August 5, 2025 • 48 mins
Lyle and Eric Menendez, convicted of the 1996 murders of their parents, are now facing the possibility of parole. In May 2025, a judge resentenced them to life with the possibility of parole, clearing the way for hearings scheduled on August 21 and 22.
Are the Menendez brothers truly rehabilitated—or do they still pose a danger to society? Join host Dr. Dana Anderson as she speaks with veteran defense attorney Sam Bassett about the legal strategy behind their resentencing. Forensic psychologist Dr. Craig Wetter weighs in on clinical tools like the HCR-20 and PCL-R, used to assess whether someone presents an unreasonable risk to public safety if released.
At the crossroads of crime, politics, and psychology, this episode unpacks how parole law and forensic risk tools shape the fate of two of America’s most notorious inmates.
Chapters
00:00 Introduction to the Menendez Brothers Case
01:58 Parole Hearing Dynamics and Public Perception
04:04 Understanding Remorse and Risk Assessment Tools
08:01 Psychopathy and Personality Disorders in Context
12:08 Youthful Offender Laws and Their Implications
15:59 The Role of AI in Risk Assessments
19:49 Life After Prison: Challenges and Opportunities
24:06 Public Opinion and Media Influence
27:48 Redemption Stories and Future Paths
31:53 The Importance of Addressing Abuse
35:41 Conclusion and Future Considerations
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/killer-psychologist--6020549/support.
Are the Menendez brothers truly rehabilitated—or do they still pose a danger to society? Join host Dr. Dana Anderson as she speaks with veteran defense attorney Sam Bassett about the legal strategy behind their resentencing. Forensic psychologist Dr. Craig Wetter weighs in on clinical tools like the HCR-20 and PCL-R, used to assess whether someone presents an unreasonable risk to public safety if released.
At the crossroads of crime, politics, and psychology, this episode unpacks how parole law and forensic risk tools shape the fate of two of America’s most notorious inmates.
Chapters
00:00 Introduction to the Menendez Brothers Case
01:58 Parole Hearing Dynamics and Public Perception
04:04 Understanding Remorse and Risk Assessment Tools
08:01 Psychopathy and Personality Disorders in Context
12:08 Youthful Offender Laws and Their Implications
15:59 The Role of AI in Risk Assessments
19:49 Life After Prison: Challenges and Opportunities
24:06 Public Opinion and Media Influence
27:48 Redemption Stories and Future Paths
31:53 The Importance of Addressing Abuse
35:41 Conclusion and Future Considerations
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/killer-psychologist--6020549/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome to Killer Psychologist. I'm Dana Anderson, a forensic psychologist
and your host of the show. Killer Psychologist is for
true crime fanatics and anyone intrigued with the dark side
of psychology. Welcome to Killer Psychologist. We are back with
Sam Bassett and doctor Craig Wetter. And Sam was with
(00:26):
us back in April and we discussed Eric and Lyle
Menendez and they were up for a resentencing hearing in May.
And now that sentencing happened and they are now eligible
potentially for parole, and they have a new hearing date.
(00:47):
Prole hearings are scheduled for August twenty first and twenty second.
So I am curious from a criminal defense attorney's perspective,
what we can expect at this hearing. We have, you know,
the Menandez brothers since the nineties, this case has been
(01:10):
so widely discussed and people have strong opinions about them
right now, whether they believe they should be released, and
then other people have an opposing opinion, which doctor Wetter
can play the devil's advocate today and take a look
at some of those factors that maybe the public isn't
considering of risk assessments being used and analyzed for the
(01:35):
Pearle hearing, and what factors are going to be scrutinized
and looked at of maybe why they could be a
risk to society or why the judge won't advocate for
their release. So, Sam, thank you so much for joining
us today.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Thank you braving me.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
You've been following this a case a long time. So
tell me your thoughts right now. Since we were last
here in April discussing this case, what are your thoughts
on the Menendez brothers and where they're at right now
in the legal process.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Well, I think they kind of got what they wanted
from the judicial process. They got resentenced and they're eligible
for parole. Parole is an interesting creature, at least in
Texas and in most states. It's kind of a combination
of what we would call Doe process and politics, kind
(02:28):
of an intersection. The parole board is typically appointed by
the governor they have turned. They probably look over their
shoulder a little bit politically, So it'll be really interesting
to see how this untangles at the hearing in August
and the subsequent decision. You have Gavin Newsom who has
(02:50):
his eyes on the White House. Theoretically, or at least
that's the speculation. So everybody's going to be weighing their
benefit costs benefit analysis personally when they're entering into these decisions.
But I think the factors for the Menendez brothers are
pretty compelling for parole, given their post conviction behavior, their
(03:15):
age at the time of the offenses, and they need
to do a good job of articulating remorse for what
they did. That's going to be a key variable, I
think in persuading the parole for to recommend parole. So
I think it's going to be a very interesting dynamic
(03:35):
because of all those factors at play.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
And let's talk about remorse because publicly they have made
statements of remorse. But I want to ask Craig about
something that the psychologist who's doing the risk assessment. Is
one of the risk assessment tools, and you can talk
about those, Craig, but the psychopathy checklist and what that
(04:01):
measures and how that might detect for someone who's not remorseful.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Yeah, certainly. So we don't know what specific assessment instruments
that the psychologists used. I mean, I presume that there's
there were, So in early let's set the stage for
this in early twenty twenty five, Gavin Newsom did order
the p Board to conduct comprehensive risk assessments of both
(04:28):
Eric and Lyle And that's fairly calm, and it's particularly
in a situation like this where you're looking at resentencing
from life without possibility of parole to now fifty two life,
which is I think what they resentenced them to. And
so it's common that you're going to order a risk assessment.
So as a psychologist, it's going to be a psychologist
likely that's doing this, a forensic psychologist. They would usually
(04:52):
use a minimum of two assessment tools. So in California
in researching kind of what they do, because I don't
do these assessments for California, I do them in Nevada.
But they use the what's called the HCR twenty and
it's the version three of that, and it's basically what
we call a structured professional judgment tool. It looks at
historical factors, clinical factors, and then risk management factors, so
(05:13):
it's kind of like a three part assessment. And that
tool doesn't in and of itself identify the presence necessarily
of say a narcissistic personality disorder, but it does have
elements of what we call antisocial personality architecture, and so
the listeners need to understand that like narcissistic personality disorder
(05:33):
and antisocial personality disorder are two separate disorders, but oftentimes
we see someone with antisocial personality disorder or at least traits,
they also have narcissistic traits as well. They're part of
the same cluster or domain or larger domain we call
the cluster B disorder. So the PCLR, which is what
(05:54):
you reference, that's the Psychopathy Checklist revised. That's the gold
standard instrument that we use to assess for risk of
future violence, and it really focuses on the psychopathic architecture.
And that again is psychopathy is not a clinical diagnosis
per se, but psychopathy is a constellation of traits, behaviors,
(06:14):
sort of ways of being that we do see frequently,
you know, represented in the criminal justice system. In fact,
I think in prison estimates are eighteen to twenty up
to twenty five percent of incarcerated individuals that are in
currently in state prison meet criteria for psychopathy. And that
has meaning because we know, you know, psychopathic individuals can
(06:36):
be dangerous if they're released so it's unclear whether they
use the pcl R here. But one of the stories
that was reporting on at least lyle at least a
psychologists somehow, I don't know how they got this information
mentioned narcissistic personality and I don't know if they said
personality disorder or traits. And that's also important because we
look at these things dimensionally too. Even though someone doesn't
(06:59):
may not meet criteria for a diagnosis, they still might
have the traits. So that's interesting because if we see that,
then I wonder what else might be there, you know,
that they're talking about, you know, in terms of risk,
because they found moderate I think that they were there
was a moderate risk of future violence potentially. That was
a long winded answer, but I had to set it
up and give you the context of like, you know,
(07:21):
when they're doing these evaluations, they are using assessment tools,
so their data driven, right, but there's also some element
of clinical judgment in here, right, So we we have
to render an opinion, you know, so I have to
classify somebody after I do an assessment whether or not
they're low, moderate, or high risk. That's generally the framework
we use. And then the court or in this case,
like the parole board, you know, they can rely on that.
(07:44):
They look at that report obviously, but person doesn't have
to be high risk for them to deny parole. You know,
that's just one thing that they look at. So that's
interesting that they were noting this at least in Lyle.
Now Eric is different. So there's a difference here, right
in terms of that are going on personality wise that
could could make them higher risk or lower risk.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Yeah, and I think society has lumped them together as
one person, the Menendez brothers one of them.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Yeah, that's a mistake.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
Yeah, the two No, No, they're two different people and
two different personalities. And I think Sam can you know,
speak to this as well in terms of like when
we look at particularly when a crime is committed by
two you know, co conspirators or two defendants, oftentimes there's
a leader who is sort of driving the you know,
the bus, so to speak, and calling the shots, and
then there's generally a follower, you know, there's someone who
(08:34):
will kind of go along a lot of times with
the scheme whatever it is. And so I think that's
been established in this case, who the leader, who the
follower was, and who perhaps maybe was influenced in some way,
and that's something that that should be looked at too.
I think it's important.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Yeah, usually you're going to look at the older siblings
the leader for sure. Yeah, especially at the age they work, right.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Yeah, And to remind people, Lyle was twenty one and
Eric was eighteen, and so maybe we can talk about
so this age difference, and what can you tell me
about this California youthful Offender law, you know, being under
the age of twenty six. Can you speak to that, Craig.
