March 13, 2025 • 37 mins
Emily and Shane are diving into the shocking updates surrounding the Menendez Brothers. How will the battle between D.A. Nathan Hochman and Gov. Gavin Newsom ultimately seal their fates?
Plus, more information has surfaced on the death of Gene Hackman and his wife, Betsy. Was this actually the result of natural causes or is it something bigger?
Follow us on Instagram @legally_brunette_podcast
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hi, guys, welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I
will be your host today Emily Simpson with my co
host Shane Shane. Okay, today we thought it was really
important to do, first of all and update in the
Menendez case. It is proceeding along actually very swiftly, and
it's been interesting because Gavin Newsom has now really gotten
(00:24):
involved in this case. First of all, you all know
that DA Nathan Hawkman is involved in the Menendez case
and in the resentencing, he reversed the course of his predecessor,
who was Gascon. He was a more progressive DA. He
was the one that was really pushing for the resentencing
(00:45):
of the Menendez brothers. But Hawkman came out and said
that he will only reconsider if the brothers apologize for
what he calls a litany of lies. So he was
interviewed and he told NBC News quote, if they go
ahead and sincerely and unequivocally for the first time in
thirty years layout that they have now lied on their
(01:07):
entire defense and finally admit that they killed their parents
in cold blood, then that will be a new insight
that the court should then reconsider what he is doing,
what Hawkman is doing is withdrawing the DA's support for
their recenencing, and he featured a list of sixteen unacknowledged
(01:27):
lies by the brothers. Now we'll get into some of
these sixteen lies that he's saying that they need to
basically come clean and fess up to before he would
even consider giving a recommendation that the judge should resentence them. Basically,
he's saying, I'm not supporting the resentencing at this point.
That was on Monday, March tenth.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
So all so far. The only condition that he's adding
is that they confess to a cold blooded murder.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
No, they did murder their passion.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
She may not confess, but he wants them to apologize.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
No, he said that. Basically, what he's done is he's
gone back and he's basically retrying them, which is not
what resentencing is about. This is where I think he's
completely off base and he's not understanding resentencing. Resentencing is
based on rehabilitation and where they are now and have
they learned their lessons and are they different.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
People revisit them revisiting.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
He's gone back and I feel like he's retrying them,
and he's saying, look in this first trial, there's these
sixteen lies. And before I'll even consider giving a recommendation
that you should be resentence, you need to go back
and admit that you know, lied about all these things.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
And literally the first trial or the second trial, it.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Was the first trial. But here's the thing. When they
were tried in the first trial, all of these lies
were testified to, they were cross examined on, the jury
heard them, and then the jury ended up being a
hung jury. So I don't think to me, those are
moot issues at this point. We've already tried these They
(03:00):
were also eighteen and twenty one at the time, so
we do have to consider that we're talking about thirty
five years prior. So next, this is on Monday, March tenth,
when Hawkman withdrew any type of support for their resentencing.
I think Newsom is playing chess with Hawkman, because then
the next day, on Tuesday, March eleventh, California Governor Gavin
(03:24):
Newsom dropped a breaking news on his new podcast, announcing
that Lyle and Eric will go in front of the
Parole Board on June thirteenth for a hearing. So what
he's ordered is a public risk assessment report to be
done and then they're going to have a parole Board
hearing on June thirteenth. So I feel like his pushing
(03:49):
for them to have a hearing in front of the
Parole board was a direct response to Hawkman saying we
withdraw any support for the resentencing. I mean, you can
tell that to me. It's like like Gavin Newsom's playing
chess with Hawkman. Hawkman makes a move and then the
next day on his podcast, Gavin Newsom's like, well, I'm
(04:11):
going to give him a parole board hearing and we're
going to do this risk assessment.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
You know. It's kind of like the publicity with the
Netflix special and whatnot afforded them the opportunity the voice
where people wanted a resentencing or whatever and it kind
of resurfaced, right, So it gave him kind of that spotlight,
and it's also giving them the spotlight where now Gavin
Newsom and other people are like stepping in and everyone
(04:36):
wants to be in the kitchen, you know, cooking on
this thing.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
And well, yeah, I mean, let's be honest, we're talking
about To me, it's a pr stot on both sides.
Because Hawkman likes to give news conferences all the time.
He clearly enjoys being in front of the camera, and
the way for him to get publicity in front of
the camera is to talk about Menendez because everyone's obsessed
with this case. Then Gavin Newsom has a new podcast.
(05:00):
So what's a better way for him to get views
on his podcasts and to get his podcasts out there
than to announce that he that he's asked, you know,
the parole board to give them a hearing and so
but you know, what's also interesting is that they independently
have hearings on June thirteenth in front of the parole board,
which means that they're not being lumped together into like
(05:20):
one decision. It is normal, but I think for me,
even though that you've.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Seen them together all the time, so then it's like
you just assume that it's right. One of them is
a couple committing the crime, and so they should be
tried the same, and they're the same, and here they
are being separated, and then it runs the risk of
one being you know, getting a different result than the.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Other exactly well that that there's a potential for that
because they have independent parole hearings. Even though I do
know that they've had amazing prison records over the past
thirty five years. They've been heavily involved in lots of
things like green space where they're putting you know, they're
painting murals and creating green space in the prisons. They've
(06:02):
been involved in the hospice, and they've both academically excelled
and gotten degrees, and they've worked with, you know, other
victims of abuse. And they also claimed on a recent
podcast that they did with Garagos you know how Garaghos
and what's the guy's name from TMZ, Harvey Harvey Harvey Harvey,
(06:24):
because you know, because you watch TMZ all the time.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
No, yes, you do.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
You're the one that told me that TMZ stood for
a thirty mile zone.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
What do I mean? I know? I wat?
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Well, okay, you get TMZ, you get TMC alerts on
your phone.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
I know this annoying.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
Well that's what I'm saying, all right. Anyway, anyway, so
the brothers actually did an interview on their podcast recently
I think this was last week, and they were talking
about all these things that they've done in prison. Anyway,
my whole point is the recencing comes down to rehabilitation.
And are they a different person than they were thirty
five years ago? Have they grown, have they rehabilitated themselves?
(07:03):
Are they a risk to society? How does their family feel?
And we all know that their entire family supports them
being released and being recent So anyway, that's where we at.
So they still have also which is interesting because I'm
not really sure how this works, but they still have
their resentencing hearing scheduled for March twentieth and the twenty first.
So I was actually chatting about it with Alex who
(07:27):
represents them, she's on their team, on their legal team,
and she was saying, well, it hasn't been continued or
rescheduled or anything at this point. So basically what they
could do is proceed forward and present evidence of their rehabilitation,
their prison record, the family and all of that stuff,
and then we'll see what happens on June thirteenth when
(07:49):
they go before the parole board.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
So basically, Menendez update is another stay tuned.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
It is another stay tuned. But I think what's really
interesting is that Hawkman comes out and basically kills the
resentencing like it, you know what I mean, Like he
it's doomsday for him and then Gavin Newsom comes out
the next day and he's like, no, it's not Kevin
news Some just Granthum plenacy Commune. Yes he could, and
(08:15):
that's that's another option. So we still have two options
at this point.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
And then he should have him on his podcast. Exactly
wants the ratings there you go.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Yeah, he's going to have to pay a lot for that, though,
I think they're not just going to go on a
podcast for he's got money. Let's talk about just a
little bit of the sixteen. Hawkman calls them the unacknowledged
lies that they have not admitted to, So let's just well,
we won't go through all of them, but let's just
go through some Eric and Lyle Liby.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Next question, so these lies are in the first trial,
not in the second. If in the first trial there
are lies and then the second trial just for arguments
there were no lies, then why is he going back
to that like the first trial that got thrown out?
