on May thirteenth
and fourteenth, but the judge actually made his ruling on
day one.

Speaker 2 (01:05:46):
At the end of the day one, at the end
of day one, Yeah, and that was Judge Michael Jesseic.
And basically from what I was reading and understanding on
I didn't really watch the main mainstream media. Yeah, but
I like to find out what they're saying then go
look at for myself, you know, but I have to

(01:06:07):
these days. Yeah, this is kind of a bunch of
research from like the Guardian, AP news, people dot com, others.

Speaker 6 (01:06:16):
Let's say, you're basically piecing together like what is common
between all these groups, like to find the truth?

Speaker 2 (01:06:22):
Yeah, to find the truth or get close to Yeah.
So during the resentencing, well, first off, Gavin Newsom was
asked or approached or petitioned to do a.

Speaker 6 (01:06:39):
Clemency and which I do want to ask about that
in a minute.

Speaker 2 (01:06:44):
Yeah, we'll get to that.

Speaker 8 (01:06:45):
And then the.

Speaker 2 (01:06:48):
Also at the same time, they because of some things
happened in California, they also got brought up to be
eligible for resentencing.

Speaker 6 (01:06:58):
So Gavin Newsom, Well, the resentencing was because they actually,
under California statute applied for the youthful offender statue.

Speaker 2 (01:07:06):
I was going to get to that. Yeah, so new
some redrawals withdrawals is original request or petition for clemency,
and he just basically puts that on hold and.

Speaker 6 (01:07:19):
Allows him to go to the court system just for
the resentenc.

Speaker 2 (01:07:24):
He wants to see how this resentence.

Speaker 6 (01:07:27):
Clemency and resentencing, for everybody listening, are two different legal things.
And I'm going to ask Aaron about this here a
little bit.

Speaker 2 (01:07:34):
So, right, so it goes before Judge Michael Jessic And
of course we all know now that they were granted
the resentencing from life of that parole to fifty years
to life.

Speaker 6 (01:07:50):
Yeah, which means they are now And I know that.

Speaker 2 (01:07:52):
Sounds like it's kind of a nitpicky thing, but what
it does is it allows them to be eligible for
parole now.

Speaker 6 (01:08:00):
Right now, here's immediately eligible for.

Speaker 2 (01:08:04):
Here's the kicker. In California, there's a law that's the
California Youthful Offender Law. Under this law, individuals who commit
crimes under age of twenty six are eligible for resentencing
considerations acknowledging their cognitive development was not fully mature at

(01:08:25):
the time of the offense, and that in law was
twenty one and Eric was eighteen. So just based on
that California youthful offender law right there, they are eligible
to go for this resentence.

Speaker 6 (01:08:38):
You mentioned the cognitive ability development and everything, and I
mean y'all have seen me argue this time and time again,
just on abortion debate, So that the human brain is
not fully developed and the impulse control center is the
last thing to develop in humans and that doesn't really
happen until roughly aged twenty five on age also would

(01:09:00):
make sense.

Speaker 12 (01:09:01):
Also, no, this is the same state, you know, not
to get too far off topic, but this is also
the same state that's gone whole hog on transitioning miners. Yeah,
oh you know, I mean, right now, there is a
law in the books in California that says that if
you have a minor child and they run away from

(01:09:22):
home from whatever other state they happen to live in,
go to California, possibly with an adult that you don't
even know, and they go in front of a judge,
the judge can take what they call emergency custody over
the child. For any number of reasons, including the child
is not getting a gender affirming care is the euphemism

(01:09:45):
they use, And yeah, I mean this is.

Speaker 6 (01:09:49):
Insane to me, Like, okay, but we can excuse you
for murder because your brain's not fully developed, but we're
also going to let you decide to like mutilate yourself.

Speaker 12 (01:09:58):
Oh no, no, wait, they're not even one hundred percent
clear on the mutilation because also in California, if you
want a tattoo, you can't get it. If you're a
minor period.

Speaker 6 (01:10:12):
You can't get a tattoo, but you can change that even.

Speaker 12 (01:10:15):
With parental consent, even with parental consent.

Speaker 6 (01:10:20):
So yeah, that is the same like our own daughter,
the tiny Tyrant, when in August she is legally allowed
with one of like either mine or Daniel's consent, to
get a tattoo in the state of Alabama, because right,
that's insane, But California is Bonker's place anywhere.

Speaker 12 (01:10:40):
Yeah, it's just a deep inconsistency in their law. I
don't want to get too off topic, but that just
sticks out like a sore thumb to me.

Speaker 6 (01:10:49):
Well, one thing we've always and I mean the radio
jockeys that we listen to literally every morning, and we
have for like what twenty thirty years now. They say,
one thing that has always stuck with me is you
cannot expect any kind of consistency from anyone whose entire
worldview isn't based on emotions, all right, and that's the

(01:11:14):
leftist worldview. It's entirely based on emotion. So there is
absolutely nothing consistent about it. So California's laws are going
to be inconsistent because this is how those people operate, right, and.

Speaker 12 (01:11:26):
Just put a little more context. Also, there's two things
unusual I know about California besides all the liberalism, you know,
One issue is is that most states have to some
degree what we call the common law, which is essentially
judge bade law. You know a lot of times you'll
go into a state and find out there's no law,

(01:11:48):
and murder it is literally just the judge declared it illegal,
you know, and you know, and over time build up
precedents that look like what you would expect. But there
might not literally be a statute. In California, everything is
a statute. There's not much common law, you know, not
much judge made law, which is ironic because they love

(01:12:10):
judges to go crazy.

Speaker 2 (01:12:11):
On this stuff.

Speaker 12 (01:12:13):
The other unusual thing, I mean, not completely unusual, is
that California does use a parole system. You know, there's
two basic approaches to sentencing, and the parole system is
the one that where they sends you to a certain
amount of time, and then at some point later a
parole board might look at the case and say, okay,

(01:12:35):
we're gonna cut off twenty years for this reason or
twenty years for that reason, and so you end up
with those very cynical cases where a guy gets, you know,
sent away to prison for twenty years and he's out
in three months, you know, because it's what they did
on the federal level. They used to do that on
the federal level, but then they instituted, i think in

(01:12:57):
the eighties, what they call truth in sentence, and so
what they did instead is they took all they would
have shorter sentences, but they would put all those considerations
that parole boards look at, and they will put it
right in front on the day of sentencing, so things
like did you accept responsibility? Is there this mitigating factor?

(01:13:19):
Is this aggravating factor? So the federal government will not
sentence you to as long in prison, but you will
serve around eighty to ninety percent of that time. There's
very little you know, things like good behavior or anything
like that. You don't get very much time. And a
lot of states always follow whatever the federal government does

(01:13:41):
on civil or criminal procedure. So a lot of states
adopted the same idea, And honestly, I think it's a
good idea because I think it creates a real cynicism
in people when you hear somebody being sentenced to twenty
years in prison and they're out next you know, three
months later, you know.