Speaker 3 (09:20):
I haven't looked at the statute specifically, but I think
what you're referring to is this is this newer statute
that was just enacted that addresses the issue of frontal
lobe development or under the age of twenty generally twenty five,
and maybe it says twenty six. But the arguments are
that we need to look at criminal behavior a little
differently in individuals that are under the age of twenty
(09:42):
five or twenty six because the executive functioning circuits in
the brain, in the frontal lobes of the brain haven't
fully wired or fully developed. That sort of the argument
that I think is underlying that if I'm not mistaken.
So that allows for I think, some latitude in terms
of sentence, in terms of or in terms of charging,
(10:02):
whether they're going to charge somebody who, for example, has
been accused of murder and charge them with first degree
and then try to get you know, life without and
those sorts of things when the defendant is under the
age of twenty six or twenty five. And I don't
know if there have been cases that have you know,
followed under that, but I again, I assume you know
that's the Texas probably doesn't have a similar sort of statue,
(10:23):
right You're I'm assuming Texas, you don't. You're not looking
at us, say a twenty four year old any differently
than say a thirty year old if they say they
commit a crime of violence, because it's this issue of
impulse control that comes into play. And I've seen psychologists
and neuroscientists and psychiatrists testify that we have to look
at these we have to look at individuals differently when
(10:45):
they're under this age. And I will pause it that
there's a fundamental error in making that broad assumption, because
we know that if we're talking about someone who has
phsychopathic personality architecture it doesn't matter whether the frontal lie
have wired fully or not. Psychopathy, you know, starts in childhood. Unfortunately,
(11:05):
we know that psychopaths are generally they're born, they're not
necessarily shaped. There is some shaping and some stuff that
shapes the development of it, and there's factors that can
certainly protect against somebody developing psychopathy. But we know from
the literature that we see psychopathic behavior as young as
(11:25):
four or five years old. As sad as that sounds,
but we see it. It looks different when they're children.
But the question then becomes, you know, if you have
a psychopath in front of you, do you look at
that differently than you do if the person is not
meet that criteria of psychopathy. That's one of the things
that we don't do a good job of, at least
in the criminal justice system generally, is figuring out who
(11:46):
are the really dangerous people, because I think a lot
of times we end up incarcerating people who are not
necessarily dangerous. That they commit maybe one act of violence
and it was context specific and they're probably never going
to commit an act of violence again. But yet you know,
we're looking at them as though they are dangerous and
potentially violent in the future, if that makes sense. So
that has everything to do with that psychopathy variable that
(12:09):
we just don't really pay attention to enough.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
I think, Yeah, Texas doesn't recognize any kind of statutory
useful offender sentencing paradigm. I think that it is used
a lot though in terms of mitigation, evidence and punishment
hearings here, and it is something that is considered relevant
to sentencing always. So you know, the real interesting data
(12:32):
here will be the measures that they're using to see
how Lyle and Eric tests out. I mean, there's certainly
now at an age where the statistics precipitously drop down
for violent behavior, certainly after age thirty, but more so
after age forty for sure. So it will be interesting
to see how that composite of the testing, the age,
(12:57):
the remorse externally to the parole board. It will be
interesting to see how they how they weigh it all,
and how they decide and how long it takes them
to decide.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
Yeah, this is going to be And obviously because this
you know, this is a high profile case and you know,
so I'm they're going to be very I think they're
going to be very careful, right and deliberate in terms
of how they're going to analyze all of these various
data points. And as you mentioned, you know, we have
a governor that is likely potentially going to be throwing
his name in the hat for the presidential election in
(13:29):
twenty twenty eight, and so again I think that could
also impact too in terms of how, you know, he's
approaching things. He doesn't want to come off as he
wants to come off perhaps as more centrist or moderate
in terms of you know, weighing those you know, in
other words, the risk to the public versus you know,
the liberty interests of these two defendants. He doesn't want
(13:50):
to come off as as too soft or too sort
of left leaning, I think, and that's we've seen some
of that in some other things that he's done. He's
denied parole for a lot of people recently, where it's
like I looked at it and I was like, wow, Okay,
this is a little bit of a shift. I'm seeing
a I'm seeing a shift here. I'm wondering what's what's
what's what's behind that something going on in twenty twenty
(14:12):
eight that we need to.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Know about, right, I've kind of seen him move more
harshly on the homeless issue, yeah, a little more centric.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
Yes, And so a part of that, I think too
is a you know, there's a recognition that I think
the White Republic is sort of rejecting these these progressive
policies and paradigms that clearly, like in some of these cities,
have not worked and have only exacerbated and made the
problem worse. And that's finally, I think they're coming to
their senses a little bit with regard to some of
(14:41):
this some of these policy decisions, because they clearly have
not worked well.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
I think some one of the most compelling factors, at
least I would think that may push it over the
top for the brothers is the family members that support
them being released, the family members that knew the parents
very well and to know the family situation very well.
And obviously there are some family members that do not
(15:06):
ever want them released, but I think that the persuasive
ability of the family members that want them relates could
be a big pack.
Speaker 3 (15:13):
If you were to put a probability estimate on it,
what do you think the probability is that they get paroled?
You know, maybe later this year.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
I'm going to say seventy five, twenty five or parole.
That's a guess.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
But yeah, I know, it's just sort of a you know,
educated guess. I guess I get the sense that's what's
going to likely happen. I think again. What's interesting, though,
is that as I was doing some research, I was
looking at so Gascon was the one that initially filed
these motions for the resentencing. He's no longer the DA
in Los Angeles, but he had cited I think in
(15:48):
this motion that both of the brothers were model inmates
in the prison system. But then I found some evidence
that that may not be entirely accurate. Maybe Dana can
comment on that. Curious about that a little bit? And
is that accurate information?
Speaker 2 (16:03):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
Well, here's the thing. The devil is in the details.
And you know, I get the complete medical record file
from correctional institutions, and I'm sure who's ever doing these
evaluations is going to be getting a lot of data
it's not available to the public. And boy is it
(16:26):
interesting the things people say. All this stuff is in
their file, so incident reports, everything in their record. Psychologists
can be going through and it's a lot of information.
It could be thousands of pages, but there could be
you know, whether they're sneaking cell phones in or get
(16:49):
caught using, or they're helping people cheat on their income taxes,
or just other data that sometimes the inmates don't even know.
We have that information, right, yeah, And who knows what
is in there? I cannot say. But whoever's doing the
evaluation and these risk assessments, they will be looking at
(17:11):
that and the HCR twenty risk assessment Craig and I use.
In fact, I did one this week and I found
the inmate to be a low risk and I made
a graph and a report and showed that, and you know,
but how did I come to that conclusion? And in
this case, will this evaluator determine one person is low
(17:35):
and the other one's moderate, or how did they come
to moderate? Or what does this even mean? Or will
the court even care? Because sometimes I could say someone's
low to moderate, what does that mean? Or some of
these things that are happening in prison and that could
be unsavory, like maybe they were remote instances like the
twenty years ago, so you know they're gonna be looking
(17:59):
at all that. So recent things have been going on,
or what's also interesting is that how some things don't
show up in the file or are concealed for various reasons.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
In today's world, we have the ability to monitor and
analyze jail phone calls to an unbelievable amount of detail
with the onset of artificial intelligence. And I've had a
couple cases in the last three years where AI was
used to sip through hours and hours of phone conversations
(18:36):
by an inmate to mail down some very damaging statements
or comments. And I'm wondering with AI applications now, I'm
wondering if they didn't put all their calls into the machine,
so to speak, to see what was there that could
be passed along to either the parole border the testing psychologists.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
Yeah, that's a really good point, because again, in these institutions,
phone calls are generally recorded to the extent I don't
know how long they keep the recordings, but I know
that they are recorded when they're having conversations. Obviously for
institutional safety reasons and things like that. They want to
make sure inmates aren't planning like escapes or you know,
or engaging in criminal conduct while they're incarcerated. So and
(19:20):
speaking of AI, like even you know, Dana and I
we're using AI now when we talk about thousands of
pages of records. For example, like in what's called a
SEA file at the prison, So in California, the se
file is the inmates essentially their institutional file. It's got
everything in their rule violation reports, it has it's separated out,
but it has all the medical and psychiatric if they're
(19:43):
psychiatric information and the files and such, and it's just
like Dana said, it's it's overwhelming for a human to
have to go through all that. And you know, again,
humans make all kinds of mistakes. AI does too, but
it's getting better.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
But AI.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
We have AI now analyzing you know, records and looking
for we have specific parameters and we're asking for specific things.
I just had a seventeen hour deposition. I had AI
analyze that, and I had it analyze it for you know,
specific words and specific phrases and specific things.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
And it was.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
Phenomenal how it was able to extract all this relevant information.
Course I go back and check, I look at the
each line, you know, on the deposition to make sure
it didn't hallucinate it. But the point is is that
you're right. This technology is going to transform. I think
how we use this information both to help, you know,
(20:38):
to support perhaps in this case, you know, maybe there's
a there's evidence that you know, overall their you know,
the behavior was pro social and they were behaving in
ways that you know, they follow institutional like guidelines and
all that stuff. Having that being able to summarize that,
you know, succinctly is important. So yeah, I don't know
(20:58):
what they else they found, but it sounded like they found,
you know, at least in the what's been reported that
there had been some some rule violation activity, But I
don't know when going on.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
I don't know if that was Lyle or with Eric
or with both of them.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
But and again they look at that, right, you look
at the severity of it, You look at all of that.
So you know, that's all important stuff because you're looking
to see, you know, how to what extent are they
you know, are they is there any evidence of an
anti because what we would look at is like, is
there's this antisocial personality architecture that's gonna lead them to
(21:34):
criminal behavior when they get out right, And that's part
of what we're looking at, like are they going to
be able to conform their behavior to the you know,
requirements of the law when they get out.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
And this also applies in my jurisdictions and probably in California.
A non attorney client face to face meet where they're
talking over a phone or they're talking through class. Sometimes
those conversations are also captured an analyt. You really learn
a lot from a person they're unguarded moments of conversation.