Speaker 1 (08:59):
Anyway, Well, I think that's the whole point of he's
not really understanding or wanting to understand.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Or allows them to be released. He won't be able
to do any public speaking anymore.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
No, he needs another famous case, cam up the.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Murders out.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
They are staying in so that I can give weekly
press conferences. All right, he said, some of these lies
are Eric and Lyle lied when they claim that their
parents were going to kill them and that they had
to act in self defense by murdering them. First, first
of all, their defense in their first trial was not
self defense. It was actually imperfect self defense. So that's
(09:38):
not exactly accurate. And imperfect self defense is a partial
defense that doesn't meant all legal requirements, but may reduce
the severity of a criminal charge. So, for example, a
defendant may claim imperfect self defense, which the brothers did,
if they reasonably but mistakenly believe that they were in
danger of death or serious injury.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Yeah, so, which is like, okay, you genuinely were in
fear for your safety. However, a reasonably prudent person would
not be in fear.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
Right and exactly, and this is what their defense was
in the first trial was imperfect self defense because there
was no immediate harm when they killed their parents. Their
parents were sitting and you know, in the in the
den watching a movie, eating ice cream and blueberries when
they came in and shot them. So the imperfect self
defense was a reasonable person would not feel that their
(10:31):
life was in imminent danger at that time. However, their
defense was they had been abused for so long that
they weren't thinking like a reasonable, rational person, and that
they felt that they were that their parents were going
to kill them.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
And I feel that children always apply it a self defense,
and it's really an imperfect self defense. It's like, yeah, Okay,
you're scared, I get it, but you shouldn't be scared, right,
I get it. He hurt your feelings, so you hit him,
but you shouldn't have been hurt.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
So you're just saying kids in general, their excuses are
always imperfect self defense. But they're eighteen and twenty one.
Are they still considered kids at this point?
Speaker 2 (11:08):
I was just talking about our kids.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
You were just talking about our children. Now, Okay, So
from now on, when Annabel argues with me, I'm going
to be like, that's an imperfect self is.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Going to mitigate your punishment. It's not going to alleviate
you from any We're just.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
Raising little lawyers over here or defendants or that. So
is Annabel a defendant or a future lawyer, She's a
person of interest.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
Ally Day always a.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
Person of interest, all right. Another one is to support
their self defense claims. Eric and Lyle tried to suborn
perjury by asking Eric's friend Brian to testify that they
borrowed one of his handguns the night before the murder
to defend themselves against their parents. So there are there
were several instances of them trying to get people to
(11:54):
testify to their defense. Another one was, I believe Lyle
asked a girl friend to testify that, you know, his
dad had made sexual advances at her or raped her
or something like that. They also testified the purpose of
their one hundred and twenty mile drive to San Diego
was not to buy shotguns, when in fact, that was
the reason that they made the trip.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
These two kids, we'll just go off the you know,
we'll just be in agreement that they killed their parents
for their own safety, so I can make my argument.
So if they're doing that, most people, if not all,
don't like you kill your parents cold blooded? Right because
you did it without being provoked. You did it, And
(12:36):
now let me think, so do you do it? You
kill your parents? They didn't attack you. You just walked in.
They're on the couch. You shoot them they're dead, you
feel better. You're not going to think, hey, I have
a self defense because I was in fear of my safety.
They're gonna worry, holy crap, we just killed our parents.
We have to hide this. If someone advised them in
(12:58):
the beginning, look this, you can have a defense where
there's a time where you're you know, in fear of
your safety and this and that, and so you kill
them because it's your only way out and blah blah
blah blah. Then they might have been truthful. But it's
normal for people to think, holy crapit has killed someone.
I better hide this, even if they did it for
their safety. So if a female kills the boyfriend because
he's a jerk and he keeps beating her, not all
(13:20):
of them are like, well, had I had a good
legal defense, They're going to think I just killed someone.
I better cover this up, right.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
So you're saying a reasonable person is going to hide
the fact that they murdered someone because that's just the
natural instinct of what to do.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
But reasonable people don't even kill, so I arguably in
a reasonable state of mind. I mean, I hate it
when they say a reasonable person would have called the
police No, I don't know. I'd probably be scared to death,
and I would have attacked the person that was coming
in my house or reacted in a way. It's like, no,
one's like someone comes and points a gun at me,
and then the law is telling me to act like
a reasonably prudent person.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
What about the now we know with sexual abuse, we
know that they lie about the abuse, and they lie
to cover up the abuse. So is that a factor
that should be taken into consideration considering that they might
have lied about a litany of things, as Hawkman says,
but maybe their first instinct is to lie about things
(14:17):
because they're still trying to cover up the abuse that
they enter.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
So you're saying, it's like, oh, I I didn't kill them.
Oh it wasn't me, Oh it was my friend. Oh
it was because he attacked me. Oh it was I
thought he was going to kill me. Okay, you know what,
he just made my life miserable growing up, and I
hated it and I had no way out and I
was fearful of him, so I killed him. Okay. Sorry.
Then it's like, well, then why do you say all
that in the first.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Place, right, But my point is based upon what you
just said, that sexual abuse victims lie initially to cover
it up, like they're not forthcoming about sexual abuse. So
I'm saying that.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Oh, they cover up the abuse, right because maybe embarrassment
they feel their right.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
Well, like we know that as a fact based upon
psychological research, that sexual abuse victims lie about the abuse.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
It's just a tough call for in all scenarios.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
They also tried to get someone to lie and say
that they were present when their mother tried to poison.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Their family, but they had a legal defense or they didn't.
They thought that that was a better thing than saying, oh,
I was scared of my daddy. So they're probably trying
to come up with scenarios to get out of this thing.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
But this is when they're testifying, I believe. Yeah, when
they did shoot their parents, they staged it in a
way to look like a mafia style hit. So they
shot the dad in the back of the head, they
shot the mother in the face, they shot him in
the knee caps it was supposed to and then they said,
oh it was mafia. He was my dad was evolved
in you know, dirty business practices. So they use that
(15:50):
as as a way to rewrap the police and the
investigation get it. Eric and lyle lied when they testified
that doctor Ozell, who remember, was the psychologist that Eric
confessed to. They lied when they claimed that he blackmailed
them into confessing on tape. Parents.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
That's the psychiatrist that talks in his sleep.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Oh, I don't know, what do you mean, Well, he
had a mistress that he would tell things to.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
It wasn't in his sleep. I don't think claimed that
it was in his sleep.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Oh, she might have originally because he.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Was I would never go to that psychiatrist that he
should have a warning on the door, Like a psychiatrist
is known to talk in his sleep to mistresses.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
And he sleeps with other women besides his wife. Right,
let me just give one thing. Lylman Does posted on
Facebook after Hawkman did his after Hawkman did his press
conference and basically said he wasn't he was withdrawing the
DA's support of them being recent and so, Lyleman Does
posted on his Facebook page that quote. Of all those
lies Hawkman talked about, several of them were admitted stipulated
(16:57):
to in the first trial, and several of the other
lies were absolutely disproven or reasonably disputed. So he responds
to Hawkman's accusation. Also, the jury was a hung jury
in the first one, so you have to remember that.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Well, yeah, okay, you wanted to talk about the lies
in the first draw. Why don't we talk about the
fact that a handful of jury members found them not guilty? Right?
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Right?