Speaker 6 (01:13:58):
I mean we've seen a lot of this actually play
out just in daily news of these repeat offenders and
everything who should be in jail for years and years
and they're getting out on like, you know, twenty dollars bail.

Speaker 12 (01:14:12):
Yeah, slightly different issue, but it's a real problem. Like
in Texas. Yeah, they actually have a constitutional amendment that
requires a judge to offer bail to everybody, which is
crazy talk. I can't believe Texas did that.

Speaker 6 (01:14:29):
It seems odd coming from Texas, for sure.

Speaker 12 (01:14:31):
I mean I appreciate the notion of you know, we
want small government, We want the government not to be
able to lock you up too easily unless they're really
sure and all that. But I mean, we're seeing the
bad effects of this, where people who murder people are out,
you know, pretty quickly, even you know.

Speaker 6 (01:14:50):
Yeah, those unintended consequences.

Speaker 12 (01:14:53):
Well I'm not sure how unintended in all cases, but yeah, true,
but yeah, so those are the two big unusual things.
So yeah, I think they said in June or July
that the Menendez brothers will be theoretically up for parole.
Now I'm not sure how credible that is. I mean,
Manson was theoretically up for parole and he died in prison,

(01:15:16):
you know, but then again, can still.

Speaker 6 (01:15:20):
Deny you and everything. But they are actually up. I
think they're coordinate. The next one is June thirteenth.

Speaker 12 (01:15:26):
And the only other thing to note with this whole
recensing hearing is that at least this week, the prosecutors
didn't even put on evidence. They said, they took the
attitude of we've already presented all the evidence we need to.
And I just I think that's a mistake, because yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:15:45):
Yeah, I actually agree. I thought that was a very
stupid move. They called no witnesses, they presented no evidence.

Speaker 12 (01:15:51):
You know, and I just I have to think that
if they actually tried, they could find some people to
at least speak up for these two people who had
died who can't speak for themselves, although AI might start
causing that to happen too.

Speaker 6 (01:16:07):
Yeah, that's true, but yeah, and so.

Speaker 12 (01:16:14):
Sorry, my wife actually hit the button. But yeah, so yeah,
they that was I mean, I don't know what they
presented before, but expecting the judge to remember some evidence
that might be months ago, years ago, I just think
that's a that's a very questionable choice at best.

Speaker 6 (01:16:34):
I would agree with that. I do know that they
did have, like Courter pointed, psychologists come in and you know,
assessment for a risk assessment is what it was called,
and that was based on like Gavin Newsom's order for clemency.
They still did the risk assessment, even though like he
kind of rescinded that and said, okay, you know what,

(01:16:55):
we're gonna let the courts handle this and let the
parole board do their thing. But even the risk assessment
said that based on their activities in prison, like having
illegal cell phones, facilitating the flow of drugs and whatnot,
that these men were highly likely to break the law

(01:17:17):
again once they got out, not to commit murder, but
just in general break the law again, like right, and
that's there were what fifty four and fifty seven now
but still are doing these things because I guess they
kind of feel like they're above the law in my mind.

Speaker 12 (01:17:34):
Well, again, that goes back to my theory that maybe
their father had kind of created the monster that killed them,
you know, that maybe they were raised to think, look,
they are above the law. They don't have to listen
to the law. They need to be winners who just
take what they need, you know, and all that crew.

Speaker 6 (01:17:52):
That actually tracks because in nineteen eighty eight, Eric actually
got in trouble for getting involved in a string of
burglary in the neighborhood. But I guess because of you know,
the family money and everything, he was only like it
was nothing on his record or anything. He just had
these court appointed visits with a psychiatrist. Well, I mentioned

(01:18:17):
Eric got kicked out of Princeton, like he was suspended
for a year for plagiarism. Like these boys had a
history of doing these things that they knew were wrong, right,
but it's like they didn't care.

Speaker 12 (01:18:31):
Well, one other thing to point out that it's going
on in California too, is that, like about decade ago,
the Supreme Court ruled that their prisons were so overcrowded
that it was unconstitutional and violated the Eighth Amendment, which
deals with cruel and unusual punishment.

Speaker 2 (01:18:49):
Yeah, and so one of the.

Speaker 12 (01:18:50):
Other problems is is they have this pressure from the
courts to constantly release people, you know, because they don't
have enough room in their prisons and they can't apparently
farm out enough people, you know, which to me says, hey,
we need to then emergency build some kind of prisons.

Speaker 6 (01:19:07):
Ye, that's what I was saying, like, just we need
more prisons apparently.

Speaker 12 (01:19:11):
Yeah. Yeah, I mean it's it's it's a fact that
you know, at some point out to the other day,
you know that, like it is a minuscule number of
people committing a lot of our crimes. Yeah, and if
you just got a little harder on criminals, we would
see a lot of crime just go right off a cliff,
you know, whether you're talking about deporting them or throwing

(01:19:32):
them in prison or what you know. So, yeah, I
so that may be part of what's going on when
we see, you know, do we want to house these
people where Okay, yeah, they're they're sneaking in cell phones
and drugs. But you know the fact is their parents
are who are who else are they going to kill?
You know, that's maybe the horrible thinking that they may.

Speaker 6 (01:19:53):
Have, and I mean I can kind of understand that,
But my answer to that question would be they would
have asolutely kill anybody else that they thought if it
would benefit them, certainly.

Speaker 12 (01:20:04):
For however, many millions of dollars they stood to inherit,
which I mean that ice assumed they can't inherit anymore,
but even that I'm not sure about.

Speaker 6 (01:20:14):
Yeah, I know, I know at the time Jose had
a like a five million dollar life insurance policy, but
because of technicalities, which I guess are the police murder
every Yeah, that little technicality and everything, they could not
actually get that life insurance policy.

Speaker 2 (01:20:32):
So the same thing if you burned down your house,
you can't.

Speaker 6 (01:20:35):
Yeah exactly, I mean, yeah, he was worth fourteen million
at the time of his death, but they stood to
earn another five million if that life insurance policy had
been carried out.

Speaker 12 (01:20:48):
Right, And just definitely slightly off topic, but you know,
another common insurance exception is if you die, if the
actual person you know who's covered dies, think terrorism that
often cancels the insurance. And they had a law in

(01:21:08):
they had a law in Minnesota where you know, they
were proposing to say you that this is the rule.
You know that you know that they don't have to
pay out if you die committing terrorism. And one of
the only two people to vote against this was ilean Omar,
who's now a US representative.

