Menendez Brothers

[BoSoxGal]

Will be getting resentenced, and possibly home for Thanksgiving.

What do you think, Plan B?

Honestly I think serving 30+ years is enough after eliminating a monstrous child rapist and his knowing enabler from the planet.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Their defense was that their parents abused them - IMO this defense was cooked up by their legal team as an after-the-fact justification for routine $$$$$ motivated murders. There was no separate evidence that this abuse ever took place.

[Crackpot]

That’s just the point evidence has come to light that the claims pre date the murder or the murder plot.

[BoSoxGal]

Their defense was that their parents abused them - IMO this defense was cooked up by their legal team as an after-the-fact justification for routine $$$$$ motivated murders. There was no separate evidence that this abuse ever took place.

There IS evidence of the abuse and nearly the whole extended family who knew Jose the rapist believes them. He was a brute to the entire family besides raping his sons for years and years, and he is accused of raping a boy member of a band his record company represented as well - so he didn’t just do incest which some folks don’t care too much about, he also raped other people’s kids.

The Menendez trials were the beginning of Court TV. They are available to watch online. I challenge you to go and watch the testimony of those two young men describing the abuse they endured at the hands of their savage rapist father and come back here and call them liars. What I will tell you then is that you obviously have no experience speaking to children who have been raped by their parents - I have far too much such experience, and I believe those boys entirely. You can’t act that kind of raw humiliation on the witness stand.

I will also add that there have been cases recently where a family member has killed a child rapist they found raping their child relative. In more than one instance such killings have not been charged at all by prosecutors. It seems hypocrisy to suggest that the only time it can be considered defense of another to kill a child rapist is when the rapist’s penis is still inside or just recently exited the child’s anus or vagina. Erik and Lyle Menendez engaged in imperfect self defense and should never have been found guilty of first degree murder. The first jury would not convict them and in the second trial the court improperly refused to let them present their defense of brutal rape and systematic child abuse, despite corroborating testimony by relatives. It was a miscarriage of justice. They have been model prisoners and have dedicated their prison lives to helping others to heal from trauma. They pose no threat to society.

Child abusers of all kinds are the scourge of society and their actions are the root of much evil in the world. I’m sure this twist will stoke fear and also anger in the hearts of many parents out there - the very notion that children are not objects to be used as a parent wishes, but autonomous beings with the right to defend themselves from sick twisted violent ‘parenting.’

[ex-khobar Andy]

You've obviously followed this case much more closely than I have and my recollection is from the original trial 30-odd years ago and there did not seem to be any evidence then that the allegations of abuse were anything other than a defense invention.

I have absolutely no quarrel with where we are now - they have been granted a resentencing which in effect means that they can apply for parole and get out soon. They have been model prisoners. As Mark Geragos said, 35 years is enough. He did not - at least in the extended sound bite I saw (3+ minutes on YouTube) - mention the abuse/incest and 35 years is probably a lot more than most murderers get these days.

You say that you have extensive experience of victim testimony and I don't for a second doubt that. I have none. But let's not make the logical error of stating that because such behavior exists (it does) and because their testimony was consistent with that of a real victim (I assume that it was) ergo they must be victims. Post hoc is not always propter hoc.

If any juries would be sympathetic to abuse victims, California juries are probably at the top of that tree. They went on trial twice and the juries did not buy the 'abusive parents who got what was coming to them' defense.

[MajGenl.Meade]

n the second trial the court improperly refused to let them present their defense of brutal rape and systematic child abuse, despite corroborating testimony by relatives.

That's not a 100% fact. The judge limited what they could present. He did not "refuse to let them". That's all I'm saying - I don't know nor have an opinion as to whether they were abused or not, neither as to whether they should or should not be freed.

I am glad they did not get the death penalty. I don't mind them being released, even though the man most responsible for the decision is facing an election fight and needs the cred.

I do think that at 18 and 21 years of age they could have made a different decision and that money was an overwhelming influence to murder and coverup, whether they were abused or not.

And nothing of what I think matters a hill o' beans

[BoSoxGal]

I do think that at 18 and 21 years of age they could have made a different decision and that money was an overwhelming influence to murder and coverup, whether they were abused or not.

I think this is a knee jerk reaction of many people, particularly those with no experience of parental abuse. As somebody who endured serious psychological and physical abuse from the time I was in the womb and until I estranged from my parents at age 30, and who has worked for decades with victims of childhood abuse, and who has read extensively in the psychiatric literature on the subject, I know and understand the influence that abusive parents have on their children beyond the 'magic' age of 18.