Speaker 2 (17:24):
Consider it? Consider everything.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Oh, also, Mark Garrigos, who is there? Who is the
menindaz brothers attorney. He responded to Hawkman, and he said,
there were twenty two family members who signed on and
told the DA's office stop retraumatizing us. We could tell
at the meeting that Hawkman had no interest in that,
and I think that means that he had no interest in,
(17:46):
you know, the resentencing. This really kind of points out
one of the fallacies, if you will, of the DA
office here. They're not interested in victims. There isn't a
single living victim who endorses this. In fact, every single
victim wants them out. He continued, this, gentleman, this DA
retraumatizes the family repeatedly. He's almost serially abusing them with
(18:06):
his lies and his litany of lies. Family members who
support the Brothers say the DA has quote blinders onto
the fact that Eric and Lyle were repeatedly abused, feared
for their lives, and had atoned to their actions. When
asked about the sixteen lies the DA would like the
brothers to admit to, Gargo said, quote, he's obviously show voting.
(18:28):
He knows for a fact both brothers were cross examined
for weeks in the first trial on all of these things.
Every single one of these things that he mentioned was
either abandoned or cross examined in the first trial. And
guess what happened. Two juries not one, one for Eric
and one for Lyle. Both juries voted against murder over
the majority. Gargo said, Also, this is interesting. The family
(18:51):
sent a letter to the US Attorney's office asking that
Hawkman be removed from this case because they claim that
he's hostile, dismissive, and patronizing towards them. These are victims,
and apparently he's not very kind to them, according to
this letter that they've written, and they've asked that he
(19:12):
that it be looked into, or that he'd be even
removed from the case. So yeah, okay, now I'm officially
done with min indest.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Time will tell. We shall see, We.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Shall see what happens on March twentieth and twenty first,
if they continue to go forward with that or if
it gets continued. And if they do go forward with it,
then we will continue to see what happens on June
thirteenth when they go before the parole board, when they
get this risk assessment done, and then we will see
what Governor Gavin Newsom does. So we'll have to follow
his podcast to find out.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
What's the name of this podcast.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
I think.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
He doesn't have to have a creative name because he's
the governor, so he can just call it his own name. Yeah,
all right, let's get into this is interesting. Gene Hackman
and his wife Betsy. We did a little last time
we recorded. We did a little synopsis on what was
(20:05):
known so far, which was little. At that time. We
just knew that they were both found dead. Now there
have been a lot of updates, so we want to
do an update on this case and talk about it
because I still find this case, even though there's there's
answers now, I still feel like there's now more questions.
So the new Mexico chief, let's.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Be honest, Emily always thinks that they're bigger conspiracy. I
have a bean. You would if they said we determine
if the medical examiner determined that aliens came down and
killed them, she would be satisfied.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
I would.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
But when it's like, oh, they have this rat disease
and all the timers and he fell, then she doesn't
believe it.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
I would believe it more if they said Bigfoot broke
into their house and murdered them. I would believe that
over what they claim. Actually, right, yes, I do believe
on bigfoot though.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
The new Mexico Chief Medical Examiner, Heather Durrell, held a
highly anticipated news conference This was back on Friday, March seventh,
to reveal the cause of death for Gene Hackman and
his wife. They claim, after an autopsy, that Betsy died
of hantavirus, which, by the way, have you ever heard
of that before?
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Yeah? Really, yeah last week when I was reading about
this case.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
Oh okay, but before last week. No.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
It's like it's like mice or road in droppings and
deer droppings. Okay, right, But it can't be contracted from
human to human. That's why there's not many cases of
it. It can only be contracted from the feces alone or
whatever she came.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
So apparently it's a rare flu like disease linked to rats.
So she likely died on February eleventh, So she had
to have come into contact with rat poop somehow.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
What if it's bigfoot droppings, it might be they should
look into that and would you be happy?
Speaker 1 (21:43):
It would make more sense to me. Yes, she probably
picked up hantavirus, which can only pass from animals to
humans after she after she was exposed to rodent excrement. Somehow,
the wife would have been feeling six three to six
days before dying and then succombaing pretty quickly to the virus.
(22:03):
The medical examiner has said coming succumbing, it's not succumbing. Okay,
thank you mister.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
Help.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Yeah. The medical examiner also said there were signs of
rodent entry around the property, but they assess the risk
of exposure and the primary residence as low. It's similar
to other well maintained houses in New Mexico. I would
say everybody's house probably has some rat poop in it somewhere.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
No.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
No, no, well yeah there are there are No that's
dog poop. No, I'm not, No in our backyard Togo
catches big rats all the time into the yard. Yeah,
but he catches it. They probably tunnel under the house,
and they're probably in the ok.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Yeah, So anyway, they were a little bit more remote
and less developed areas. Right, They're kind of in the
hillside or something like that. So I bet you she
never saw any treatment or went to an urgent care
doctor or anything.
Speaker 1 (23:04):
Hackman also had late stage Alzheimer's disease, and he likely
died roughly a week after his wife from cardiovascular disease
and from the Alzheimer's and he tested negative for hantavirus.
But cardiovascular disease isn't a heart attack.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
Yeah, what is it then? Is it just a weakness
in the heart or something?
Speaker 1 (23:23):
I guess so, But you know what, this is what
I can't picture. So the wife dies nearly a week
before him, and she dies in the bathroom, And I
guess that would explain why the dog is in the
crate and the bathroom.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
The dog was in a crate because I thought they
had the dog had a procedure, so they were protecting
the dog or securing it.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
They were probably keeping the dog away from the other
two dogs.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
Yeah, Oh yeah, there you go right, So then.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
That makes sense why the dog died, because the dog
probably died.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Of starvation and unfortunately, right, So.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
Gene Hackman dies nearly a week after her. But he's
ninety five and he has Alzheimer's, so he's just I
just pictured this man. Is he just wandering around the house?
Speaker 2 (23:57):
Ye, sleeping maybe a lot. Maybe he has a route,
I don't know how it works. Maybe he has a routine,
so he was kind of just going through whatever his
daily routine was.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
Did he not notice I'm guessing why from the bathroom.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Well maybe he did, But what's he going to do?
He can't lift her up, and if he's not capable
of making phone calls or well, I don't know, I'm
just speculating.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
Well that's another interesting thing. Was apparently he had no
cell phone because she remember I called her the gatekeeper
on an earlier episode that we did, because I apparently
if you wanted to speak to him or get a
hold of him, you had to call her cell phone.
So I don't know, I don't know. I just picture
this old It's sad. I think this old man wandering
around this house.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Right, it's not the way he goes, but his.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
Wife is dead. He has daughters, but I don't know
it said something like, I think I read they were
kind of a strange hadn't spoken to him a month.
It ends up being a maintenance worker or something that
ends up seeing them or coming to the house.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
I think that's the end of that case. I know
you want more, well, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
We'll see, let's keep going. He was in a very
poor state of health, the medical examine said. He was
in an advanced state of Alzheimer's disease, and it was
quite possible that he did not know that she had
been deceased. The medical examiner noted noted also that Hackman
was not dehydrated at the time of his death, which
was likely on February eighteenth.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
I mean, yeah, that means he was caring for himself.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
Well, yes, And February eighteenth was the day after his
last recorded pacemaker activity. That's how they kind of put
a timeline on what he did.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
He may not have had a very good concept of time.