Speaker 6 (01:21:28):
Not shocking, you know, so f YI, but yeah, that
that tracks completely. But yeah, I know another thing for
insurance claims and whatnot is suicides. They won't cover a
suicide because I know there was one case that comes

(01:21:49):
to mind immediately of this man who basically faked a
hate crime like he was a he was a black
man everything, and he hung himself from a tree with
where pigs scrawled across his chest that he wrote himself
right because he was he was already suicidal, but he
wanted his family to still get the insurance money that

(01:22:11):
he had on a life insurance policy, so he tried
to make it look like a murder or you know,
something like that. But I mean, forensics really don't lie,
so right, Yes, suicides stuff like that, they won't cover
an insurance policy at all. Right, So for accidental deaths,

(01:22:34):
you can actually get more because there's usually an accidental
death clause, right.

Speaker 12 (01:22:39):
And and I believe inheritance will often not be available
to anybody who you know, who kills the person you know.

Speaker 6 (01:22:49):
Yeah, I think the seven hundred thousand dollars that they
went through in the first six months after the murders,
I think that was basically just using mommy and Daddy's
existing credit cards.

Speaker 12 (01:23:01):
Imagine having that kind of credit with that bank account.
So but anyway, yeah, so, so, yeah, sorry to get
you off track on that Minnesota thing, but yeah, not
the Menendez brothers, but yeah, oh no, that this is
what we do.

Speaker 6 (01:23:18):
This is like what we call it front ports for
insics because it's just like hanging out on our front
ports just talking so very very stream of consciousness type
of deal that we do. Like there's no wrong way
to go on our show.

Speaker 2 (01:23:33):
All right, Cool, So, y'all mentioned earlier about the prosecution
arguing about and didn't bring any evidence, and they was
arguing about how there was no signs of the Meninda's
brothers changing their ways will in prison and all that. Well,
Judge Jesse disagrees.

Speaker 6 (01:23:55):
Yeah, his closing statements were part.

Speaker 2 (01:23:58):
Number two, California you Offender law was there was three
main reasons that he Number one, the California Youth Will
Offender Law brought up the resentencing trial automatically. I mean
that is going to happen. So Judge Jessic takes that
in account as count number one. Is why in his findings,

(01:24:19):
Count number two is evidence of rehabilitation. And this goes
right against kind of what we was talking about. In
the middle of that discussion, he noted that the brothers
Judge Jessic noted the brothers quotations significant rehabilitation efforts during
their incarceration. They obtained college degrees, they participated in meditation programs,

(01:24:48):
nice they served as again quote positive influencers within the
prison community.

Speaker 6 (01:24:57):
The facilitation of drugs and everything notwithstanding, But.

Speaker 2 (01:25:01):
They had family members and former inmates testify that the
brothers testify, testify about the brother's reborse and their reformed characters.

Speaker 6 (01:25:11):
Yeah, they brought in family members and even then just
acquaintances that got to know the in prison. I say
the boys, but I mean they were men at the
time that they noted. But the brothers, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:25:23):
They brought in former inmates that they had new in
prison that had rehabilitated themselves they got out. They actually
come in as character witnesses on behalf of the brothers
while they was in prison. So the defense, I guess
the in this resentence and they brought witnesses and stuff.

Speaker 6 (01:25:45):
I say, I think it was a very very bad
choice on the prosecution not to bring any witnesses or
not to readmit.

Speaker 2 (01:25:51):
Evidence they should have. I don't know if they were
allowed to readmit evidence, but I know that they could
have brought in witnesses if they wanted to people to
at least testify it.

Speaker 6 (01:26:01):
They did say that they didn't present any evidence because
they had already presented it before in the previous trial,
So you could absolutely bring that back in.

Speaker 2 (01:26:12):
Yeah, but that's what I'm saying. They may not have
had anything new. They could have brought it back up, but.

Speaker 6 (01:26:16):
Yeah, I mean, they could have rehashed this. And again,
if it was me as a prosecutor, I would have
brought up just the sheer brutality of the crimes.

Speaker 2 (01:26:24):
I imagine the prosecutors thought it was still going to
be pretty shy so forth. But Article three here, I
guess that'd be the defense of the brothers here they
did bring in new evidence the defense. The defense presented

(01:26:45):
new evidence supporting the brothers claims of sexual abuse by
the father Jose, primarily a letter allegedly I'll put that
in there, written before the murders about the abuse and
corroborative claims. Uh, Roy Roussello. Russello wrote the note Kyle

(01:27:07):
the older one. Yeah, did Roy Roussello, who accused who
had accused Jose of abuse back in the nineteen eighties,
So they this was a letter. I think it was Kyle,
It may have been Eric whatever. I'm sorry, I know

(01:27:27):
I know a Kyle. So that name kind of keeps
popping up. Lyle, I don't know if it was Lyle
or Eric that wrote one off. Yeah, that's why it
keeps popping in. But he wrote this letter and it
also mentioned this Roy who had also made claims of

(01:27:49):
abuse sexual abuse about back in the eighties. Again allegedly.
You know, so those three things.

Speaker 6 (01:27:56):
They have a potential third party to corroborate that.

Speaker 2 (01:27:59):
Yes, well, yeah, the third party he did test He
did basically testify that, Yeah, that's happened through these letters.

Speaker 6 (01:28:08):
Yeah, but again allegedly, because we don't know what would
it be what's the word I'm looking for, how honest?

Speaker 2 (01:28:20):
Yeah, yeah, I don't know any the characters of them,
what this person is all about either way. That happened right.

Speaker 12 (01:28:28):
Well, And of course you'd have trouble bringing anything like
that as hearsay too. I don't know. Then again, they
may not use quite the same rules of evidence as
you might see in a normal case, you know, but
I would I would ask, well, how is that being
let in? Even in the first part.

Speaker 6 (01:28:46):
Yeah, that's exactly what I was what I was going
to say. Like, if I were to prosecutor, i'd be like,
this is completely hearsay.

Speaker 2 (01:28:52):
Like, but apparently at some point, I mean, Judge Jessic
allowed it in so uh so based on those three
points and other themes as well, I mean, not just
these three, these are the three main things. Uh just
Judge Jessic proceeded with the resentencing despite heavy, heavy opposition

(01:29:15):
from the d A. Nathan is it hokumb Hawkman h
O c h m A n Hackman, I would say
Hacken now Hackman. He argued that the brothers had not
fully accepted responsibilities for their actions, and that's what y'all
mentioned earlier, that they're still cleading u self defense, which

(01:29:36):
is not accepting almost not.

Speaker 6 (01:29:39):
Even that because of the statements that you know, Aaron
mentioned earlier, like yes, we did this and we have
no excuse for this, So that rules out self defension,
that they have no excuse for it.