(22:06):
I had a young lady I represented one time who
treated her mother very badly in their phone calls while
she was in jail, and because of that alone, she
got an extra six months added to your sentence. Wow,
it was just a minor drug off.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Well, in the interviews we do in jail, depending on
the case, I'll usually ask the defendant if I can
record a transcript, and I do it because some interviews
are five hours long over days, and there's a lot
of data, and I have to get the data exact.
I need the quotes. I can't type it all, I
can't capture it all.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
I need it.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
So I have complete transcript of every interview, and I
could data mine the transcript or go back and get quotes,
or summarize it, you know, even speak commands to the
data to summarize it and organize it and put it together,
and it's very helpful. So what I'm saying is data
(23:03):
is more precise than ever. We capture everything and as
they should. In a high profile celebrity case, I would
definitely be getting a transcript because I wouldn't want to
be accused of misquoting anyone or getting any fact wrong.
I would have backup data to support exactly what they
(23:24):
said to me on that day and time. And if
I was subpoenaed, you could get all the data and
it would be just as I said it was. I
would imagine whatever forensic psychologist is involved in this case
is absolutely going to be thorough right, Craig.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
I mean, I'm thinking, if I got assign this, it'd
be like, well, I mean, you treat all cases seriously
because you're talking about people's liberty interests here, So I
take that serious, especially when I'm doing a risk assessment.
I just did one recently in Nevada, and unfortunately in
this case, you know, the data is the data. I
can't dispute it. And you know, when I went through
the algorithm and I looked at the actuarial I used
(24:04):
an actual tool as well. Unfortunately, this person was high
risk and it's that is what it is. But if
I got this case, it would be yeah, I would
be using a lot of tools. I probably would be
doing some testing as well. I'd want to get do
some psychological testing just to see make sure, you know,
(24:24):
is there any evidence of any like serious ment illness
or other personality pathology that would be important to know
about in a case like this. It's not necessarily required,
but when we do these risk assessments, you know, yeah,
we're we're supposed to use evidence based risk assessment tools
like we mentioned the HCR, but there's a lot of
(24:45):
other ones out there too. We can also test, meaning
we can do psychological testing. We can give an m
m p I three, we can give an MCMI four.
We can do and then we can get a lot
of data out of that because if they linger on
that or they're you know, they're not being upfront on that,
that's useful information. That's you know, that's telling us something
be faorough for sure, And we're not going to No
(25:06):
one's going to see the report, right, that's not going
to get released.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
So that's why I.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
Was curious to find out like ABC reports this. You know,
psychologists you know said that, you know that Lyle had
narcissistic traits or made use the word narcissistic, and so,
you know I saw that. I was like, well, where
did that come from? Like how did they find that out?
Because generally those reports are not released or disclosed to
(25:32):
the public.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
Sounds like somebody was providing information that maybe they shouldn't
have provided.
Speaker 3 (25:39):
Yeah, maybe or perhaps at the hearing. You know, again,
the hearings are you know, those are open, right, so
and again, our evaluations, the forensic evaluations are generally they're
not confidential because in the sense the reason they're not
is that we're going to share all our findings with
the court and they're going to be written in a report,
and that's going to come out in open can come
out in open court, particularly if you're at a challenge
(26:01):
hearing for some forensic report, which you know, we go
to those periodically too, and the person's mental status and
everything comes right into the record because it's that's that's
the core issue that we're we're being asked to g
have opinions about. And so yeah, it's not always confidential,
but so it could have come out in that context.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
I assume, and you guys correct me, but I assume
the parole board makes a recommendation to the governor's office,
and then the governor has the final call. Is that
California's procedure as you understand it.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
I think that the governor only gets involved if they're
going to grant clemency or I don't know if clemency
is a right legal term, but is that the right term?
Speaker 1 (26:43):
Is that?
Speaker 3 (26:43):
Is that what I'm referring to. We're talking about like
commutation or pardon pardon, that's the I was thinking more
of a pardon. I think that's where the governor gets involved.
I think the parole board they have I think this
decisional authority on that in California. I correct me if
I'm wrong. I'm not entirely sure. I don't know that
the governor has to sign off and approve those all
(27:03):
those paroles. A lot of people get paroled in California.
Like it's you know, we back in my previous career
in law enforcement, we dealt with people on parole all
the time. So I mean people parole frequently out of
the correction system in Calvin, probably in Texas, too, made
in Texas. Does the governor have to sign off on
each one of those?
Speaker 2 (27:21):
I think the governor's office does have the authority to
deny parole. They can.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Yeah, so I think that you're right the governor, And
I know that's true in California too, because I know
the parole board has made a you know, a recommendation
for parole. You know, it was the oh back Charles Manson,
some of his followers, right, they were up for parole,
some of the women recently in the last couple of years,
and knew some denied parole like he, you know, because
(27:47):
they they recommended parole because.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Again they'd aged out.
Speaker 3 (27:50):
And as you said, we know that people, you know,
as they get older, they actually can people do age
out of the antisocial personality when they get older. That's
one thing we know. Now psychopathy is a little different.
I have to you know, separate that out. A psychopath
doesn't necessarily age out of being a psychopath once they're
a psychopath. There's pretty much strong evidence that that endures,
(28:12):
you know, throughout the lifetime. That's why psychopaths are so
dangerous because you know, they're not amenable to restoration or rehabilitation.
That's the bottom line. There's no research evidence supporting that whatsoever.
And that's a whole different ballgame. When if we're dealing
with a psychopath. I'm not dealing with that here, I
don't think. I don't think data would agree that. I
(28:33):
don't see any like, you know, again, where we haven't
assessed these two guys, so we can't give an opinion
about anything. But I've never seen any evidence or data
that suggests, you know, any doctors have testified that there's
a psychopathy architecture going on with either of these two guys.
If we were assessing though, I mean, if we were
looking at, you know, doing a risk assessment. But that's
(28:54):
something that that I'm going to look at. I want
to I want to make sure that's not the case.
We've all heard of the successful psyche, and Sam probably
knows what this is. But a successful psychopath is somebody
who's been able to navigate, manipulate, exploit, and get away
with all kinds of craziness for all their life, and
that's why they're successful. So you know, they're out successful
psychopaths are out there all over the place. This is
(29:17):
one of those situations where I think it's a one off.
What you know, all this stuff that happened obviously the
thing that's really impassioned to a lot of people where
you know they're saying, well, you know, regardless of abuse,
you know, you don't murder your parents, you know, those
sorts of things. I think that's why this case is resonates.
So like just people get so impassioned by it because
there's there's one camp that says, you know, what they've
(29:39):
done their time, they were abused. You know, this was
maybe it was an imperfect self defense, but it was
you know, they it was unrealistic, but you know, they
were young, all of that. But then you've got other
people that say, no, they need to stay in prison
for the rest of their lives because of what they did.
So you've got these two camps right well.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
And their trials were so their two trials are so different.
You know, one judge let the one time that the
abuse comes in, the other time it's prohibited.
Speaker 3 (30:04):
Yeah, that was crazy, like they yeah, they allow the
abuse to come in for the first jury and it's
the same judge, wasn't it. I believe it was the
same judge. And when they at the mistrial, they like
they have a new trial, and then all of a
sudden that he decides that none of the abuse history
can come in. And I don't know what rule of
evidence he used to like like to deny that for
(30:29):
the second trial. I would think that is he thinking
that it's this information's too prejudicial that outweighs, you know,
it's probative value, or what what would be the rationale
for that, sam Well, I think.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
You could argue that it's not a self defense. It's
not doesn't make a legal self defense threshold unless you
are killing to prevent an act of sexual abuse. Let's
suppose Lyle walked in and saw his brother getting molested,
and he pulls out a bat and hits his dad
(31:00):
over the head and kills him to stop that from happening.
That's a different situation than planning ahead of time to
murder them without the immediate molestation or abuse taking place
at the time.
Speaker 3 (31:14):
It's just interesting that it was let in the first time,
and then he's so if it hadn't been let in
the first time, we probably would have had that same
they outcome that we got in the second trial.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
In Texas, we have two phases to jury trials. One
is the guilt innocence phase and the second is the
sentencing because juries can do sentencing in Texas, So certainly
in Texas, my prediction would have been, Okay, the abuse
may not come in on the guilt innocence aspect of
the case, but it may come in on the sentencing
phase of the case. So you know, in California you
(31:49):
have the different sentencing structure. Yeah, the judge was all
the sentences.
Speaker 3 (31:52):
Yeah, the judge, I mean, the judge can't do mitigation,
but yeah, I mean the judge takes that into account
or should take that into account, you know, when when sentencing.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
But I think that's the basis why people feel they
were deserving to have resentencing. They got resentence, and now
they're eligible for parole. And so here we are, and
we were talking about Governor Gavin Newsom and whether he
would recommend the release. Well, he has his own podcast,
(32:23):
did you know that I've.
Speaker 3 (32:25):
Never watched or is it an actual like video podcast
or is it like just audio?
Speaker 1 (32:30):
This is Gavin Newsom, So I was looking at it
and they discussed this case in this podcast, and it
seems as though Governor Gavin Newsom is willing to sign
off on the release. So I think we talked about
a lot of this political underpinnings or this influence where
someone in a position of power certainly holds a lot
(32:53):
of power to check that box on a form. And
so you know, Sam said maybe seventy five like they
may get released. It's like and then the final person
like checks the box. It's this guy that wields a
lot of power and it's just him checking a box.