So if she fell and she's laying there, I don't
know if she was ever conscious. Let's say she fell
and she that was it, she was out, then maybe
he would go and check on her and then think
she was just dabbing or her and then and then
he didn't have a concept of time that had been
so long a week or whatever it was, you know
(25:44):
what I mean, Like maybe to him it was just
a flash of time.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
Well, it does say that the medical examiner said that
he did not have any food in his stomach when
when the performed.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Yeah, it's too bad, all right.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
Let's talk a little bit about hantavirus. People get hand
virus from contact with rodents like rats and mice, especially
when exposed to their urine droppings and saliva. It can
also spread through a bier scratched by a rodent, but
this is very rare. Only eight hundred and sixty five
cases of the disease have been reported in the US
between nineteen ninety three and twenty twenty two, and apparently
(26:18):
now there's one in twenty five.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
And I bet if I bet you that she wasn't
quick to go get medical care because one she'd have
to take him. Yeah, that's probably a lot. And she
probably thought she'd just walk it off because she just
what flew like symptoms, right, and she didn't want to
go out in public, maybe with him but that's that's
the reason someone like him, who has the financial means
(26:42):
needs to have in home care, should have had in
home care. It's too bad. It's too bad.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
Well it really is.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
I mean, granted, he was ninety five, but she could
have She had a lot of life left to live.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
She did, and it makes me sad to think that
if someone had been checking in on them, or someone
was living with us, or they had an assistant or
a caretaker or someone, that all they had to do
was take her to the hospital, and I assumed she
could have recovered from it pretty treatment, pretty easily. So
the pills found near Betsy's body were thyroid medication that
(27:15):
had been prescribed to her and were not related to
her death. This is what the medical examiner said. All right,
The investigation will remain open as authorities still need to
tie up loose ends. The Santa Fe County Sheriff Aiden
Mendoza said this includes obtaining more data from Hackman and
Betsy's cell phones that could shed light on their locations
(27:36):
or other communications they had before they died. I mean,
this says cell phone, So does that mean that he
does have a cell phone? I don't know, or if
he does. Maybe he doesn't know how to really use it.
Maybe he loses it, maybe he doesn't know where to
find it. Maybe that's why she's the one that you
always have to communicate with. I don't know. So investigators
are also awaiting, and then a cropsy results from the
(27:56):
couple's dog, Zenna, who was the dog that was found
dead in the crate and the bathroom near Betsy's body.
The couple's dog we talked about had undergone a medical
procedure on February ninth, which may explain why the dog
was in the crate, which we said the dog was
probably there in the house. The other two dogs were
found alive and had been able to go in and
(28:17):
out through and open. I guess there was a doggy door,
so those dogs.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
So they were all three would have been okay, it
was really just because the dog was in the crazy Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
And the dog probably starved.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
Yeah, Okay.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
So Gene Hackman has friends that are speaking out, and
some of their friends are saying that Hackman had tried
to stay active before his death decline. Friends of the
Oscar winning actor spoke to Fox News about how he
was focused on his health and was bothered by aging
before he died at ninety five. Stephen Marshall, an FBI
agent who trained the couple through a community outreach program,
(28:51):
told Fox News that Hackman was concerned about the fact
that he was getting older. He didn't like being old,
and seeing himself on film bothered him because he knew
he didn't look like that anymore. That does have to
be sad. I was thinking about that myself when I
was watching I remember we talked about before. I was
watching The Poseidon Adventure with Luke. He looked so young
and vib he was looking guy.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
He's tall, he's got a great like voice, like, he
comes off very strong.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
And then when I saw the picture of him at
ninety five, that didn't even look like I couldn't you.
I wouldn't have even known that was Gene Hackman.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
No, No, no one would no.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
So it has to be sad. Like that's sad.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
That's what happens.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
I know. I don't want to age. I don't know
how we figured it out. I don't know how we.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
You're gonna have to make a deal with the devil
or something.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
I don't know, but it has to be hard when
you're an actor like him. That has been in so
many movies.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
He retired in six I know, but I'm just.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Saying, when your image has been memorialized for everyone to
look at, and you look so healthy and tan and
vibrant and straight.
Speaker 2 (29:53):
Talking about yourself in thirty years from now.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
I am, I'm like, man, I have been memorialized into
this show.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
He's a good thing.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
No, because I'm going to be like I'm going to
be like Gene Hackman ninety five years old.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
You don't want me to playing in thirty years night.
You don't want me playing episodes of houses?
Speaker 1 (30:09):
No, please don't. It's going to be very depressing for me.
So apparently his friends were saying that he always tried
to stay active and that he did plates like three
times a week, and he would ride his bike, load
up his bicycle in his suv and drive to Albuquerque
(30:30):
and ride on trails. But I don't know. I don't
know exactly the timeline because I feel like his health
has declined recently.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
So I sure Snowballs could have been exponential. Yeah, so
maybe like these friends six months ago knew of his activity,
but in the last six months he declined, they weren' updated, right,
So I was making that up right.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
While speaking to The New York Times, Tom Allen, who
had been friends with Hackman for around twenty years, insisted
the star seemed happy to have his wife run things
and take care of him. She was very protective of him,
this friend told the Alet, adding that Hackman had said
he probably would have tied long ago without the care
of his beloved wife, who looked after him and made
sure he had a healthy diet. Alan also said that
(31:12):
Betsy would serve as something of a gatekeeper for her
husband and would often set up golf games or meetings
for the two friends. I don't know, See, I always
wonder about that. Is she really all that one concerned
about his health and his well being and that's why
she controls everything? Or is she just controlling because she
likes to control him and not And she only allows
(31:34):
him to go golfing with his friends when she sets
it up. She only allows him to talk to his
kids when she lets him talk to his kids.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
The world will never know.
Speaker 1 (31:41):
The world will never know. But I, you know, I
don't know about Betsy. So who will inherit gene Hackman's
multi million dollar fortune?
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Well, if he has a will that's what that will dictate. Otherwise,
it'll probably go to his children.
Speaker 1 (31:56):
Geane and Betsy had no children together, so betsy'says state
will likely go to her relatives. However, Jane was a
father from his marriage to Faye Maltice and leaves behind
Christopher who is sixty five, Elizabeth who is sixty three,
and Leslie who is fifty eight.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
Do they have a pre nup?
Speaker 1 (32:11):
Okay? I would bet there's no prenup because Betsy does
not seem like the type of woman that would have
a prenup. She's running the show. You think Betsy signed
a prenup? Absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
She's like, I'm thirty years younger, babe, Yeah, if you
want me, There's no prenup. No.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
The details of who will inherit Jean's estate have not
been shared publicly, but according to the Wealth Advisor, it
will likely go to his children. But here's the thing
I thought was interesting, and this is just me being
a conspiracy theorist again, is that his children would not
have inherited his estate unless Betsy died too.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
Well, as couples die at the same time and they
both have their own offspring right or their own wills.
What do you do, because usually wills will say, if
I die, everything to my wife. If I die, everything
to my husband. So what happens when they both died
at the same time, like a plane crash, Well.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
Revert, don't talk about plane crashes. It reverts to children.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Okay, like a suicide bomber? Is that better? Yes? Thank you?
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
I just think it's interesting. Well, if Jean died, just
Jane and not Betsy, then the estate would have gone
to Betsy unless he had a will overriding that it
went to Betsy, right, unless he left everything to his children.
But there's no way that would happen. Betsy would not
let that happen. But come in.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
Betsy's going to come in and say, no, Jeene Hackman
died first, and everything should go to his wife. Assuming
there's no other overwriting documents. Everything should go to his wife.
And then therefore they should come to me, the son
of Betsy.
Speaker 1 (33:46):
Betsy has no children.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
Oh, she doesn't have any children. Well should I be
paying attention?
Speaker 1 (33:50):
Yes, you should be.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Betsy has no children, yeah, but she has then you
go up right to the parents or whoever.