Speaker 2 (01:29:49):
Yeah, that's why that's what I was saying. Yeah, when
y'all was, he says to that earlier, they they are
they have not fully accepted responsibility. Judge Jessic this missed
Hawkin concerns, and he also dismiss concerns about the quote
unquote minor prison in fractions like y'all said, the possession

(01:30:09):
of the contraband cell phones, the drug facilitating things like that,
and his actual statement on that is again, quote, I
don't see anything new when it comes to that kind
of stuff in their behavior.

Speaker 6 (01:30:24):
And they were doing this like the entire time, he
was like, this is not new, This is not.

Speaker 2 (01:30:28):
New evidence to put against it, to argue again, are
you doing that this entire time?

Speaker 6 (01:30:33):
I'm like, that should absolutely tell you how they're going
to behave when they get out.

Speaker 2 (01:30:38):
And Judge also goes on to emphasize that such issues
that those issues that they were doing that quote unquote
wasn't anything new did not outweigh the brother's overall rehabilitation
while in prison. So he saw what they were doing
in prison, healed, He recognized, Yeah, they.

Speaker 6 (01:31:00):
Were actually they were breaking the rules.

Speaker 2 (01:31:03):
They were breaking the rules, but the things that they're
overall rehabilitation in prison outweighed the bad things that were doing.

Speaker 6 (01:31:13):
I need to now hear what the rehabilitation was then,
because I've already went over. But I mean, it's it's
not enough. Like they're still breaking the rules, so that
means that they have no respect for rules. I agree,
Like this is where this is just where I'm at
with this, Like, I don't the logic that the judge

(01:31:34):
is using here does not make sense to me.

Speaker 2 (01:31:37):
Yeah. Yeah, that's why I wanted to point out that
even the That's why I was pointing this out because
y'all mentioned the defense not bringing anything new. They have
a pretty ironclad taste here. I don't think they felt
like they needed to present anything else because it was
pretty well done.

Speaker 6 (01:31:53):
Prosecution, prosecution, I'm sorry.

Speaker 2 (01:31:55):
Now the defense bringes other stuff in and all of
a sudden, the judge is like, oh, yeah, this that
you're bringing in, this is good. And then and then
the the prosecutions up here like, oh wait a minute,
what about all this stuff they're doing in prison, these
cell phones, all this, you know about that? And Judge
is like, yeah, you've already told you about that. That's
not the need and this kind of dismiances it and says,

(01:32:19):
what the other things they've been doing in prison out way?
Is that that they're good is better than the bad.

Speaker 14 (01:32:24):
They're not even obeying the rules in prison, right, And
I mean, you know, look, nobody obeys one hundred percent
of all the rules all the time.

Speaker 12 (01:32:35):
And give a simple example, who here actually stays under
the speed limit instead of going five miles over you know,
raise your hand.

Speaker 6 (01:32:46):
Family, So I definitely don't follow that rule.

Speaker 12 (01:32:48):
Yeah. So, but there's still, you know, there there's still
such a thing as a person who generally tries to
follow the rules versus someone who truly doesn't get a
craft about the rules. And that, Yeah, and I think
I think they fall. They sound like they fall in
the I on the side of they don't give a

(01:33:10):
crap about the rules. Yeah, you know, I mean, I mean,
when you start dealing drugs in prison, when you start
getting cell phones in prison, that sounds you know, it's
a little more than someone getting a smoke in prison,
for example. Yeah, you know what I'm saying, Like, if
that's all they did, I might, as a judge go whatever,
who cares, you know, But you're talking about that kind

(01:33:32):
of other stuff. Then I start going, Yeah, it sounds
like they have not stopped breaking the rules.

Speaker 6 (01:33:37):
You've got to you gotta keep in mind to a
lot of some of these people in prison and everything,
giving them a cell phone actually means it could very
easily mean danger to other people outside.

Speaker 2 (01:33:48):
They still running their business. Yeah. Yeah, that's one of
the things that was surprising that the judges kind of
dismissed it, like, you know, yeah, I know they're doing it.
You didn't present anything new.

Speaker 12 (01:33:59):
So it just kind of gloss might be saying, I've
already accounted for.

Speaker 2 (01:34:05):
That, That's what I mean. Yeah, Yeah, that's kind of
my meaning all that. He's like, yeah, I knew.

Speaker 6 (01:34:11):
This, I've already factored this into my decision.

Speaker 2 (01:34:14):
So he the judge goes ahead. He re sentences the
brothers as we know, to fifty years to life each,
which opens up the door for immediate parole, which opens
up the door for parole and because of the youthful
Offender law. That means it's immediately available for parole.

Speaker 6 (01:34:36):
They can apply for parole like Monday.

Speaker 2 (01:34:39):
They did, so they have the On June thirteenth of
this year, the Parole Board has their heir.

Speaker 6 (01:34:48):
Yeah, that's the next schedule. We will come with updates
for that too. That'll be kind of a part to
to this.

Speaker 2 (01:34:54):
The the title of the night's episode is the one
about the Menendez pro others. Part one after June thirteenth,
and we get some sort of rule and we'll have
part two. So June thirteenth, the pro board hearing is
to conduct independently the pro board evaluations as part of

(01:35:17):
the clemency process. Okay, based on personal rehabilitation. And when
I say personal, Lyle.

Speaker 6 (01:35:25):
And Eric will be judged independently.

Speaker 2 (01:35:28):
Yes, the pro board look at them as individuals, not
as a whole.

Speaker 6 (01:35:31):
Yeah, not as just that little weird little couple.

Speaker 2 (01:35:36):
So to be based on personal rehabilitation, prison conduct, psychological evaluations,
and then some other relevant factors. But those are the
main ones, the rehabilitation, psychological valuations and prison conduct.

Speaker 6 (01:35:54):
And what's is we're probably not going to get a
lot of those details. Like you know me, I'm very
very interested in the psychological evaluation they're going to have,
but because of like hippolaws and everything, we're probably not
going to get any of that.

Speaker 2 (01:36:06):
We will probably get what they decide, but we don't
get it now as a result of the way the
the pro board works that being individual, there's a good
possibility that one brother could be granted pro what the
other one is.

Speaker 6 (01:36:23):
And you know, if I were to pick between the two,
I think Eric probably should be paroled, but LA I
think brains behind it all the older.

Speaker 2 (01:36:31):
Rather just knowing what we know outside looking in, you
would think of the two it would go that way
if they.

Speaker 6 (01:36:36):
Were to be If that's the way that goes, that's
what I would personally root for, because as we've seen,
and these are going to be other episodes in the futures,
but the dynamic between like Team Killers, basically there's always
a dominant and there's always a submissive, and I think
Eric would be the submissive in this situation.