And it could be the reason why he checks the
(33:13):
box is could be self serving. And that's why I
tend to think we are going to see them release. Well,
let's talk about life after being released. And I'm going
to give you an example of Gypsy Rose blanchert. We
know we've heard a lot about her. She spent some
(33:36):
time in prison and found her way out and she
was found to be guilty for playing a role in
her mother's murder and she did ten years. Her co
conspirator was serving life. So there's people have a strong
opinion about that case. But meanwhile, Gypsy Rose is I
guess we call her an influencer because she is just
(33:59):
south on TikTok and making videos really made her personal
life public, and there's pros and cons to that when
you start just putting all your information out on the
Internet and you're talking about things. And one of the
things that's been controversial for her is that some people
(34:20):
felt she was no longer remorseful or was putting blame
on someone else or making excuses, and that did not
go over well. In fact, there's people saying like call
on parole, like bring her back, take her back, We
don't like her anymore, and so public opinion weighs in.
(34:41):
And so when we look at the Menandez brothers, just
imagine the future ten years from now, they're out. Let's
just say they're partying, they're trying to well, let's just
imagine them being on parole. Parole. You are on parole, So, Craig,
what does that look like when you're on parole.
Speaker 3 (34:58):
It's the same rules of apply when you're in the institution.
It's just that you're free now. In other words, you
don't have Fourth Amendment rights. Your Fourth Amendment rights are
suspended when you're on parole. So at least you know
that's the way it works in California, and so parole Ease.
When you're on parole, you are subject to search and seizure.
It has to be obviously reasonable, not done for the
(35:18):
purpose of harassing harassment. But they can be searched at
any time when they're on parole. So it's they do
have some of their constitutional rights are still restricted to
some degree while they're on parole. So if they do
something or they engage in some conduct that you know,
gets the attention of the parole agent who's supervising them.
Wherever they're parole too, they have to be prolled to
(35:39):
a specific area or community. Who knows where it will be,
probably in the Los Angeles I would assume, but wherever
their family might be. But yeah, they're going to be
under scrutiny, and so you know if they can be violated.
So if if they violate any statutes or they violate
any of their conditions of parole, whatever those conditions might be,
they can be sent back and incarcerated. Under In California
(36:01):
it's some thirty fifty six of the Penal Code, they
can have their you know, basically be have that suspended
and then be sent back to prison potentially if they
violated the terms. Now California, I don't know, Texas probably
a little more hardcore when it comes to parole violations,
My experience in California has been you know, and this
is ten years ago when I left the but parole,
(36:24):
you know, you get violated. Oftentimes they only do you know,
they would do you know, maybe six months or twelve
months or something, and they just get re released again. So
depending on what it was, if it's just a simple
parole violation where you know, they got a dirty drug
test or something like that, then they might have to
do an additional six months or a year. But it's
not like they go back to serve the original sentence
(36:44):
and they you don't have to go through a whole
process again, but they still are going to be on
you know, on a fairly tight string, you know, when
they're on parole.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
In Texas, we call a parole revocation warrant a blue warrant.
So if you're pulled back into custody on a blue warrant,
you have to go through through another parole hearing about
your violation, and you can be actually ordered to serve
your original senates out on extreme emolations. And that happens
with my clients who are on parole and then they
(37:13):
commit another crime or convicted of committing another crime. The
blue warrant will hold them incarcerated without the chance of
getting out on bond until the parole board makes a
final decision. So a lot of my clients that are
charged with a crime and have a blue warrant can't
get out on bond because of the blue want standard
group is lower. With regard to what Dana said earlier
(37:38):
about the blanchec case, I'm not real familiar with her
recent activities, but I think you know, there's a distinction
if you're out having been paroled or pardoned, if you're
out and you're saying, look, I really messed up, made
horrible mistakes in the past, but here's some of the
stuff that happened to me, and here's how my life
(37:58):
is going now. That's that's somebody who's going to be
sympathetic to the public. We like redemption stories. On the
other hand, if you've got if you try to get
out there and retrace the case and blame people and
act like you're the victim, you're going to lose sympathy
really quickly. I think I'm a golfer and there was
a I think a player in the British Open last
(38:19):
week or we who had served time in prison got
out and and and became a professional golfer and was
participating in the greatest golf championship in the world. And
there was a lot there are a lot of stories
about his redemption and his remorse and and I think,
you know, the Menindez brothers are going to face a
task if I believe when they get out in managing
(38:41):
that and and managing it in a positive way. You
hope that they're underpinning of rehabilitation, that that Mark Garrigos
and others have been trumpeting was really true, because they
could really uh do some good in the world because
they're going to have a lot of attention on them
and probably in a building to make more money than
(39:01):
your average X con for sure.
Speaker 3 (39:04):
Yeah, they're definitely going to probably be signing some deals
with who knows, some television show, who knows, podcast what.
You know, there'll be some mechanism. I think you're right
for them to make considerable money. You know, when they
get out, I'm sure they'll write a book and they'll
be doing a lot of that.
Speaker 2 (39:23):
Some people choose the opposite path and they say, forget it,
I'm gonna go live my life somewhere. I'm just happy
to be free. That's probably the healthiest of options, and
from my perspective at least, but it's also very difficult
to turn down offers that will be coming right and left.
I just hope that they manage that spotlight in a
(39:44):
constructive way.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
I can only imagine the offers they would get. But
you know, some people can get a little cocky and
then commit tax fraud. And I mean, oh j Simpson
the one downfall, but that was one of them that
got him rounded in prison.
Speaker 3 (40:04):
Okay, well Nevada got him and you know in that
Vegas that robbery, Clark County took care of that.
Speaker 1 (40:13):
So just you know, all law. You know, got to
follow all the laws. And uh. I think it'll be
really interesting. I tend to think that I'm going to
see them be released and we're going to be watching
them back getting integrated into society, and I think that'll
(40:33):
be interesting to see how they adapt and to see
how they respond. And I hope to see them doing
something really good as what they've in prison. They're saying,
they're shown remorse, they're saying and doing all the right things.
I hope, I hope that they truly are reformed. I
(40:55):
hope that they do good things in society and talk
about abuse and how it has impacted their life and
get more people to talk about this. I interview a
lot of men in custody, many who have been sexually abused,
many who aren't going to tell me, but it would
(41:16):
be mitigating. It would be helpful for them to share
that information to me. And I know they don't always,
but I certainly have interviewed a lot of men, In
one case, thirty eight men who were sexually abused. So
I have interviewed a lot of men who have experienced abuse.
It is systemically a problem, so I in an effort
to bring awareness about the prevalence of it and the
(41:41):
importance of early intervention and the signs. So I would
be curious if I were to ever interview them. It's like,
what checkpoints did we miss? You know, who knew, who
didn't say anything, who other family member and friends knew. Okay,
that's how these things work. So anyway, my thoughts are
(42:04):
as a psychologist, I detect and prevent this is this
is big. We're mandated reporters and we report this as
a matter. In many cases for CPS. You know, I
have done my share of reporting in my lifetime, so
(42:25):
and it is horrifying the outcomes when abuse isn't detected
early on and it goes unchecked and is happening for years.
I see juveniles in custody who I come to find
out they have committed a crime, but then they are
sharing me what is going on at home, and then
(42:47):
we have a very complex matter of abuse is happening
to them. It's and I've been involved in those cases
and they're complex, and I'm always grateful to be in
a position to be that person who can cure this
information and respond. And it does impact sentencing as a
(43:12):
matter of fact. So I've been to sentencing hearings, I've testified,
and I have intervened at that critical age and sometimes
they're seventeen and a half or they're on the cusp
of eighteen and here we are and it is important.
So well, we'll follow up with you, Sam when the
(43:33):
Menandes brothers gets out. Let's just say that's going to happen,
and we'll follow their journey and see where they're at.
Speaker 3 (43:44):
We'll have to invite them on the podcast when they
get out and see if they'll come on and the
point you make about the treatment's important, you know, like, yeah,
they actually I don't know what kind of treatment they
got while they were in prison. Having worked in a
California prison, I can tell you that even though psychological
interventions are available, but you have to be in the
(44:06):
right component of the system. And I don't know what
level of care they had when they were in prison.
I don't know if they were in any of the
mental health programs there. But if either of them did
not get treatment, they need to seek that when they
get out. Particularly, you know, given the nature of this
abuse that was reported that you know, appears to be
(44:27):
legitimate abuse. I mean, it was corroborated by a number
of people, I think independently that you know, and they
can be like you said, they can increase awareness, public
awareness because you're right, men do not report this because
of shame humiliation. Most men do not report their experiences
(44:49):
of being abused sexually abused at a very young age.
Most men don't come forward because of the shame associated
with it. So that's how they could do a lot
of you know, when you contributing to society, they could
definitely help in that regard.
Speaker 2 (45:04):
I recently represented a sixteen year old in a juvenile matter,
and he was spectually abused when he was around ten
years old, and he only recently came out after being
charged with serious crimes and just discussed an older cousin
that had abused him four to five times sexually, and
(45:24):
then one of his other cousins it turns out, had
been abused over almost ten years, and he felt really
bad because he didn't come out with it, and if
he had come out earlier, my client might not have
ever been abused. And so it is. It is a
young man's It is a much more closeted trauma, I
(45:48):
think than almost anything else. Boys and young men, when
you're really young and you're being abused, you just kind
of think that's the way it is. You know, he's
part of life, you're whoever the abuser, and you just
got to say okay, well you know, and then you actually,
you know, the grooming is extensive. They become your friend
and they take you to do fun things, and then
(46:10):
they abuse you, and then the soccer goes over and
over again, and it's uh, yeah, it's a very a
very complicated thing for a young man to come out
and report this.
Speaker 1 (46:21):
And I would say the reasons why they don't tell
are complex, but anyone that's listening and needs to or
wants to report, it's look. It's honestly, it's hard to
navigate some of the reporting on your own to it.