Speaker 1 (33:57):
The estate would have gone to Betsy. But Betsy died too,
So now the estate's going to go to his children,
most likely, unless there's some will out there that he
has written that we don't know about that somebody finds anyway. Supposedly,
Gene Hackman has one of the biggest royalty streams of Hollywood.
I was about to say, I don't think he was
worth that much, causing people to speculate that perhaps it
(34:21):
was a murder and cover up.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
Like Emily. This is Emily's notes.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
These are mine down.
Speaker 2 (34:29):
Here, Bigot, one of the royalties.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
It was the Aliens. How likely is it that both
he and his wife died of natural causes? It is
not likely. I'm sorry, there's more to the story. Jean's
property was located just fifty miles away from Zoro Ranch,
which is one of Epstein's residences. There is no evidence
that he was linked to Jeffrey Epstein in anyway, so
this could just be a coincidence. However, listen to this.
(34:54):
Are you ready? This is Bill Gates. Private jets stopped
in New Mexico the same day they found Ackman's body.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
I'm sure lots of jets landed on that same day.
Speaker 1 (35:05):
Not in New Mexico. Really, not the same day that
they found Gene Hackman's body.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
I don't know, you didn't.
Speaker 1 (35:13):
This is this is the conspiracy theorist stuff that I
always find that I like. Was Hakman going to spill
all of Hollywood secrets at his old age to receive
some sort of repentance?
Speaker 2 (35:23):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
We shall see, stay tuned. I like the conspiracy theory,
so we.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
Shall not see he's dead.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
No, I'm saying, maybe they find a will. There could
be more information that comes out, or people could come
forward and say that they were involved in this murder plot,
alleged murder plot. Bruce Willis's wife urges support for caregivers
amid Gene Hackman's death. That was a USA Today article.
So basically, this is Bruce Willis's wife, and you know
(35:49):
he has dementia, So she's saying all of the burden
of taking care of Gene Hackman shouldn't have been put
on Betsy, even though I still think Betsy wanted to
be the only caretaker. But that's just my theory. But
basically saying or advocating that Betsy needed someone looking in
on them, that there should have been someone that came daily,
that there should have been someone that lived with them,
(36:10):
that you know. And I don't know about the children.
I don't know. I don't know that relationship. I don't
know if they were strange. I don't know if it
was normal for them to only talk to their dad
or something.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
Their sixties. I mean they do have a different I
mean their kids are checking on them, right, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (36:27):
All right, anyway, so the world will never no. I
want the world should know. I want the world should know.
Speaker 2 (36:32):
The world would never know.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
All right. Well, anyway, we're apparently Shane and I are
watching Crimson Tide tonight.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
Yeah, it's good.
Speaker 1 (36:38):
So we'll give you a movie review on the next podcast,
so it will be legal topics and movie reviews. Thank
you everyone for listening to Legally Brunette. We appreciate it
as always, and if there are any cases out there
that you would like for us to discuss and talk about,
please feel free to dm us and let us know. Also,
next podcast, we plan on going through the Ruby Frankie case,
(37:03):
which Shane is reluctant to talk about.
Speaker 2 (37:06):
It hurts me. Is it Netflix or Hulu?
Speaker 1 (37:09):
I believe it's on Hulu, So if you haven't watched it.
You can watch it. The reason that I think it's
interesting that Shane and I discuss it, even though he
does not like to talk about anything that has to
do with child abuse, is that there's other elements. There
is the Mormon religion, there is parenting, and there is YouTube,
there's the vlogging issue, and then there's also the legality
(37:31):
of the child abuse and all of that. So I
think there's a lot of really interesting topics that he
and I can discuss. So anyway, thank you again for listening.
Please tune in to our previous Legally Brunette episodes and
our future ones.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
Yeah, all of them. Just listen to all of it.
Yess
Hi, guys, welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I
will be your host today Emily Simpson with my co
host Shane Shane. Okay, today we thought it was really
important to do, first of all and update in the
Menendez case. It is proceeding along actually very swiftly, and
it's been interesting because Gavin Newsom has now really gotten
(00:24):
involved in this case. First of all, you all know
that DA Nathan Hawkman is involved in the Menendez case
and in the resentencing, he reversed the course of his predecessor,
who was Gascon. He was a more progressive DA. He
was the one that was really pushing for the resentencing
(00:45):
of the Menendez brothers. But Hawkman came out and said
that he will only reconsider if the brothers apologize for
what he calls a litany of lies. So he was
interviewed and he told NBC News quote, if they go
ahead and sincerely and unequivocally for the first time in
thirty years layout that they have now lied on their
(01:07):
entire defense and finally admit that they killed their parents
in cold blood, then that will be a new insight
that the court should then reconsider what he is doing,
what Hawkman is doing is withdrawing the DA's support for
their recenencing, and he featured a list of sixteen unacknowledged
(01:27):
lies by the brothers. Now we'll get into some of
these sixteen lies that he's saying that they need to
basically come clean and fess up to before he would
even consider giving a recommendation that the judge should resentence them. Basically,
he's saying, I'm not supporting the resentencing at this point.
That was on Monday, March tenth.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
So all so far. The only condition that he's adding
is that they confess to a cold blooded murder.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
No, they did murder their passion.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
She may not confess, but he wants them to apologize.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
No, he said that. Basically, what he's done is he's
gone back and he's basically retrying them, which is not
what resentencing is about. This is where I think he's
completely off base and he's not understanding resentencing. Resentencing is
based on rehabilitation and where they are now and have
they learned their lessons and are they different.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
People revisit them revisiting.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
He's gone back and I feel like he's retrying them,
and he's saying, look in this first trial, there's these
sixteen lies. And before I'll even consider giving a recommendation
that you should be resentence, you need to go back
and admit that you know, lied about all these things.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
And literally the first trial or the second trial, it.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Was the first trial. But here's the thing. When they
were tried in the first trial, all of these lies
were testified to, they were cross examined on, the jury
heard them, and then the jury ended up being a
hung jury. So I don't think to me, those are
moot issues at this point. We've already tried these They
(03:00):
were also eighteen and twenty one at the time, so
we do have to consider that we're talking about thirty
five years prior. So next, this is on Monday, March tenth,
when Hawkman withdrew any type of support for their resentencing.
I think Newsom is playing chess with Hawkman, because then
the next day, on Tuesday, March eleventh, California Governor Gavin
(03:24):
Newsom dropped a breaking news on his new podcast, announcing
that Lyle and Eric will go in front of the
Parole Board on June thirteenth for a hearing. So what
he's ordered is a public risk assessment report to be
done and then they're going to have a parole Board
hearing on June thirteenth. So I feel like his pushing
(03:49):
for them to have a hearing in front of the
Parole board was a direct response to Hawkman saying we
withdraw any support for the resentencing. I mean, you can
tell that to me. It's like like Gavin Newsom's playing
chess with Hawkman. Hawkman makes a move and then the
next day on his podcast, Gavin Newsom's like, well, I'm
(04:11):
going to give him a parole board hearing and we're
going to do this risk assessment.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
You know. It's kind of like the publicity with the
Netflix special and whatnot afforded them the opportunity the voice
where people wanted a resentencing or whatever and it kind
of resurfaced, right, So it gave him kind of that spotlight,
and it's also giving them the spotlight where now Gavin
Newsom and other people are like stepping in and everyone
(04:36):
wants to be in the kitchen, you know, cooking on
this thing.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
And well, yeah, I mean, let's be honest, we're talking
about To me, it's a pr stot on both sides.
Because Hawkman likes to give news conferences all the time.