Speaker 2 (01:36:58):
We touched on that with the Toybot's Killer, yes, because.

Speaker 6 (01:37:02):
He did actually have some of his other victims become
part of his.

Speaker 2 (01:37:09):
So now following the hearings again on June thirteenth. I
don't know how long we'll actually take to come up
with a decision. The parle Board will then submit their
findings and recommendations to Governor Gavin Newsom. Again, we mentioned
earlier that he had already started the clemency a process,

(01:37:31):
but then put it all on hold and pushed everything
to the courtses.

Speaker 6 (01:37:35):
Like I said, I still want to ask Aaron to
explain to us the difference between clemency and all this
here in a minute.

Speaker 2 (01:37:40):
So Governor Newsom, basically he holds the final authority on
whether to grant or deny the parole or clemency for
the brothers, And as you would expect with any governor,
US has not publicly indicated a stance on granting clemency

(01:38:02):
to Eric or kyleman In therez one way the other
kind of keeping it Eric and lyman in there is
one way or another. He's kind of keeping it keeping
it quiet. Like I said, he removed is his office
knew some removed his office's request for the premency uh investigation,

(01:38:24):
which effectively converted it that investigation over into the prole
hearing which is coming up Tone thirteen. Because of the
resentencings that we just had. Sign's point to new some
though from some of the insiders and some of the
comments that's that I've seen and found online from some

(01:38:46):
of his people, quote unquote, that Newsome's decision will basically
realnd what the pro board recommendations. That he's there, he's
expected to follow what got the pro So, I think
that's also a good way for and I think I'm
not just crapping on new some right now. I think

(01:39:07):
most most governors will do this. It's kind of a
way there to wash their hands from it.

Speaker 6 (01:39:14):
Basically, I'm done with this.

Speaker 2 (01:39:16):
Do you mean what exactly he pulled? He sended his
clemency in the beginning and gave it to the courts.
The courts done their thing. Now it goes to parro board,
and now he's just gonna do what a pro board says. Yeah,
that's the way of him to stay clean and all
this because you know, the nation's kind of split on
whether these guys should stay in prison or if they

(01:39:38):
should be lenens.

Speaker 6 (01:39:39):
Would it be accurate for us to say then that
the even the resentencing and everything is due to Gavin Newsom.

Speaker 2 (01:39:47):
Uh, This depends on what that law was put into effect.

Speaker 6 (01:39:52):
That'll be something interesting looking too.

Speaker 2 (01:39:54):
But I did not look into in that law on us.

Speaker 6 (01:39:58):
But okay, I I have even been somewhat kind of
confused about like the idea of clemency in a legal sense.
So that's what I wanted Aaron to explain to us,
Like what that.

Speaker 2 (01:40:10):
Even means as opposed to just in general, or as
opposed to.

Speaker 4 (01:40:15):
Is it is it?

Speaker 6 (01:40:16):
Is it somehow different from just getting paroleed?

Speaker 8 (01:40:19):
Is it?

Speaker 6 (01:40:20):
Like? Yeah, basically that's what I'm wondering.

Speaker 12 (01:40:24):
Well, I mean it comes down to clemency is under
the part in power. I mean, if you look in
the federal Constitution, there's no mention of clemency, and yet
presidents and out clemency all the time. So yeah, that
you know, pardons, I haven't looked into California's actual constitution stuff,
but they're typically done as a matter of grace. And

(01:40:48):
on the other hand, things like parole recensing and stuff
are typically done as a matter of right. You know,
So chances are this useful offender that you full offender
statue gave them an absolute right to at least be heard,
you know, and maybe even a right if they meet
certain criteria, although something that criteria might be very subjective.

(01:41:10):
How well did they accept responsibility and stuff like that?
You know, so it's you know, that process is probably
with a lot less discretion, while you know, like Gavin
Newsom could could you know, give them a part and
probably just go, well, you know what, I hated their
parents anyway, fuck them. Yeah, you know part of my language,

(01:41:34):
you know how you're finding but yeah, yeah, I mean seriously, yeah,
Donald Trump tomorrow could hand out a part and for
for a good reason, a bad reason, you know, Joe
bid you Like we all talk controversially about the Hunter
buying part, Joe Bi could have said, I'm giving my
son a party because he's my son. Yeah, he's guilty

(01:41:55):
his head, he's a crackhead and all this stuff, but
he's my son. Screw you. He could said that, you know,
I mean, it wouldn't it wouldn't have looked very good
on his legacy. But you know he could have said that, right,
And yeah, with Gavin news some you know, the man
is the biggest horror in politics in my mind. And
no I agree with you, like, but he wants to

(01:42:18):
run for office and I think he I think he
wants to run for president, and I think he is
at least smart enough to know that in some ways
the rest of the country is a lot more conservative
than California, And so I think he is trying to
move to the right, except I don't think he has
enough depth of thought to even know what that means.

Speaker 6 (01:42:41):
That's exactly what I was going to say, like, does
he even know what that would look like?

Speaker 2 (01:42:46):
Right?

Speaker 12 (01:42:47):
But I mean, you know the same guy this. You know,
I told you guys a few minutes ago about this
statute that allows essentially legal kidnapping of your kids for
gender transitions in California, and you know, at the he
signed that bill, but then recently said, oh, I don't
think I don't think uh, trans trans women in sports

(01:43:07):
is fair to real women. I mean, he didn't put
that way, you know, but yeah, he suddenly came out
against transgender and sports, you know, that sort of thing, to.

Speaker 6 (01:43:17):
Play both ends against the middle right.

Speaker 12 (01:43:20):
You know. So I don't think he has any principles,
and I don't think he has like any kind of
philosophy or understanding of philosophy. You know. I compare him
to some I compare it to someone like Ronda Santis
you know where he'll be up in a debate and
some will say, oh, well, parents should decide whether or
not to transition their children, and he'll say, we don't

(01:43:41):
let a parent abuse their children, we don't let them
punch their children or cut off an arm. Why should
we let them trans transition their kids. He understands the philosophy, yeah,
and advocates for it very well. And you know, I
don't think I don't think Gavin Newsom understands philosophy.

Speaker 2 (01:43:58):
I don't think what he understands is politics. And he's
playing it correctly.

Speaker 6 (01:44:04):
Again, he's playing both ends against the middle and that's
all he knows how to do.

Speaker 4 (01:44:08):
But the.

Speaker 2 (01:44:10):
Yeah, like you said, he could just with the power
to pen get that pardon and with it. Yeah, but Clemency,
I think, like you said, is this basically a cleaner
version of a pardon?

Speaker 12 (01:44:22):
I guess, uh, Clemency is, I'm not is Essentially he's
not going to say they never did it. He's not
going to raise the conviction. He's going to just reduce
their sentence.