So I always let people know you can call make
an appointment with a therapist. We're all mandated reporters, and
(46:42):
we we can do the reporting for you or help
you navigate that, or do the reporting together. Help it
could just its just complex. It's very hard emotionally, so
I usually sit with people or help them over time.
It's so difficult, I can tell you that. So is
really I don't recommend people to do it on their own.
(47:03):
I think it takes support and to have a therapist
help with that. But thank you so much for the
discussion today. I really appreciate it. And we'll have to
stay tuned to see what is what the next chapter is.
Speaker 3 (47:20):
I say, let's invite them when they come, when they
get out, and let's reach out.
Speaker 1 (47:23):
And invite them on I will I will call them.
I will call Kim Kardashian first because I think she
has the number, and we can all get together for
lunch in LA or Beverly Hills. You guys are all invited.
Speaker 2 (47:37):
Well, I'll accept that invitation. I'm pretty sure.
Speaker 1 (47:39):
Okay, awesome, we'll see you there. Thank you for listening
to Killer Psychologist. To watch full video episodes or if
you want to interact with me, you can find Killer
Psychologists on YouTube. You can also get notified of new
episodes by signing up in my stand store. Now, if
(47:59):
you want to work with me, you can book a console.
My website is psychologydoctor dot com. That's psychology d R
dot com.
Welcome to Killer Psychologist. I'm Dana Anderson, a forensic psychologist
and your host of the show. Killer Psychologist is for
true crime fanatics and anyone intrigued with the dark side
of psychology. Welcome to Killer Psychologist. We are back with
Sam Bassett and doctor Craig Wetter. And Sam was with
(00:26):
us back in April and we discussed Eric and Lyle
Menendez and they were up for a resentencing hearing in May.
And now that sentencing happened and they are now eligible
potentially for parole, and they have a new hearing date.
(00:47):
Prole hearings are scheduled for August twenty first and twenty second.
So I am curious from a criminal defense attorney's perspective,
what we can expect at this hearing. We have, you know,
the Menandez brothers since the nineties, this case has been
(01:10):
so widely discussed and people have strong opinions about them
right now, whether they believe they should be released, and
then other people have an opposing opinion, which doctor Wetter
can play the devil's advocate today and take a look
at some of those factors that maybe the public isn't
considering of risk assessments being used and analyzed for the
(01:35):
Pearle hearing, and what factors are going to be scrutinized
and looked at of maybe why they could be a
risk to society or why the judge won't advocate for
their release. So, Sam, thank you so much for joining
us today.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Thank you braving me.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
You've been following this a case a long time. So
tell me your thoughts right now. Since we were last
here in April discussing this case, what are your thoughts
on the Menendez brothers and where they're at right now
in the legal process.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
Well, I think they kind of got what they wanted
from the judicial process. They got resentenced and they're eligible
for parole. Parole is an interesting creature, at least in
Texas and in most states. It's kind of a combination
of what we would call Doe process and politics, kind
(02:28):
of an intersection. The parole board is typically appointed by
the governor they have turned. They probably look over their
shoulder a little bit politically, So it'll be really interesting
to see how this untangles at the hearing in August
and the subsequent decision. You have Gavin Newsom who has
(02:50):
his eyes on the White House. Theoretically, or at least
that's the speculation. So everybody's going to be weighing their
benefit costs benefit analysis personally when they're entering into these decisions.
But I think the factors for the Menendez brothers are
pretty compelling for parole, given their post conviction behavior, their
(03:15):
age at the time of the offenses, and they need
to do a good job of articulating remorse for what
they did. That's going to be a key variable, I
think in persuading the parole for to recommend parole. So
I think it's going to be a very interesting dynamic
(03:35):
because of all those factors at play.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
And let's talk about remorse because publicly they have made
statements of remorse. But I want to ask Craig about
something that the psychologist who's doing the risk assessment. Is
one of the risk assessment tools, and you can talk
about those, Craig, but the psychopathy checklist and what that
(04:01):
measures and how that might detect for someone who's not remorseful.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
Yeah, certainly. So we don't know what specific assessment instruments
that the psychologists used. I mean, I presume that there's
there were, So in early let's set the stage for
this in early twenty twenty five, Gavin Newsom did order
the p Board to conduct comprehensive risk assessments of both
(04:28):
Eric and Lyle And that's fairly calm, and it's particularly
in a situation like this where you're looking at resentencing
from life without possibility of parole to now fifty two life,
which is I think what they resentenced them to. And
so it's common that you're going to order a risk assessment.
So as a psychologist, it's going to be a psychologist
likely that's doing this, a forensic psychologist. They would usually
(04:52):
use a minimum of two assessment tools. So in California
in researching kind of what they do, because I don't
do these assessments for California, I do them in Nevada.
But they use the what's called the HCR twenty and
it's the version three of that, and it's basically what
we call a structured professional judgment tool. It looks at
historical factors, clinical factors, and then risk management factors, so
(05:13):
it's kind of like a three part assessment. And that
tool doesn't in and of itself identify the presence necessarily
of say a narcissistic personality disorder, but it does have
elements of what we call antisocial personality architecture, and so
the listeners need to understand that like narcissistic personality disorder
(05:33):
and antisocial personality disorder are two separate disorders, but oftentimes
we see someone with antisocial personality disorder or at least traits,
they also have narcissistic traits as well. They're part of
the same cluster or domain or larger domain we call
the cluster B disorder. So the PCLR, which is what
(05:54):
you reference, that's the Psychopathy Checklist revised. That's the gold
standard instrument that we use to assess for risk of
future violence, and it really focuses on the psychopathic architecture.
And that again is psychopathy is not a clinical diagnosis
per se, but psychopathy is a constellation of traits, behaviors,
(06:14):
sort of ways of being that we do see frequently,
you know, represented in the criminal justice system. In fact,
I think in prison estimates are eighteen to twenty up
to twenty five percent of incarcerated individuals that are in
currently in state prison meet criteria for psychopathy. And that
has meaning because we know, you know, psychopathic individuals can
(06:36):
be dangerous if they're released so it's unclear whether they
use the pcl R here. But one of the stories
that was reporting on at least lyle at least a
psychologists somehow, I don't know how they got this information
mentioned narcissistic personality and I don't know if they said
personality disorder or traits. And that's also important because we
look at these things dimensionally too. Even though someone doesn't
(06:59):
may not meet criteria for a diagnosis, they still might
have the traits. So that's interesting because if we see that,
then I wonder what else might be there, you know,
that they're talking about, you know, in terms of risk,
because they found moderate I think that they were there
was a moderate risk of future violence potentially. That was
a long winded answer, but I had to set it
up and give you the context of like, you know,
(07:21):
when they're doing these evaluations, they are using assessment tools,
so their data driven, right, but there's also some element
of clinical judgment in here, right, So we we have
to render an opinion, you know, so I have to
classify somebody after I do an assessment whether or not
they're low, moderate, or high risk. That's generally the framework
we use. And then the court or in this case,
like the parole board, you know, they can rely on that.
(07:44):
They look at that report obviously, but person doesn't have
to be high risk for them to deny parole. You know,
that's just one thing that they look at. So that's
interesting that they were noting this at least in Lyle.
Now Eric is different. So there's a difference here, right
in terms of that are going on personality wise that
could could make them higher risk or lower risk.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Yeah, and I think society has lumped them together as
one person, the Menendez brothers one of them.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Yeah, that's a mistake.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
Yeah, the two No, No, they're two different people and
two different personalities. And I think Sam can you know,
speak to this as well in terms of like when
we look at particularly when a crime is committed by
two you know, co conspirators or two defendants, oftentimes there's
a leader who is sort of driving the you know,
the bus, so to speak, and calling the shots, and
then there's generally a follower, you know, there's someone who
(08:34):
will kind of go along a lot of times with
the scheme whatever it is. And so I think that's
been established in this case, who the leader, who the
follower was, and who perhaps maybe was influenced in some way,
and that's something that that should be looked at too.
I think it's important.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Yeah, usually you're going to look at the older siblings
the leader for sure. Yeah, especially at the age they work, right.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Yeah, And to remind people, Lyle was twenty one and
Eric was eighteen, and so maybe we can talk about
so this age difference, and what can you tell me
about this California youthful Offender law, you know, being under
the age of twenty six. Can you speak to that, Craig.
Speaker 3 (09:20):
I haven't looked at the statute specifically, but I think
what you're referring to is this is this newer statute
that was just enacted that addresses the issue of frontal
lobe development or under the age of twenty generally twenty five,
and maybe it says twenty six. But the arguments are
that we need to look at criminal behavior a little
differently in individuals that are under the age of twenty
(09:42):
five or twenty six because the executive functioning circuits in
the brain, in the frontal lobes of the brain haven't
fully wired or fully developed. That sort of the argument
that I think is underlying that if I'm not mistaken.
So that allows for I think, some latitude in terms
of sentence, in terms of or in terms of charging,
(10:02):
whether they're going to charge somebody who, for example, has
been accused of murder and charge them with first degree
and then try to get you know, life without and
those sorts of things when the defendant is under the
age of twenty six or twenty five. And I don't
know if there have been cases that have you know,
followed under that, but I again, I assume you know
that's the Texas probably doesn't have a similar sort of statue,
(10:23):
right You're I'm assuming Texas, you don't. You're not looking
at us, say a twenty four year old any differently
than say a thirty year old if they say they
commit a crime of violence, because it's this issue of
impulse control that comes into play. And I've seen psychologists
and neuroscientists and psychiatrists testify that we have to look
at these we have to look at individuals differently when
(10:45):
they're under this age. And I will pause it that
there's a fundamental error in making that broad assumption, because
we know that if we're talking about someone who has
phsychopathic personality architecture it doesn't matter whether the frontal lie
have wired fully or not. Psychopathy, you know, starts in childhood. Unfortunately,
(11:05):
we know that psychopaths are generally they're born, they're not
necessarily shaped. There is some shaping and some stuff that
shapes the development of it, and there's factors that can
certainly protect against somebody developing psychopathy. But we know from
the literature that we see psychopathic behavior as young as
(11:25):
four or five years old. As sad as that sounds,
but we see it. It looks different when they're children.