He clearly enjoys being in front of the camera, and
the way for him to get publicity in front of
the camera is to talk about Menendez because everyone's obsessed
with this case. Then Gavin Newsom has a new podcast.
(05:00):
So what's a better way for him to get views
on his podcasts and to get his podcasts out there
than to announce that he that he's asked, you know,
the parole board to give them a hearing and so
but you know, what's also interesting is that they independently
have hearings on June thirteenth in front of the parole board,
which means that they're not being lumped together into like
(05:20):
one decision. It is normal, but I think for me,
even though that you've.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Seen them together all the time, so then it's like
you just assume that it's right. One of them is
a couple committing the crime, and so they should be
tried the same, and they're the same, and here they
are being separated, and then it runs the risk of
one being you know, getting a different result than the.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Other exactly well that that there's a potential for that
because they have independent parole hearings. Even though I do
know that they've had amazing prison records over the past
thirty five years. They've been heavily involved in lots of
things like green space where they're putting you know, they're
painting murals and creating green space in the prisons. They've
(06:02):
been involved in the hospice, and they've both academically excelled
and gotten degrees, and they've worked with, you know, other
victims of abuse. And they also claimed on a recent
podcast that they did with Garagos you know how Garaghos
and what's the guy's name from TMZ, Harvey Harvey Harvey Harvey,
(06:24):
because you know, because you watch TMZ all the time.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
No, yes, you do.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
You're the one that told me that TMZ stood for
a thirty mile zone.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
What do I mean? I know? I wat?
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Well, okay, you get TMZ, you get TMC alerts on
your phone.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
I know this annoying.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
Well that's what I'm saying, all right. Anyway, anyway, so
the brothers actually did an interview on their podcast recently
I think this was last week, and they were talking
about all these things that they've done in prison. Anyway,
my whole point is the recencing comes down to rehabilitation.
And are they a different person than they were thirty
five years ago? Have they grown, have they rehabilitated themselves?
(07:03):
Are they a risk to society? How does their family feel?
And we all know that their entire family supports them
being released and being recent So anyway, that's where we at.
So they still have also which is interesting because I'm
not really sure how this works, but they still have
their resentencing hearing scheduled for March twentieth and the twenty first.
So I was actually chatting about it with Alex who
(07:27):
represents them, she's on their team, on their legal team,
and she was saying, well, it hasn't been continued or
rescheduled or anything at this point. So basically what they
could do is proceed forward and present evidence of their rehabilitation,
their prison record, the family and all of that stuff,
and then we'll see what happens on June thirteenth when
(07:49):
they go before the parole board.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
So basically, Menendez update is another stay tuned.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
It is another stay tuned. But I think what's really
interesting is that Hawkman comes out and basically kills the
resentencing like it, you know what I mean, Like he
it's doomsday for him and then Gavin Newsom comes out
the next day and he's like, no, it's not Kevin
news Some just Granthum plenacy Commune. Yes he could, and
(08:15):
that's that's another option. So we still have two options
at this point.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
And then he should have him on his podcast. Exactly
wants the ratings there you go.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Yeah, he's going to have to pay a lot for that, though,
I think they're not just going to go on a
podcast for he's got money. Let's talk about just a
little bit of the sixteen. Hawkman calls them the unacknowledged
lies that they have not admitted to, So let's just well,
we won't go through all of them, but let's just
go through some Eric and Lyle Liby.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Next question, so these lies are in the first trial,
not in the second. If in the first trial there
are lies and then the second trial just for arguments
there were no lies, then why is he going back
to that like the first trial that got thrown out?
Speaker 1 (08:59):
Anyway, Well, I think that's the whole point of he's
not really understanding or wanting to understand.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Or allows them to be released. He won't be able
to do any public speaking anymore.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
No, he needs another famous case, cam up the.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Murders out.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
They are staying in so that I can give weekly
press conferences. All right, he said, some of these lies
are Eric and Lyle lied when they claim that their
parents were going to kill them and that they had
to act in self defense by murdering them. First, first
of all, their defense in their first trial was not
self defense. It was actually imperfect self defense. So that's
(09:38):
not exactly accurate. And imperfect self defense is a partial
defense that doesn't meant all legal requirements, but may reduce
the severity of a criminal charge. So, for example, a
defendant may claim imperfect self defense, which the brothers did,
if they reasonably but mistakenly believe that they were in
danger of death or serious injury.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Yeah, so, which is like, okay, you genuinely were in
fear for your safety. However, a reasonably prudent person would
not be in fear.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
Right and exactly, and this is what their defense was
in the first trial was imperfect self defense because there
was no immediate harm when they killed their parents. Their
parents were sitting and you know, in the in the
den watching a movie, eating ice cream and blueberries when
they came in and shot them. So the imperfect self
defense was a reasonable person would not feel that their
(10:31):
life was in imminent danger at that time. However, their
defense was they had been abused for so long that
they weren't thinking like a reasonable, rational person, and that
they felt that they were that their parents were going
to kill them.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
And I feel that children always apply it a self defense,
and it's really an imperfect self defense. It's like, yeah, Okay,
you're scared, I get it, but you shouldn't be scared, right,
I get it. He hurt your feelings, so you hit him,
but you shouldn't have been hurt.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
So you're just saying kids in general, their excuses are
always imperfect self defense. But they're eighteen and twenty one.
Are they still considered kids at this point?
Speaker 2 (11:08):
I was just talking about our kids.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
You were just talking about our children. Now, Okay, So
from now on, when Annabel argues with me, I'm going
to be like, that's an imperfect self is.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Going to mitigate your punishment. It's not going to alleviate
you from any We're just.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
Raising little lawyers over here or defendants or that. So
is Annabel a defendant or a future lawyer, She's a
person of interest.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
Ally Day always a.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
Person of interest, all right. Another one is to support
their self defense claims. Eric and Lyle tried to suborn
perjury by asking Eric's friend Brian to testify that they
borrowed one of his handguns the night before the murder
to defend themselves against their parents. So there are there
were several instances of them trying to get people to
(11:54):
testify to their defense. Another one was, I believe Lyle
asked a girl friend to testify that, you know, his
dad had made sexual advances at her or raped her
or something like that. They also testified the purpose of
their one hundred and twenty mile drive to San Diego
was not to buy shotguns, when in fact, that was
the reason that they made the trip.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
These two kids, we'll just go off the you know,
we'll just be in agreement that they killed their parents
for their own safety, so I can make my argument.
So if they're doing that, most people, if not all,
don't like you kill your parents cold blooded? Right because
you did it without being provoked. You did it, And
(12:36):
now let me think, so do you do it? You
kill your parents? They didn't attack you. You just walked in.
They're on the couch. You shoot them they're dead, you
feel better. You're not going to think, hey, I have
a self defense because I was in fear of my safety.
They're gonna worry, holy crap, we just killed our parents.
We have to hide this. If someone advised them in
(12:58):
the beginning, look this, you can have a defense where
there's a time where you're you know, in fear of
your safety and this and that, and so you kill
them because it's your only way out and blah blah
blah blah. Then they might have been truthful. But it's
normal for people to think, holy crapit has killed someone.
I better hide this, even if they did it for
their safety. So if a female kills the boyfriend because
he's a jerk and he keeps beating her, not all
(13:20):
of them are like, well, had I had a good
legal defense, They're going to think I just killed someone.