Speaker 2 (01:44:33):
And he could reduce it to zero though, right he
could say that they could get time service. Yeah, that's
what that was My understanding of it too. It's basically
pardon watsing the slate clean clintency just relieves the the conviction.

Speaker 12 (01:44:51):
Yeah right. And there's some defe over over whether or
not whether or not you you are treated as still
having committed the act. If you parolled as a part,
I'm sorry, you know, they if your pardoned. You know,
there's some supreme courpress that want to say, well, if
you accept the putting, your admitting you committed the crime,

(01:45:13):
and I just I don't think that's entirely logical, you know,
like like I I can't imagine the situation where I
have a client who has a pardon and I say
to well, maybe you don't want to have that pardon.
Maybe you want to go through a whole criminal trial
and risk going to prison, you know, you know, even

(01:45:33):
though you're innocent, you know, because you know then you'll
be admitting to it, you know. So I'm not so
sure that that works. And you know, on top of that,
you seem to be relieved of typically of other secondary effects,
you know, unless it says otherwise, a pardon will will
relieve you of any firearms restrictions and things like that,

(01:45:55):
you know. So but anyway. But yeah, in terms so
these guys, you know, he was thinking of maybe reducing
their sentences, and I think he's probably gonna just take
the attitude of I'd rather not get involved.

Speaker 2 (01:46:08):
Yeah, from what I from what I'm reading and seeing,
and from even he has kind of body language and
what he's saying too and interviews. I think that's the
Pontius pilot thing. I think that is a not to
compare them to Jesus's. It's just a way for him

(01:46:29):
to wash his hands of it and not take responsibility.
It takes the weight of responsibility off of if he
has shoulders for the decision.

Speaker 6 (01:46:36):
Say, when you talk about somebody washing their hands with responsibility,
that goes back to Ponta's pilot, which is the only
reason I made that reference. Yeah. Absolutely, definitely not comparing
the menentas brothers to Jesus in any way, but just
kind of wants the credit for this maybe, but he

(01:46:58):
doesn't want to be responsible.

Speaker 2 (01:47:00):
No, he he wants both because that way, to people
who complain, he can say, well, the court this, and
I was just honoring the court and the people that
cheer him own says like, yeah, we got an outcome.
We wanted. Yeah, so again, he's the perfect politician. He's
gonna play it both ways. And here I'm gonna say this,
I'm no fan of politics, but he's playing it correctly.

Speaker 6 (01:47:24):
That's a genius move. Yeah, it really is.

Speaker 2 (01:47:27):
And in that case, I probably did the same thing.

Speaker 12 (01:47:30):
Well on top of that, I mean he might. I
think he's old enough to remember what happened with Thecaccus
And if you remember during the Decaccus campaign, and I
know some of you'all might be too young to remember it,
during that campaign, really hard hitting ad was the Willie
Horton ad where they said, tocaucus, you know, let this

(01:47:51):
guy out and weekend four furlough and he went and
like I think, murdered and raped some woman or something
like that, just some kind of horrible crime for yeah,
and and yeah, this was run all the time. Of
course Democrats screamed, oh, this is racist, which I think
was one of the instances where them screaming about it

(01:48:11):
only drew more attention to it, you know, you know,
And and it's one of the reasons why Takaka is
probably lost that his horrible answer on the death penalty.
I don't know if y'all ever heard this, but he
was asked, you know, if someone raped and murdered your wife,
would you oppose the death penalty? And he just it

(01:48:33):
wasn't just the He said, yeah, I still opposed the
death Penlly. He said it so callously, you know, like
you know, it just didn't even sink into him emotionally
the thought of what we're talking about, you know. And
I had a professor in at the university who said,
you know, what he should have said was, you know,
we would't had to worry about the death penalty because

(01:48:54):
I would have taken care of it. And he said
that that would have won him.

Speaker 6 (01:48:59):
The elect When you said that, like, I was sitting
here thinking if you had asked that question of Daniel,
he would make the movie law abiding Citizen look very
very tame, right or something like one hundred percent. But
I actually do have an interesting question for both of
you now, in this situation with the min Nindez brothers.

(01:49:20):
Would you rather be the politician that is kind of
supporting clemency or parole or something, or would you rather
be the lawyer like arguing against it.

Speaker 2 (01:49:28):
So would I be if I'm the politician.

Speaker 6 (01:49:30):
If you're the politician, you're in favor of giving them,
like being lenient with them and saying like, Okay, you know,
if the parole board agrees to let them out, then
I agree with that too. Or do you want to
be the prosecutor who says this is a bad idea?

Speaker 2 (01:49:45):
Okay, But I'm a politician anyway, So which side.

Speaker 6 (01:49:47):
Did I'm choosing? Yeah, That's what I'm saying. Like, which
side would you choose? And how would you argue it?

Speaker 2 (01:49:52):
As a politician, not a not the lawyer?

Speaker 6 (01:49:55):
Kick one? Do you get to pick one? You're either
the politician that supports it or the prosecutor and who
says it's a bad idea. Which one do you want
to be? And how do you argue it?

Speaker 12 (01:50:05):
Well, I mean I'll go first and say, you know,
I mean, I take the attitude. I saw an interview
recently with Nick Meyer, the guy behind Star Trek two,
The Wrath of Khan, and he said, he said, you know,
if we made Star Trek two today, they would never
let them kill Spock. And he says, I my goal
is not to give people what they want, but to

(01:50:25):
make people want what I give them. You know, I'm saying,
so I would do the right thing and make the
argument for it, which is, these guys need to stay
in prison. Here's all the reasons they're still committing crimes.
They they lied for years about what was going on,
you know, and we know they lied because they killed
their mother. And that was just bs right there, and

(01:50:47):
so that unzips the whole thing. Once you figure out
that they killed their mother because they want to inherit,
that you realize it's all about inheritance and it was
never about abuse.

Speaker 6 (01:50:56):
It was never about saving her from grief either.

Speaker 12 (01:50:59):
Right, you know, it was just it was just flat
out murder.

Speaker 6 (01:51:03):
And I thought that's the way you would go. You
would take the prosecutions out of it and say this
is a bad idea for these reasons, right, and.

Speaker 12 (01:51:12):
Just just my I mean, one of my constitutional heroes
is a guy named Thaddeus Stevens, and he once said
something to the effect of he said, look, you know,
if you're not sure about the morality, or if it's
just a local issue, just follow what the people say.
But if you're sure you're right, or it's a national issue,
you do the right thing and you do your best

(01:51:34):
to explain it to the people and let and deal
with their judgment, you know what I'm saying, And he
didn't put it quite that way, but that was his philosophy.
And if I was an elective office, that would be
my approach that if I really feel this is wrong,
you know, do the right thing and just suffer the
consequences if you have to. And I mean not to
go way off topic, but that guy really lived that.