But the question then becomes, you know, if you have
a psychopath in front of you, do you look at
that differently than you do if the person is not
meet that criteria of psychopathy. That's one of the things
that we don't do a good job of, at least
in the criminal justice system generally, is figuring out who
(11:46):
are the really dangerous people, because I think a lot
of times we end up incarcerating people who are not
necessarily dangerous. That they commit maybe one act of violence
and it was context specific and they're probably never going
to commit an act of violence again. But yet you know,
we're looking at them as though they are dangerous and
potentially violent in the future, if that makes sense. So
that has everything to do with that psychopathy variable that
(12:09):
we just don't really pay attention to enough.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
I think, Yeah, Texas doesn't recognize any kind of statutory
useful offender sentencing paradigm. I think that it is used
a lot though in terms of mitigation, evidence and punishment
hearings here, and it is something that is considered relevant
to sentencing always. So you know, the real interesting data
(12:32):
here will be the measures that they're using to see
how Lyle and Eric tests out. I mean, there's certainly
now at an age where the statistics precipitously drop down
for violent behavior, certainly after age thirty, but more so
after age forty for sure. So it will be interesting
to see how that composite of the testing, the age,
(12:57):
the remorse externally to the parole board. It will be
interesting to see how they how they weigh it all,
and how they decide and how long it takes them
to decide.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
Yeah, this is going to be And obviously because this
you know, this is a high profile case and you know,
so I'm they're going to be very I think they're
going to be very careful, right and deliberate in terms
of how they're going to analyze all of these various
data points. And as you mentioned, you know, we have
a governor that is likely potentially going to be throwing
his name in the hat for the presidential election in
(13:29):
twenty twenty eight, and so again I think that could
also impact too in terms of how, you know, he's
approaching things. He doesn't want to come off as he
wants to come off perhaps as more centrist or moderate
in terms of you know, weighing those you know, in
other words, the risk to the public versus you know,
the liberty interests of these two defendants. He doesn't want
(13:50):
to come off as as too soft or too sort
of left leaning, I think, and that's we've seen some
of that in some other things that he's done. He's
denied parole for a lot of people recently, where it's
like I looked at it and I was like, wow, Okay,
this is a little bit of a shift. I'm seeing
a I'm seeing a shift here. I'm wondering what's what's
what's what's behind that something going on in twenty twenty
(14:12):
eight that we need to.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Know about, right, I've kind of seen him move more
harshly on the homeless issue, yeah, a little more centric.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
Yes, And so a part of that, I think too
is a you know, there's a recognition that I think
the White Republic is sort of rejecting these these progressive
policies and paradigms that clearly, like in some of these cities,
have not worked and have only exacerbated and made the
problem worse. And that's finally, I think they're coming to
their senses a little bit with regard to some of
(14:41):
this some of these policy decisions, because they clearly have
not worked well.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
I think some one of the most compelling factors, at
least I would think that may push it over the
top for the brothers is the family members that support
them being released, the family members that knew the parents
very well and to know the family situation very well.
And obviously there are some family members that do not
(15:06):
ever want them released, but I think that the persuasive
ability of the family members that want them relates could
be a big pack.
Speaker 3 (15:13):
If you were to put a probability estimate on it,
what do you think the probability is that they get paroled?
You know, maybe later this year.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
I'm going to say seventy five, twenty five or parole.
That's a guess.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
But yeah, I know, it's just sort of a you know,
educated guess. I guess I get the sense that's what's
going to likely happen. I think again. What's interesting, though,
is that as I was doing some research, I was
looking at so Gascon was the one that initially filed
these motions for the resentencing. He's no longer the DA
in Los Angeles, but he had cited I think in
(15:48):
this motion that both of the brothers were model inmates
in the prison system. But then I found some evidence
that that may not be entirely accurate. Maybe Dana can
comment on that. Curious about that a little bit? And
is that accurate information?
Speaker 2 (16:03):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
Well, here's the thing. The devil is in the details.
And you know, I get the complete medical record file
from correctional institutions, and I'm sure who's ever doing these
evaluations is going to be getting a lot of data
it's not available to the public. And boy is it
(16:26):
interesting the things people say. All this stuff is in
their file, so incident reports, everything in their record. Psychologists
can be going through and it's a lot of information.
It could be thousands of pages, but there could be
you know, whether they're sneaking cell phones in or get
(16:49):
caught using, or they're helping people cheat on their income taxes,
or just other data that sometimes the inmates don't even know.
We have that information, right, yeah, And who knows what
is in there? I cannot say. But whoever's doing the
evaluation and these risk assessments, they will be looking at
(17:11):
that and the HCR twenty risk assessment Craig and I use.
In fact, I did one this week and I found
the inmate to be a low risk and I made
a graph and a report and showed that, and you know,
but how did I come to that conclusion? And in
this case, will this evaluator determine one person is low
(17:35):
and the other one's moderate, or how did they come
to moderate? Or what does this even mean? Or will
the court even care? Because sometimes I could say someone's
low to moderate, what does that mean? Or some of
these things that are happening in prison and that could
be unsavory, like maybe they were remote instances like the
twenty years ago, so you know they're gonna be looking
(17:59):
at all that. So recent things have been going on,
or what's also interesting is that how some things don't
show up in the file or are concealed for various reasons.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
In today's world, we have the ability to monitor and
analyze jail phone calls to an unbelievable amount of detail
with the onset of artificial intelligence. And I've had a
couple cases in the last three years where AI was
used to sip through hours and hours of phone conversations
(18:36):
by an inmate to mail down some very damaging statements
or comments. And I'm wondering with AI applications now, I'm
wondering if they didn't put all their calls into the machine,
so to speak, to see what was there that could
be passed along to either the parole border the testing psychologists.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
Yeah, that's a really good point, because again, in these institutions,
phone calls are generally recorded to the extent I don't
know how long they keep the recordings, but I know
that they are recorded when they're having conversations. Obviously for
institutional safety reasons and things like that. They want to
make sure inmates aren't planning like escapes or you know,
or engaging in criminal conduct while they're incarcerated. So and
(19:20):
speaking of AI, like even you know, Dana and I
we're using AI now when we talk about thousands of
pages of records. For example, like in what's called a
SEA file at the prison, So in California, the se
file is the inmates essentially their institutional file. It's got
everything in their rule violation reports, it has it's separated out,
but it has all the medical and psychiatric if they're
(19:43):
psychiatric information and the files and such, and it's just
like Dana said, it's it's overwhelming for a human to
have to go through all that. And you know, again,
humans make all kinds of mistakes. AI does too, but
it's getting better.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
But AI.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
We have AI now analyzing you know, records and looking
for we have specific parameters and we're asking for specific things.
I just had a seventeen hour deposition. I had AI
analyze that, and I had it analyze it for you know,
specific words and specific phrases and specific things.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
And it was.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
Phenomenal how it was able to extract all this relevant information.
Course I go back and check, I look at the
each line, you know, on the deposition to make sure
it didn't hallucinate it. But the point is is that
you're right. This technology is going to transform. I think
how we use this information both to help, you know,
(20:38):
to support perhaps in this case, you know, maybe there's
a there's evidence that you know, overall their you know,
the behavior was pro social and they were behaving in
ways that you know, they follow institutional like guidelines and
all that stuff. Having that being able to summarize that,
you know, succinctly is important. So yeah, I don't know
(20:58):
what they else they found, but it sounded like they found,
you know, at least in the what's been reported that
there had been some some rule violation activity, But I
don't know when going on.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
I don't know if that was Lyle or with Eric
or with both of them.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
But and again they look at that, right, you look
at the severity of it, You look at all of that.
So you know, that's all important stuff because you're looking
to see, you know, how to what extent are they
you know, are they is there any evidence of an
anti because what we would look at is like, is
there's this antisocial personality architecture that's gonna lead them to
(21:34):
criminal behavior when they get out right, And that's part
of what we're looking at, like are they going to
be able to conform their behavior to the you know,
requirements of the law when they get out.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
And this also applies in my jurisdictions and probably in California.
A non attorney client face to face meet where they're
talking over a phone or they're talking through class. Sometimes
those conversations are also captured an analyt. You really learn
a lot from a person they're unguarded moments of conversation.
(22:06):
I had a young lady I represented one time who
treated her mother very badly in their phone calls while
she was in jail, and because of that alone, she
got an extra six months added to your sentence. Wow,
it was just a minor drug off.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Well, in the interviews we do in jail, depending on
the case, I'll usually ask the defendant if I can
record a transcript, and I do it because some interviews
are five hours long over days, and there's a lot
of data, and I have to get the data exact.
I need the quotes. I can't type it all, I
can't capture it all.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
I need it.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
So I have complete transcript of every interview, and I
could data mine the transcript or go back and get quotes,
or summarize it, you know, even speak commands to the
data to summarize it and organize it and put it together,
and it's very helpful. So what I'm saying is data
(23:03):
is more precise than ever. We capture everything and as
they should. In a high profile celebrity case, I would
definitely be getting a transcript because I wouldn't want to
be accused of misquoting anyone or getting any fact wrong.
I would have backup data to support exactly what they
(23:24):
said to me on that day and time. And if
I was subpoenaed, you could get all the data and
it would be just as I said it was. I
would imagine whatever forensic psychologist is involved in this case
is absolutely going to be thorough right, Craig.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
I mean, I'm thinking, if I got assign this, it'd
be like, well, I mean, you treat all cases seriously
because you're talking about people's liberty interests here, So I
take that serious, especially when I'm doing a risk assessment.