I better cover this up, right.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
So you're saying a reasonable person is going to hide
the fact that they murdered someone because that's just the
natural instinct of what to do.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
But reasonable people don't even kill, so I arguably in
a reasonable state of mind. I mean, I hate it
when they say a reasonable person would have called the
police No, I don't know. I'd probably be scared to death,
and I would have attacked the person that was coming
in my house or reacted in a way. It's like, no,
one's like someone comes and points a gun at me,
and then the law is telling me to act like
a reasonably prudent person.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
What about the now we know with sexual abuse, we
know that they lie about the abuse, and they lie
to cover up the abuse. So is that a factor
that should be taken into consideration considering that they might
have lied about a litany of things, as Hawkman says,
but maybe their first instinct is to lie about things
(14:17):
because they're still trying to cover up the abuse that
they enter.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
So you're saying, it's like, oh, I I didn't kill them.
Oh it wasn't me, Oh it was my friend. Oh
it was because he attacked me. Oh it was I
thought he was going to kill me. Okay, you know what,
he just made my life miserable growing up, and I
hated it and I had no way out and I
was fearful of him, so I killed him. Okay. Sorry.
Then it's like, well, then why do you say all
that in the first.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Place, right, But my point is based upon what you
just said, that sexual abuse victims lie initially to cover
it up, like they're not forthcoming about sexual abuse. So
I'm saying that.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Oh, they cover up the abuse, right because maybe embarrassment
they feel their right.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
Well, like we know that as a fact based upon
psychological research, that sexual abuse victims lie about the abuse.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
It's just a tough call for in all scenarios.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
They also tried to get someone to lie and say
that they were present when their mother tried to poison.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Their family, but they had a legal defense or they didn't.
They thought that that was a better thing than saying, oh,
I was scared of my daddy. So they're probably trying
to come up with scenarios to get out of this thing.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
But this is when they're testifying, I believe. Yeah, when
they did shoot their parents, they staged it in a
way to look like a mafia style hit. So they
shot the dad in the back of the head, they
shot the mother in the face, they shot him in
the knee caps it was supposed to and then they said,
oh it was mafia. He was my dad was evolved
in you know, dirty business practices. So they use that
(15:50):
as as a way to rewrap the police and the
investigation get it. Eric and lyle lied when they testified
that doctor Ozell, who remember, was the psychologist that Eric
confessed to. They lied when they claimed that he blackmailed
them into confessing on tape. Parents.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
That's the psychiatrist that talks in his sleep.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Oh, I don't know, what do you mean, Well, he
had a mistress that he would tell things to.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
It wasn't in his sleep. I don't think claimed that
it was in his sleep.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Oh, she might have originally because he.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Was I would never go to that psychiatrist that he
should have a warning on the door, Like a psychiatrist
is known to talk in his sleep to mistresses.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
And he sleeps with other women besides his wife. Right,
let me just give one thing. Lylman Does posted on
Facebook after Hawkman did his after Hawkman did his press
conference and basically said he wasn't he was withdrawing the
DA's support of them being recent and so, Lyleman Does
posted on his Facebook page that quote. Of all those
lies Hawkman talked about, several of them were admitted stipulated
(16:57):
to in the first trial, and several of the other
lies were absolutely disproven or reasonably disputed. So he responds
to Hawkman's accusation. Also, the jury was a hung jury
in the first one, so you have to remember that.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Well, yeah, okay, you wanted to talk about the lies
in the first draw. Why don't we talk about the
fact that a handful of jury members found them not guilty? Right?
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Right?
Speaker 2 (17:24):
Consider it? Consider everything.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Oh, also, Mark Garrigos, who is there? Who is the
menindaz brothers attorney. He responded to Hawkman, and he said,
there were twenty two family members who signed on and
told the DA's office stop retraumatizing us. We could tell
at the meeting that Hawkman had no interest in that,
and I think that means that he had no interest in,
(17:46):
you know, the resentencing. This really kind of points out
one of the fallacies, if you will, of the DA
office here. They're not interested in victims. There isn't a
single living victim who endorses this. In fact, every single
victim wants them out. He continued, this, gentleman, this DA
retraumatizes the family repeatedly. He's almost serially abusing them with
(18:06):
his lies and his litany of lies. Family members who
support the Brothers say the DA has quote blinders onto
the fact that Eric and Lyle were repeatedly abused, feared
for their lives, and had atoned to their actions. When
asked about the sixteen lies the DA would like the
brothers to admit to, Gargo said, quote, he's obviously show voting.
(18:28):
He knows for a fact both brothers were cross examined
for weeks in the first trial on all of these things.
Every single one of these things that he mentioned was
either abandoned or cross examined in the first trial. And
guess what happened. Two juries not one, one for Eric
and one for Lyle. Both juries voted against murder over
the majority. Gargo said, Also, this is interesting. The family
(18:51):
sent a letter to the US Attorney's office asking that
Hawkman be removed from this case because they claim that
he's hostile, dismissive, and patronizing towards them. These are victims,
and apparently he's not very kind to them, according to
this letter that they've written, and they've asked that he
(19:12):
that it be looked into, or that he'd be even
removed from the case. So yeah, okay, now I'm officially
done with min indest.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Time will tell. We shall see, We.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Shall see what happens on March twentieth and twenty first,
if they continue to go forward with that or if
it gets continued. And if they do go forward with it,
then we will continue to see what happens on June
thirteenth when they go before the parole board, when they
get this risk assessment done, and then we will see
what Governor Gavin Newsom does. So we'll have to follow
his podcast to find out.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
What's the name of this podcast.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
I think.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
He doesn't have to have a creative name because he's
the governor, so he can just call it his own name. Yeah,
all right, let's get into this is interesting. Gene Hackman
and his wife Betsy. We did a little last time
we recorded. We did a little synopsis on what was
(20:05):
known so far, which was little. At that time. We
just knew that they were both found dead. Now there
have been a lot of updates, so we want to
do an update on this case and talk about it
because I still find this case, even though there's there's
answers now, I still feel like there's now more questions.
So the new Mexico chief, let's.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Be honest, Emily always thinks that they're bigger conspiracy. I
have a bean. You would if they said we determine
if the medical examiner determined that aliens came down and
killed them, she would be satisfied.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
I would.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
But when it's like, oh, they have this rat disease
and all the timers and he fell, then she doesn't
believe it.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
I would believe it more if they said Bigfoot broke
into their house and murdered them. I would believe that
over what they claim. Actually, right, yes, I do believe
on bigfoot though.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
The new Mexico Chief Medical Examiner, Heather Durrell, held a
highly anticipated news conference This was back on Friday, March seventh,
to reveal the cause of death for Gene Hackman and
his wife. They claim, after an autopsy, that Betsy died
of hantavirus, which, by the way, have you ever heard
of that before?
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Yeah? Really, yeah last week when I was reading about
this case.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
Oh okay, but before last week. No.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
It's like it's like mice or road in droppings and
deer droppings. Okay, right, But it can't be contracted from
human to human. That's why there's not many cases of
it. It can only be contracted from the feces alone or
whatever she came.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
So apparently it's a rare flu like disease linked to rats.
So she likely died on February eleventh, So she had
to have come into contact with rat poop somehow.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
What if it's bigfoot droppings, it might be they should
look into that and would you be happy?
Speaker 1 (21:43):
It would make more sense to me. Yes, she probably
picked up hantavirus, which can only pass from animals to
humans after she after she was exposed to rodent excrement. Somehow,
the wife would have been feeling six three to six
days before dying and then succombaing pretty quickly to the virus.