Speaker 8 (01:51:56):
You know.

Speaker 12 (01:51:56):
He was one of the pioneers of free education in
Pennsylvania and it was really unpopular they and they were
about to do everybody who voted for it either promised
to repeal it or got thrown out of office in
the next election, and they were getting ready to throw
it out, you know, through legislation, and he made this

(01:52:16):
incredible speech and somehow turned it completely around and saved
free education in Pennsylvania, you know. So yeah, he he
lived that philosophy. So yeah, for me, that's my political philosophy.
Do the right thing, you know, if you think you're right,

(01:52:37):
and you know, and just explain it to the people
as best you can make them want what you gave them.

Speaker 6 (01:52:43):
Yeah. So where would you go, Daniel, Like would you
would you be the politician or would you be the prosecutor,
you know, just I mean just in general, like.

Speaker 2 (01:52:57):
You, if it was you in this position, well you
talk about two completely different creatures, the prosecution versus a politician.

Speaker 6 (01:53:06):
Yeah, but if you were the prosecutor, or, you were
the politician.

Speaker 2 (01:53:10):
If I'm going to be, if I'm going to be
one of them, i'd probably be the prosecution because, like
you said about the truth matters.

Speaker 6 (01:53:18):
I absolutely thought you'd got that direction.

Speaker 2 (01:53:21):
I'm not going that direction. Okay, it's me and I'm
worried about my career moving forward, and a sure when
I say sure, because I'm going to hedge my bets
here and i want to further my you know, further

(01:53:43):
my career and give myself more power, I'm going to
the politician.

Speaker 6 (01:53:47):
R out with Muselm. How would you argue in favor.

Speaker 2 (01:53:50):
I'm not anything. What I'm going to do is exactly
what's happening. They're more likely going to get parole. The
younger generation are way in favor of them getting paroled.
The people that don't want them to get pard are
are generation and older.

Speaker 12 (01:54:12):
Trial.

Speaker 6 (01:54:14):
Yeah, we're the ones who remember all this exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:54:17):
That's That's what I'm saying. I'm just looking at this
as the reality of the voting for a career to
move forward, you have a better shot as a politician
picking the side of the brothers to be proode and
let go because they were just poor victims. That's sexual abuse,

(01:54:38):
and that's going to play much better with the upcome
and voting demographic.

Speaker 6 (01:54:43):
So to be successful, head you bet for as a
politician and go that route.

Speaker 2 (01:54:48):
Morally, I think that's horrible because, like I said, I'm
old enough to remember what happened, and personally and morally
I would pick the more on the side of the prosecution.

Speaker 6 (01:54:58):
But my question wasn't about like career wise, what would
you choose, just you as a person, if you were
this politician, if you were this prosecutor. Yeah, and I
just answered both of them.

Speaker 2 (01:55:09):
If I was a prosecutor, I would obviously go to
more route, because yes, I know what I'm saying. If
I'm a politician, then I'm going the opposite way. I
think it would be better. Question is if you were
a politician, which side would you pick?

Speaker 6 (01:55:22):
See you're already acting like a politician here.

Speaker 2 (01:55:24):
Of course I am, because that's society. That's what I'm arguing.

Speaker 12 (01:55:29):
Politician here, I think what we've proven beyond any reasonable
doubt is neither one of us would make it in politics, I.

Speaker 6 (01:55:39):
Say, I I don't know. I think I could reasonably
play devil's advocate for either position, like against either the
politician or the prosecutor. Well that's one of them.

Speaker 12 (01:55:53):
And I'll say, to be fair to any political leader,
you know, I'm I have some sympathy for saying, why
just let the process play out. We might learn a
whole bunch during the process. And then when it's done,
if I feel like the process wasn't fair, that's the
time for me to intervene. And you know, and you know,
these very proactive pardons and clemencies and all that might

(01:56:17):
not make as much sense unless it's a very special issue,
like you had that couple that defended themselves against Black
Lives Matter protesters with an AR fifteen and a pistol.
And you know, I think the government, you know, they
started seeing that these guys are getting investigated, even though
it looked pretty clear that they were in the right.
And so I think, if I remember correctly, the governor

(01:56:39):
just pardoned them or something like that, and that's protected
and I can understand in that kind of situation taking
the aggressive I'm not going to go through this crap,
you know sort of thing, and not let these people
go through this. But I can also see the argument
of let's just let the process play out and see
if we learn more. I mean, you know, like in

(01:56:59):
the Rittenhouse case, even if I'm dealing with that, I'd
be tempted to pardon him right out. But but you know,
part of you would say, well, what if he gets
on the stand and says, yeah, I killed these people
in cold blood and I love doing it, you know
what I'm saying, Then what do I look like?

Speaker 2 (01:57:14):
You know?

Speaker 12 (01:57:16):
So you know, I can I can have some sympathy
for just the general let's wait and see what happens,
you know what I'm saying, Not even in a in
a crass political way, but just in the sense of,
I don't you know, I'm not sure we have all
the information yet.

Speaker 6 (01:57:36):
Yeah, And I'm like you, I do think that's a
safe bet for a politician and everything, But for me,
I go prosecution and I would definitely be like bringing
in witnesses and presenting evidence and everything, because I truly
believe that these guys don't need to be released. Like
I don't think that they'll necessarily like murder anybody else

(01:57:58):
if they get paroled. But like, we're going to see
these guys in the news again because they don't think
the rules apply to them, right, And I think they're
absolutely going to do something else that is illegal, right.

Speaker 12 (01:58:12):
And I mean, if they're willing to kill their parents
to become millionaires, will they be willing to be try
to be drug Kennington's Will they try to emulate the
show Breaking Bad or something?

Speaker 4 (01:58:22):
You know?

Speaker 6 (01:58:22):
You know, if they get paroled, they are going to
have this now notoriety and everything.

Speaker 2 (01:58:28):
There's a thing if they get paroled, no matter what
they do, they will be rich again before the ind
of view. Yeah, and that is also going to be
the basis of our next part two of the one
about them and then Dez Brothers Part two coming in June.
Once we find out what happens.

Speaker 6 (01:58:48):
Yeah, we need to watch that trial coming up next
and everything, and.

Speaker 2 (01:58:53):
We'll be able to talk about that trial, what happened
with the you know, they're decision, what Gavin Newsom does.
I'd be interesting to follow it. I'm really looking forward
to seeing how it plays out.

Speaker 6 (01:59:06):
Yeah, this one's gonna be an interesting series. And again,
this one's not gonna be like week to week because
we don't have any new information like coming next.

Speaker 2 (01:59:14):
Week, So we'll have to wait until after the June
thirteenth hearings over Weed and see what's going.