I just did one recently in Nevada, and unfortunately in
this case, you know, the data is the data. I
can't dispute it. And you know, when I went through
the algorithm and I looked at the actuarial I used
(24:04):
an actual tool as well. Unfortunately, this person was high
risk and it's that is what it is. But if
I got this case, it would be yeah, I would
be using a lot of tools. I probably would be
doing some testing as well. I'd want to get do
some psychological testing just to see make sure, you know,
(24:24):
is there any evidence of any like serious ment illness
or other personality pathology that would be important to know
about in a case like this. It's not necessarily required,
but when we do these risk assessments, you know, yeah,
we're we're supposed to use evidence based risk assessment tools
like we mentioned the HCR, but there's a lot of
(24:45):
other ones out there too. We can also test, meaning
we can do psychological testing. We can give an m
m p I three, we can give an MCMI four.
We can do and then we can get a lot
of data out of that because if they linger on
that or they're you know, they're not being upfront on that,
that's useful information. That's you know, that's telling us something
be faorough for sure, And we're not going to No
(25:06):
one's going to see the report, right, that's not going
to get released.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
So that's why I.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
Was curious to find out like ABC reports this. You know,
psychologists you know said that, you know that Lyle had
narcissistic traits or made use the word narcissistic, and so,
you know I saw that. I was like, well, where
did that come from? Like how did they find that out?
Because generally those reports are not released or disclosed to
(25:32):
the public.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
Sounds like somebody was providing information that maybe they shouldn't
have provided.
Speaker 3 (25:39):
Yeah, maybe or perhaps at the hearing. You know, again,
the hearings are you know, those are open, right, so
and again, our evaluations, the forensic evaluations are generally they're
not confidential because in the sense the reason they're not
is that we're going to share all our findings with
the court and they're going to be written in a report,
and that's going to come out in open can come
out in open court, particularly if you're at a challenge
(26:01):
hearing for some forensic report, which you know, we go
to those periodically too, and the person's mental status and
everything comes right into the record because it's that's that's
the core issue that we're we're being asked to g
have opinions about. And so yeah, it's not always confidential,
but so it could have come out in that context.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
I assume, and you guys correct me, but I assume
the parole board makes a recommendation to the governor's office,
and then the governor has the final call. Is that
California's procedure as you understand it.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
I think that the governor only gets involved if they're
going to grant clemency or I don't know if clemency
is a right legal term, but is that the right term?
Speaker 1 (26:43):
Is that?
Speaker 3 (26:43):
Is that what I'm referring to. We're talking about like
commutation or pardon pardon, that's the I was thinking more
of a pardon. I think that's where the governor gets involved.
I think the parole board they have I think this
decisional authority on that in California. I correct me if
I'm wrong. I'm not entirely sure. I don't know that
the governor has to sign off and approve those all
(27:03):
those paroles. A lot of people get paroled in California.
Like it's you know, we back in my previous career
in law enforcement, we dealt with people on parole all
the time. So I mean people parole frequently out of
the correction system in Calvin, probably in Texas, too, made
in Texas. Does the governor have to sign off on
each one of those?
Speaker 2 (27:21):
I think the governor's office does have the authority to
deny parole. They can.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Yeah, so I think that you're right the governor, And
I know that's true in California too, because I know
the parole board has made a you know, a recommendation
for parole. You know, it was the oh back Charles Manson,
some of his followers, right, they were up for parole,
some of the women recently in the last couple of years,
and knew some denied parole like he, you know, because
(27:47):
they they recommended parole because.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Again they'd aged out.
Speaker 3 (27:50):
And as you said, we know that people, you know,
as they get older, they actually can people do age
out of the antisocial personality when they get older. That's
one thing we know. Now psychopathy is a little different.
I have to you know, separate that out. A psychopath
doesn't necessarily age out of being a psychopath once they're
a psychopath. There's pretty much strong evidence that that endures,
(28:12):
you know, throughout the lifetime. That's why psychopaths are so
dangerous because you know, they're not amenable to restoration or rehabilitation.
That's the bottom line. There's no research evidence supporting that whatsoever.
And that's a whole different ballgame. When if we're dealing
with a psychopath. I'm not dealing with that here, I
don't think. I don't think data would agree that. I
(28:33):
don't see any like, you know, again, where we haven't
assessed these two guys, so we can't give an opinion
about anything. But I've never seen any evidence or data
that suggests, you know, any doctors have testified that there's
a psychopathy architecture going on with either of these two guys.
If we were assessing though, I mean, if we were
looking at, you know, doing a risk assessment. But that's
(28:54):
something that that I'm going to look at. I want
to I want to make sure that's not the case.
We've all heard of the successful psyche, and Sam probably
knows what this is. But a successful psychopath is somebody
who's been able to navigate, manipulate, exploit, and get away
with all kinds of craziness for all their life, and
that's why they're successful. So you know, they're out successful
psychopaths are out there all over the place. This is
(29:17):
one of those situations where I think it's a one off.
What you know, all this stuff that happened obviously the
thing that's really impassioned to a lot of people where
you know they're saying, well, you know, regardless of abuse,
you know, you don't murder your parents, you know, those
sorts of things. I think that's why this case is resonates.
So like just people get so impassioned by it because
there's there's one camp that says, you know, what they've
(29:39):
done their time, they were abused. You know, this was
maybe it was an imperfect self defense, but it was
you know, they it was unrealistic, but you know, they
were young, all of that. But then you've got other
people that say, no, they need to stay in prison
for the rest of their lives because of what they did.
So you've got these two camps right well.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
And their trials were so their two trials are so different.
You know, one judge let the one time that the
abuse comes in, the other time it's prohibited.
Speaker 3 (30:04):
Yeah, that was crazy, like they yeah, they allow the
abuse to come in for the first jury and it's
the same judge, wasn't it. I believe it was the
same judge. And when they at the mistrial, they like
they have a new trial, and then all of a
sudden that he decides that none of the abuse history
can come in. And I don't know what rule of
evidence he used to like like to deny that for
(30:29):
the second trial. I would think that is he thinking
that it's this information's too prejudicial that outweighs, you know,
it's probative value, or what what would be the rationale
for that, sam Well, I think.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
You could argue that it's not a self defense. It's
not doesn't make a legal self defense threshold unless you
are killing to prevent an act of sexual abuse. Let's
suppose Lyle walked in and saw his brother getting molested,
and he pulls out a bat and hits his dad
(31:00):
over the head and kills him to stop that from happening.
That's a different situation than planning ahead of time to
murder them without the immediate molestation or abuse taking place
at the time.
Speaker 3 (31:14):
It's just interesting that it was let in the first time,
and then he's so if it hadn't been let in
the first time, we probably would have had that same
they outcome that we got in the second trial.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
In Texas, we have two phases to jury trials. One
is the guilt innocence phase and the second is the
sentencing because juries can do sentencing in Texas, So certainly
in Texas, my prediction would have been, Okay, the abuse
may not come in on the guilt innocence aspect of
the case, but it may come in on the sentencing
phase of the case. So you know, in California you
(31:49):
have the different sentencing structure. Yeah, the judge was all
the sentences.
Speaker 3 (31:52):
Yeah, the judge, I mean, the judge can't do mitigation,
but yeah, I mean the judge takes that into account
or should take that into account, you know, when when sentencing.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
But I think that's the basis why people feel they
were deserving to have resentencing. They got resentence, and now
they're eligible for parole. And so here we are, and
we were talking about Governor Gavin Newsom and whether he
would recommend the release. Well, he has his own podcast,
(32:23):
did you know that I've.
Speaker 3 (32:25):
Never watched or is it an actual like video podcast
or is it like just audio?
Speaker 1 (32:30):
This is Gavin Newsom, So I was looking at it
and they discussed this case in this podcast, and it
seems as though Governor Gavin Newsom is willing to sign
off on the release. So I think we talked about
a lot of this political underpinnings or this influence where
someone in a position of power certainly holds a lot
(32:53):
of power to check that box on a form. And
so you know, Sam said maybe seventy five like they
may get released. It's like and then the final person
like checks the box. It's this guy that wields a
lot of power and it's just him checking a box.
And it could be the reason why he checks the
(33:13):
box is could be self serving. And that's why I
tend to think we are going to see them release. Well,
let's talk about life after being released. And I'm going
to give you an example of Gypsy Rose blanchert. We
know we've heard a lot about her. She spent some
(33:36):
time in prison and found her way out and she
was found to be guilty for playing a role in
her mother's murder and she did ten years. Her co
conspirator was serving life. So there's people have a strong
opinion about that case. But meanwhile, Gypsy Rose is I
guess we call her an influencer because she is just
(33:59):
south on TikTok and making videos really made her personal
life public, and there's pros and cons to that when
you start just putting all your information out on the
Internet and you're talking about things. And one of the
things that's been controversial for her is that some people
(34:20):
felt she was no longer remorseful or was putting blame
on someone else or making excuses, and that did not
go over well. In fact, there's people saying like call
on parole, like bring her back, take her back, We
don't like her anymore, and so public opinion weighs in.
(34:41):
And so when we look at the Menandez brothers, just
imagine the future ten years from now, they're out. Let's
just say they're partying, they're trying to well, let's just
imagine them being on parole. Parole. You are on parole, So, Craig,
what does that look like when you're on parole.
Speaker 3 (34:58):
It's the same rules of apply when you're in the institution.
It's just that you're free now. In other words, you
don't have Fourth Amendment rights. Your Fourth Amendment rights are
suspended when you're on parole. So at least you know
that's the way it works in California, and so parole Ease.