Both science and the law recognize that the human brain doesn't fully develop by this legal age of majority at 18, and a person's ability to exercise independent thinking and autonomous choice all of a sudden after decades of conditioning and abuse is rather limited. Many people do not fully grapple with the childhood abuse they endured until they are much older, in fact. And there are many cases of poor and middle class kids who killed abusive parents - it is sad that the Menendez family was rich and thus created in so many people's minds the knee jerk reaction that they killed their parents for money.

I recently rewatched the Dateline program on the FLDS and I would recommend it to people who don't understand why kids who grow up physically abused and psychologically manipulated can't 'just walk away' on their 18th birthdays, no matter anything about financial support from the parents. It is so much more complicated than that, and the only villains are the adults who abuse children.

[Big RR]

Perhaps BSG, but as I recall (and it was a long time ago so my memory may not be accurate), right after they received the insurance from their parents' death they went on a buying spree, getting expensive items like a Porsche and a full time tennis coach; coupling this with testimony that their father was going to cut them off (from several witnesses, I think), it makes the profit component fairly significant. Adding to this was the fact that they took steps to cover up what they did, indicating that they clearly knew what they were doing/did was wrong. We may never know what they did or did not receive at the hands of their father, but these were clearly kids who coveted money and what it could buy for them. Was it a major factor in their decision to act? I don't know, but I do think so.

That being said, granting them parole after 30 years as apparently model prisoners does not seem to be a miscarriage of justice; if Nathan Leopold (who brutally murdered a young kid with his friend/lover Richard Loeb "for the experience") could get parole, I wouldn't think denial makes sense here. Indeed, I would probably grant parole to most murderers and other criminals after a long period of incarceration (how long is another thread) unless they remained a danger to society at large; 30 years in prison is hardly a holiday.

[BoSoxGal]

The extended family members have noted that the boys grew up in affluence and were not deprived of material things by the rapist father and rapist enabling mother - the father was in fact apparently fixated on them having the best of everything to project a public image of his success in life. Sure it doesn’t look great that they went on a spending spree in the weeks following their parents’ deaths, but if I won the lottery tomorrow I’d immediately go on a spending spree as well (for different things, I don’t care for luxury cars or jewelry etc.) and I am certainly far more mature.

20/20 did a special last week on the brothers and showed several outtakes never before aired from their interview with Barbara Walters following their convictions. It’s a window into their mindsets and worth considering before judging them.

Just prior to the murders Jose had told Erik that he could not go away to live at college, he had to remain in the family home. The reason was that Jose was still raping the 19 year old Erik on a regular basis and he wanted him in the house and accessible to him for continued raping. He had stopped raping Lyle years previously and when Lyle became aware that his little brother was being raped that is when the murder plot was fashioned by the brothers.

The prosecution made the sick and shocking claim at that time that males cannot be raped - I know it was the 90s but that’s still a sickening position for prosecutors to take. Thank goodness we have evolved a little bit from that era, but I still am appalled by how often I see people make comments wishing prison rape on convicts despite the near daily stories coming out of both innocence projects and conviction integrity review units establishing actual innocence of wrongfully convicted felons.

It’s so disheartening to realize how many of us are just not very far out of the cave.

[Big RR]

Don't get me started on prison rape; innocence aside, even the guilty do not deserve that. I'd like to think that we are beyond the brutal behavior of the past, be it torture or horrible physical punishments, but it appears we are not. In the abstract, I really don't care what is done to a guy like Manson or Ted Bundy in prison (and it seems like karma in a twisted way), but certainly we have to (or at least should) be better than that--we (or, at least, a good number of us) just are not. An eye for an eye is not a viable philosophy, but for those who don't want to "coddle" criminals, it is a mantra.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sure it doesn’t look great that they went on a spending spree in the weeks following their parents’ deaths murdering their parents, but if I won the lottery tomorrow I’d immediately go on a spending spree as well

I have a suspicion that there's some kind of difference between murdering two parents and winning the lottery. It's entirely possible that these two boys did not see the difference.

As to the post-murder self-serving "I was being raped at 19" (aside from that fact that he was 18 when he killed his parents), that's not evidence. I guess just leaving home and getting a job far away was not a preferable option to homicide.

They were old enough to know better. They chose to kill. I don't think they are a danger to society. Turn 'em loose - they've done the time. But I don't care for special pleading that the devil made them do it. No. They made them do it. We can agree that we have different perspectives and that neither of us is "wrong". We also agree it's beyond time they were freed.