Speaker 6 (01:59:19):
Part two is going to be like a month from now.

Speaker 2 (01:59:21):
Yeah, and then probably around October and November we'll have
a part three when they get put back in Zil.

Speaker 6 (01:59:28):
Because you know, they're gonna probably do something illegal and
like one of them is just to to get like
go back in. Like I just genuinely think that this
is gonna happen.

Speaker 12 (01:59:39):
Well, I wanted to end up being like with the
George Zimmerman case, where for a while there, every single
incident in his life, including being pulled over for a
speeding ticket, suddenly became national news. You know what I'm saying.
I wonder if for a while there, if if that
you know, might happen with the Menendez brothers. You know,
they might also have the biggest microscope on them in

(02:00:03):
the world.

Speaker 2 (02:00:04):
Yeah, yeah, I think they will for sure. Honestly, I
think they'll wind up because they're from what I've seen,
from their attitudes and their egos and all that they'll
probably be TikTok and YouTube and all these kind of things.

Speaker 6 (02:00:16):
They'll have something on Discovery Channel, some kind of documentary
life after Prison or something.

Speaker 2 (02:00:22):
Yeah, what I'm saying is that the media won't have
to chase them down the Yes, that's assuming they do
get the didn't.

Speaker 6 (02:00:32):
They even try to write a book about the murders
while they were like being investigated.

Speaker 2 (02:00:39):
I don't know.

Speaker 12 (02:00:40):
I did it too.

Speaker 6 (02:00:44):
The sequels for the O. J. Simpsons.

Speaker 2 (02:00:48):
Well, eron. It has been a great having you all,
having your insight, and the conversation has been really really good. Yeah, well,
we'll love to have you again later on at anytime
you have something you want to inut and.

Speaker 6 (02:01:01):
For sure about the Menindaz brother series like the next one. Everything,
will probably talk to you about coming back on again.

Speaker 12 (02:01:08):
Okay. Well, if you guys ever need a lawyer just
to bring in some of the law crap and all
that stuff, feel free to let me know.

Speaker 6 (02:01:15):
Yeah, because again, some of the legal stuff, like even
as much as I'm fascinated about all this, I still
don't even know all like the ins and outs of
the legal system and everything. So it's really awesome to
be able to pick your brain about it to be
very blunt.

Speaker 12 (02:01:28):
Even lawyers don't always know all the ins and outs
of the legal system. I mean, I can't tell you
how this California procedure of reseentencing completely went. I had
some insight, but not completely.

Speaker 5 (02:01:40):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:01:41):
Yeah, I try my best to be accurate. But there's,
like I said, there's some things that I don't know
the lingo of exactly, and then the viewances of everything.
So it's good to have We love to get things
correct here, so it's good to have people that's got knowledge.

Speaker 6 (02:01:58):
We definitely like to pick the brain into people who
are in the know.

Speaker 12 (02:02:03):
Okay, but I was gonna say, it's really nice being here.

Speaker 2 (02:02:10):
Oh yeah, for sure. Yeah. Let everybody know where they
can find you, where they can follow you on X
and all that.

Speaker 12 (02:02:17):
And I refuse to call it X. It's Twitter, and
you just look for at Aaron worthing w O R
SO w R T H I n G A is
the fake last name I used to use. But uh,
and and that's me on Twitter or just go look

(02:02:37):
up for me on twitchy where I'm just Aaron Walker
and you can find my Twitter there pretty easily there too,
is it? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (02:02:46):
Yeah, a ron An.

Speaker 12 (02:02:53):
I'm telling you that that skit does not make me
mad if it helps me out, because now whatever, right,
try to explain to you how to spell my name,
I just go aa run like the skit and then
walker like the Texas Ranger.

Speaker 2 (02:03:07):
Perfect nice.

Speaker 6 (02:03:09):
I said, that's really good.

Speaker 2 (02:03:13):
Oh yeah, I wanted to wanted to thank you again
for joining this week. Normally try to shut down around nine,
so I think we'll just keep that going. Yeah, and
but so we'll definitely have you back if you want
to when we find out for when part two shill
for sure. Uh, I'm easy to find. I'll go ahead
and throw myself out there real quick because it's real

(02:03:35):
short and sweet.

Speaker 6 (02:03:36):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (02:03:37):
Bump stock ken on its and I also helped run
the front ports for Insics. That's f P Underscore for
Insics on its as well. That's basically all I do.

Speaker 6 (02:03:50):
Yeah, and it's always easy to remember both of our
handles and everything over on Twitter because it's bumpstock Barbie
and bump stock can yep, so you can find me.
I'm bump Sock Barbie. Obviously we do not gender swap here,
but I also have my twitchy author page in my
bio and I have a couple of just fun pages.

(02:04:13):
I have a baking page and a plant page. But
those are not true crime related or even political affiliated
in any way whatsoever. They're just fun. Yeah. And we've
had Rick. We've had Rick in the background here. So yeah, producer,
he's the one who keeps everything like the train's running

(02:04:35):
on time.

Speaker 1 (02:04:37):
I'm a figment of your imagination.

Speaker 2 (02:04:41):
Hey listen, you know again we're front porch screens. It's
true crime. We normally do mass murder, serial killers, all
that kind of heavy stuff. KLRIN radio dot com has
got so many shows out there. There's something that will
wet your whistle. Okay, there's something and for.

Speaker 6 (02:05:01):
Your interest in it's there. I mean, we've got like
the like Bigfoot type stuff. We've got like another alien
that helps produce them.

Speaker 2 (02:05:11):
Yeah, there's a real life alien that's got a show
out there. There's that position, which is another great one.
I'm telling you here, so many good stuff out there.

Speaker 6 (02:05:20):
Check them out. They even have a gardening one, which
I love.

Speaker 2 (02:05:23):
There's a store you can help us with, you know,
finding some check out k l r N radio dot com.
I'm sure you'll find something you love. But until next time,
I'm bump Stock Can.

Speaker 6 (02:05:39):
And I'm bump Stock Barbie, and we want to encourage
you to not do anything that will make you be
a new episode. Don't end up on an episode of our.

Speaker 2 (02:05:52):
Show, so you're not the subject of one of our
next shows until next time. Thank you for joining us
on our front porch, and well you can't wait till
uh and bock you back.

Speaker 1 (02:06:03):
Don't wind up on a grocery list between now and
next week.

Speaker 6 (02:06:08):
I'm never gonna live that down. I listened to a
lot of True cry. I don't listened to it that night.
I like the girl talk.

Speaker 5 (02:06:22):
It makes me.

Speaker 6 (02:06:24):
I like scary stories in the morning, and I like
them that night. I like the girl talk guys. They
made me feel just f I listen to a lot
of true crime.