When you're on parole, you are subject to search and seizure.
It has to be obviously reasonable, not done for the
(35:18):
purpose of harassing harassment. But they can be searched at
any time when they're on parole. So it's they do
have some of their constitutional rights are still restricted to
some degree while they're on parole. So if they do
something or they engage in some conduct that you know,
gets the attention of the parole agent who's supervising them.
Wherever they're parole too, they have to be prolled to
(35:39):
a specific area or community. Who knows where it will be,
probably in the Los Angeles I would assume, but wherever
their family might be. But yeah, they're going to be
under scrutiny, and so you know if they can be violated.
So if if they violate any statutes or they violate
any of their conditions of parole, whatever those conditions might be,
they can be sent back and incarcerated. Under In California
(36:01):
it's some thirty fifty six of the Penal Code, they
can have their you know, basically be have that suspended
and then be sent back to prison potentially if they
violated the terms. Now California, I don't know, Texas probably
a little more hardcore when it comes to parole violations,
My experience in California has been you know, and this
is ten years ago when I left the but parole,
(36:24):
you know, you get violated. Oftentimes they only do you know,
they would do you know, maybe six months or twelve
months or something, and they just get re released again. So
depending on what it was, if it's just a simple
parole violation where you know, they got a dirty drug
test or something like that, then they might have to
do an additional six months or a year. But it's
not like they go back to serve the original sentence
(36:44):
and they you don't have to go through a whole
process again, but they still are going to be on
you know, on a fairly tight string, you know, when
they're on parole.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
In Texas, we call a parole revocation warrant a blue warrant.
So if you're pulled back into custody on a blue warrant,
you have to go through through another parole hearing about
your violation, and you can be actually ordered to serve
your original senates out on extreme emolations. And that happens
with my clients who are on parole and then they
(37:13):
commit another crime or convicted of committing another crime. The
blue warrant will hold them incarcerated without the chance of
getting out on bond until the parole board makes a
final decision. So a lot of my clients that are
charged with a crime and have a blue warrant can't
get out on bond because of the blue want standard
group is lower. With regard to what Dana said earlier
(37:38):
about the blanchec case, I'm not real familiar with her
recent activities, but I think you know, there's a distinction
if you're out having been paroled or pardoned, if you're
out and you're saying, look, I really messed up, made
horrible mistakes in the past, but here's some of the
stuff that happened to me, and here's how my life
(37:58):
is going now. That's that's somebody who's going to be
sympathetic to the public. We like redemption stories. On the
other hand, if you've got if you try to get
out there and retrace the case and blame people and
act like you're the victim, you're going to lose sympathy
really quickly. I think I'm a golfer and there was
a I think a player in the British Open last
(38:19):
week or we who had served time in prison got
out and and and became a professional golfer and was
participating in the greatest golf championship in the world. And
there was a lot there are a lot of stories
about his redemption and his remorse and and I think,
you know, the Menindez brothers are going to face a
task if I believe when they get out in managing
(38:41):
that and and managing it in a positive way. You
hope that they're underpinning of rehabilitation, that that Mark Garrigos
and others have been trumpeting was really true, because they
could really uh do some good in the world because
they're going to have a lot of attention on them
and probably in a building to make more money than
(39:01):
your average X con for sure.
Speaker 3 (39:04):
Yeah, they're definitely going to probably be signing some deals
with who knows, some television show, who knows, podcast what.
You know, there'll be some mechanism. I think you're right
for them to make considerable money. You know, when they
get out, I'm sure they'll write a book and they'll
be doing a lot of that.
Speaker 2 (39:23):
Some people choose the opposite path and they say, forget it,
I'm gonna go live my life somewhere. I'm just happy
to be free. That's probably the healthiest of options, and
from my perspective at least, but it's also very difficult
to turn down offers that will be coming right and left.
I just hope that they manage that spotlight in a
(39:44):
constructive way.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
I can only imagine the offers they would get. But
you know, some people can get a little cocky and
then commit tax fraud. And I mean, oh j Simpson
the one downfall, but that was one of them that
got him rounded in prison.
Speaker 3 (40:04):
Okay, well Nevada got him and you know in that
Vegas that robbery, Clark County took care of that.
Speaker 1 (40:13):
So just you know, all law. You know, got to
follow all the laws. And uh. I think it'll be
really interesting. I tend to think that I'm going to
see them be released and we're going to be watching
them back getting integrated into society, and I think that'll
(40:33):
be interesting to see how they adapt and to see
how they respond. And I hope to see them doing
something really good as what they've in prison. They're saying,
they're shown remorse, they're saying and doing all the right things.
I hope, I hope that they truly are reformed. I
(40:55):
hope that they do good things in society and talk
about abuse and how it has impacted their life and
get more people to talk about this. I interview a
lot of men in custody, many who have been sexually abused,
many who aren't going to tell me, but it would
(41:16):
be mitigating. It would be helpful for them to share
that information to me. And I know they don't always,
but I certainly have interviewed a lot of men, In
one case, thirty eight men who were sexually abused. So
I have interviewed a lot of men who have experienced abuse.
It is systemically a problem, so I in an effort
to bring awareness about the prevalence of it and the
(41:41):
importance of early intervention and the signs. So I would
be curious if I were to ever interview them. It's like,
what checkpoints did we miss? You know, who knew, who
didn't say anything, who other family member and friends knew. Okay,
that's how these things work. So anyway, my thoughts are
(42:04):
as a psychologist, I detect and prevent this is this
is big. We're mandated reporters and we report this as
a matter. In many cases for CPS. You know, I
have done my share of reporting in my lifetime, so
(42:25):
and it is horrifying the outcomes when abuse isn't detected
early on and it goes unchecked and is happening for years.
I see juveniles in custody who I come to find
out they have committed a crime, but then they are
sharing me what is going on at home, and then
(42:47):
we have a very complex matter of abuse is happening
to them. It's and I've been involved in those cases
and they're complex, and I'm always grateful to be in
a position to be that person who can cure this
information and respond. And it does impact sentencing as a
(43:12):
matter of fact. So I've been to sentencing hearings, I've testified,
and I have intervened at that critical age and sometimes
they're seventeen and a half or they're on the cusp
of eighteen and here we are and it is important.
So well, we'll follow up with you, Sam when the
(43:33):
Menandes brothers gets out. Let's just say that's going to happen,
and we'll follow their journey and see where they're at.
Speaker 3 (43:44):
We'll have to invite them on the podcast when they
get out and see if they'll come on and the
point you make about the treatment's important, you know, like, yeah,
they actually I don't know what kind of treatment they
got while they were in prison. Having worked in a
California prison, I can tell you that even though psychological
interventions are available, but you have to be in the
(44:06):
right component of the system. And I don't know what
level of care they had when they were in prison.
I don't know if they were in any of the
mental health programs there. But if either of them did
not get treatment, they need to seek that when they
get out. Particularly, you know, given the nature of this
abuse that was reported that you know, appears to be
(44:27):
legitimate abuse. I mean, it was corroborated by a number
of people, I think independently that you know, and they
can be like you said, they can increase awareness, public
awareness because you're right, men do not report this because
of shame humiliation. Most men do not report their experiences
(44:49):
of being abused sexually abused at a very young age.
Most men don't come forward because of the shame associated
with it. So that's how they could do a lot
of you know, when you contributing to society, they could
definitely help in that regard.
Speaker 2 (45:04):
I recently represented a sixteen year old in a juvenile matter,
and he was spectually abused when he was around ten
years old, and he only recently came out after being
charged with serious crimes and just discussed an older cousin
that had abused him four to five times sexually, and
(45:24):
then one of his other cousins it turns out, had
been abused over almost ten years, and he felt really
bad because he didn't come out with it, and if
he had come out earlier, my client might not have
ever been abused. And so it is. It is a
young man's It is a much more closeted trauma, I
(45:48):
think than almost anything else. Boys and young men, when
you're really young and you're being abused, you just kind
of think that's the way it is. You know, he's
part of life, you're whoever the abuser, and you just
got to say okay, well you know, and then you actually,
you know, the grooming is extensive. They become your friend
and they take you to do fun things, and then
(46:10):
they abuse you, and then the soccer goes over and
over again, and it's uh, yeah, it's a very a
very complicated thing for a young man to come out
and report this.
Speaker 1 (46:21):
And I would say the reasons why they don't tell
are complex, but anyone that's listening and needs to or
wants to report, it's look. It's honestly, it's hard to
navigate some of the reporting on your own to it.
So I always let people know you can call make
an appointment with a therapist. We're all mandated reporters, and
(46:42):
we we can do the reporting for you or help
you navigate that, or do the reporting together. Help it
could just its just complex. It's very hard emotionally, so
I usually sit with people or help them over time.
It's so difficult, I can tell you that. So is
really I don't recommend people to do it on their own.
(47:03):
I think it takes support and to have a therapist
help with that. But thank you so much for the
discussion today. I really appreciate it. And we'll have to
stay tuned to see what is what the next chapter is.
Speaker 3 (47:20):
I say, let's invite them when they come, when they
get out, and let's reach out.
Speaker 1 (47:23):
And invite them on I will I will call them.
I will call Kim Kardashian first because I think she
has the number, and we can all get together for
lunch in LA or Beverly Hills. You guys are all invited.
Speaker 2 (47:37):
Well, I'll accept that invitation. I'm pretty sure.
Speaker 1 (47:39):
Okay, awesome, we'll see you there. Thank you for listening
to Killer Psychologist. To watch full video episodes or if
you want to interact with me, you can find Killer
Psychologists on YouTube. You can also get notified of new
episodes by signing up in my stand store. Now, if
(47:59):
you want to work with me, you can book a console.
My website is psychologydoctor dot com. That's psychology d R
dot com.
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!