[BoSoxGal]

I never claimed the devil made them do it, Meade. I assert as did their defense counsel that they were driven to imperfect self defense by years of horrific abuse. Imperfect self defense is not first degree murder. Another case you may recall is the woman who burned her abusive husband alive while he slept after years of horrific abuse of herself and their four children. She was found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity in the first major US case utilizing battered women’s syndrome defense.

I struggle to understand or have any sympathy for a person who has no sympathy for children and adults who are systematically abused in their own homes by family members over a period of years or decades. It seems entirely lacking in basic Christian compassion to suggest that such people should suck it up. It also exhibits a massive ignorance of the dynamics of domestic violence and the psychological harms created by being subject to horrific abuse by the people meant to nurture and care for their victims, the people who have in most cases made vows before God to protect and care for their victims.

But you never stop leaving me appalled especially considering your professions of faith. You’re one of those not really Christian Christians, IMNSHO. Punishment and judgment obsessed ‘Christians,’ who seem to have missed the whole point of the New Testament.

[Big RR]

BSG--i would never suggest someone should "suck it up", but I also do not maintain that extended abuse is an excuse for premeditated murder. If they snapped and fought back and killed someone, then it might well be justified, but if they acquired weapons and planned and killed their abuser, that is something very different IMHO. I will not second-guess the jury in the "burning bed" case, but as much at the abuser may have "deserved" it, I do not think it behooves us as a society to give a pass to someone who might well be seeking revenge as much as escape, not to mention the financial benefits that the killing might bring. I can feel sorry for what they endured, but I do think as a society we cannot give a pass because the abuser "had it coming" or because of what the victim endured, any more than I condone the relative of a person who died of a drug overdose huting down and killing the supplier.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I struggle to understand or have any sympathy for a person who has no sympathy for children and adults who are systematically abused in their own homes by family members over a period of years or decades

Yes, me too. I wonder of whom you speak?

It seems entirely lacking in basic Christian compassion to suggest that such people should suck it up.

Doesn't it just? Was it the same person who "has no sympathy etc." or a second person?

But you never stop leaving me appalled especially considering your professions of faith. You’re one of those not really Christian Christians, IMNSHO. Punishment and judgment obsessed ‘Christians,’ who seem to have missed the whole point of the New Testament.

Yet a third person? You must have sent this message to me by mistake! Surely, I stated they should be released - not further punished. Did I neglect to state that I had no opinion as to whether they were abused or not ('no opinion' is kinda like, you know, not judgemental).

And what exactly is the whole point of the New Testament in your expert opinion and judgement (oh there's that word)?

I got something about loving one's enemy; returning good for evil; not killing folks; forgiving those who abuse us (and I do, I do); blessed are the peacemakers; how to know the difference between murder and buying a lottery ticket . . .

BTW, 'the devil made them do it' is one of them metaphor things for I couldn't help it. Not my idea. Had no choice. It couldn't be helped. All words I might use to justify my doing something wrong. (And the devil cannot make me or anyone else do anything - it's the temptation that I foster in me that is the "devil").

What's your position on "It was her fault - she dressed so provocatively"? Probably it's the same as mine.

[ex-khobar Andy]

BSG told us:

I struggle to understand or have any sympathy for a person who has no sympathy for children and adults who are systematically abused in their own homes by family members over a period of years or decades. It seems entirely lacking in basic Christian compassion to suggest that such people should suck it up.

I must have missed that. Who exactly has no sympathy for children who are abused? Who suggested that they suck it up?

Asking for a friend . . .

[liberty]

Is there not a law that states that an individual or individuals cannot profit from any crime they may commit; so, if they get out of prison they don't get any of the money from their parents?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Is there not a law that states that an individual or individuals cannot profit from any crime they may commit

Well Trump got paid for being President so . . .

[Big RR]

I believe they were disinherited when convicted; inheritance law ordinarily denies any inheritance to the person(s) killing the deceased.

[Joe Guy]

In my opinion, there is absolutely no excuse for what Erik and Lyle Menendez did. The only real question is whether or not they are currently a danger to society. If it has been determined they are no longer a danger to others, let 'em go. If they are released, I hope they stay out of the public eye and don't go on some kind of publicity tour.

[liberty]

I don't know much about this case I didn't pay much attention to it at the time. I wasn't much interested in it, but I do know a little bit about human nature. Quite often children born into a wealthy family whose parents failed to give them some kind of mission in life usually end up spoiled, wasteful, and self-centered.

If you give your children everything they want and make life too easy for them you're handicapping their adult life. Children should learn responsibility at a very early age; they should have chores to do and be required to work for those things they want. Too many people just give their children everything they want; all they have do is complain a little. That is why our society is in such bad shape; we're overrun with liberal snowflakes not very many have grit.