(22:03):
The medical examiner has said coming succumbing, it's not succumbing. Okay,
thank you mister.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
Help.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Yeah. The medical examiner also said there were signs of
rodent entry around the property, but they assess the risk
of exposure and the primary residence as low. It's similar
to other well maintained houses in New Mexico. I would
say everybody's house probably has some rat poop in it somewhere.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
No.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
No, no, well yeah there are there are No that's
dog poop. No, I'm not, No in our backyard Togo
catches big rats all the time into the yard. Yeah,
but he catches it. They probably tunnel under the house,
and they're probably in the ok.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Yeah, So anyway, they were a little bit more remote
and less developed areas. Right, They're kind of in the
hillside or something like that. So I bet you she
never saw any treatment or went to an urgent care
doctor or anything.
Speaker 1 (23:04):
Hackman also had late stage Alzheimer's disease, and he likely
died roughly a week after his wife from cardiovascular disease
and from the Alzheimer's and he tested negative for hantavirus.
But cardiovascular disease isn't a heart attack.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
Yeah, what is it then? Is it just a weakness
in the heart or something?
Speaker 1 (23:23):
I guess so, But you know what, this is what
I can't picture. So the wife dies nearly a week
before him, and she dies in the bathroom, And I
guess that would explain why the dog is in the
crate and the bathroom.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
The dog was in a crate because I thought they
had the dog had a procedure, so they were protecting
the dog or securing it.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
They were probably keeping the dog away from the other
two dogs.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
Yeah, Oh yeah, there you go right, So then.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
That makes sense why the dog died, because the dog
probably died.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Of starvation and unfortunately, right, So.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
Gene Hackman dies nearly a week after her. But he's
ninety five and he has Alzheimer's, so he's just I
just pictured this man. Is he just wandering around the house?
Speaker 2 (23:57):
Ye, sleeping maybe a lot. Maybe he has a route,
I don't know how it works. Maybe he has a routine,
so he was kind of just going through whatever his
daily routine was.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
Did he not notice I'm guessing why from the bathroom.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Well maybe he did, But what's he going to do?
He can't lift her up, and if he's not capable
of making phone calls or well, I don't know, I'm
just speculating.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
Well that's another interesting thing. Was apparently he had no
cell phone because she remember I called her the gatekeeper
on an earlier episode that we did, because I apparently
if you wanted to speak to him or get a
hold of him, you had to call her cell phone.
So I don't know, I don't know. I just picture
this old It's sad. I think this old man wandering
around this house.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Right, it's not the way he goes, but his.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
Wife is dead. He has daughters, but I don't know
it said something like, I think I read they were
kind of a strange hadn't spoken to him a month.
It ends up being a maintenance worker or something that
ends up seeing them or coming to the house.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
I think that's the end of that case. I know
you want more, well, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
We'll see, let's keep going. He was in a very
poor state of health, the medical examine said. He was
in an advanced state of Alzheimer's disease, and it was
quite possible that he did not know that she had
been deceased. The medical examiner noted noted also that Hackman
was not dehydrated at the time of his death, which
was likely on February eighteenth.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
I mean, yeah, that means he was caring for himself.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
Well, yes, And February eighteenth was the day after his
last recorded pacemaker activity. That's how they kind of put
a timeline on what he did.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
He may not have had a very good concept of time.
So if she fell and she's laying there, I don't
know if she was ever conscious. Let's say she fell
and she that was it, she was out, then maybe
he would go and check on her and then think
she was just dabbing or her and then and then
he didn't have a concept of time that had been
so long a week or whatever it was, you know
(25:44):
what I mean, Like maybe to him it was just
a flash of time.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
Well, it does say that the medical examiner said that
he did not have any food in his stomach when
when the performed.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Yeah, it's too bad, all right.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
Let's talk a little bit about hantavirus. People get hand
virus from contact with rodents like rats and mice, especially
when exposed to their urine droppings and saliva. It can
also spread through a bier scratched by a rodent, but
this is very rare. Only eight hundred and sixty five
cases of the disease have been reported in the US
between nineteen ninety three and twenty twenty two, and apparently
(26:18):
now there's one in twenty five.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
And I bet if I bet you that she wasn't
quick to go get medical care because one she'd have
to take him. Yeah, that's probably a lot. And she
probably thought she'd just walk it off because she just
what flew like symptoms, right, and she didn't want to
go out in public, maybe with him but that's that's
the reason someone like him, who has the financial means
(26:42):
needs to have in home care, should have had in
home care. It's too bad. It's too bad.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
Well it really is.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
I mean, granted, he was ninety five, but she could
have She had a lot of life left to live.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
She did, and it makes me sad to think that
if someone had been checking in on them, or someone
was living with us, or they had an assistant or
a caretaker or someone, that all they had to do
was take her to the hospital, and I assumed she
could have recovered from it pretty treatment, pretty easily. So
the pills found near Betsy's body were thyroid medication that
(27:15):
had been prescribed to her and were not related to
her death. This is what the medical examiner said. All right,
The investigation will remain open as authorities still need to
tie up loose ends. The Santa Fe County Sheriff Aiden
Mendoza said this includes obtaining more data from Hackman and
Betsy's cell phones that could shed light on their locations
(27:36):
or other communications they had before they died. I mean,
this says cell phone, So does that mean that he
does have a cell phone? I don't know, or if
he does. Maybe he doesn't know how to really use it.
Maybe he loses it, maybe he doesn't know where to
find it. Maybe that's why she's the one that you
always have to communicate with. I don't know. So investigators
are also awaiting, and then a cropsy results from the
(27:56):
couple's dog, Zenna, who was the dog that was found
dead in the crate and the bathroom near Betsy's body.
The couple's dog we talked about had undergone a medical
procedure on February ninth, which may explain why the dog
was in the crate, which we said the dog was
probably there in the house. The other two dogs were
found alive and had been able to go in and
(28:17):
out through and open. I guess there was a doggy door,
so those dogs.
Speaker 2 (28:20):
So they were all three would have been okay, it
was really just because the dog was in the crazy Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
And the dog probably starved.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
Yeah, Okay.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
So Gene Hackman has friends that are speaking out, and
some of their friends are saying that Hackman had tried
to stay active before his death decline. Friends of the
Oscar winning actor spoke to Fox News about how he
was focused on his health and was bothered by aging
before he died at ninety five. Stephen Marshall, an FBI
agent who trained the couple through a community outreach program,
(28:51):
told Fox News that Hackman was concerned about the fact
that he was getting older. He didn't like being old,
and seeing himself on film bothered him because he knew
he didn't look like that anymore. That does have to
be sad. I was thinking about that myself when I
was watching I remember we talked about before. I was
watching The Poseidon Adventure with Luke. He looked so young
and vib he was looking guy.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
He's tall, he's got a great like voice, like, he
comes off very strong.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
And then when I saw the picture of him at
ninety five, that didn't even look like I couldn't you.
I wouldn't have even known that was Gene Hackman.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
No, No, no one would no.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
So it has to be sad. Like that's sad.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
That's what happens.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
I know. I don't want to age. I don't know
how we figured it out. I don't know how we.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
You're gonna have to make a deal with the devil
or something.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
I don't know, but it has to be hard when
you're an actor like him. That has been in so
many movies.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
He retired in six I know, but I'm just.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Saying, when your image has been memorialized for everyone to
look at, and you look so healthy and tan and
vibrant and straight.
Speaker 2 (29:53):
Talking about yourself in thirty years from now.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
I am, I'm like, man, I have been memorialized into
this show.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
He's a good thing.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
No, because I'm going to be like I'm going to
be like Gene Hackman ninety five years old.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
You don't want me to playing in thirty years night.
You don't want me playing episodes of houses?
Speaker 1 (30:09):
No, please don't. It's going to be very depressing for me.
So apparently his friends were saying that he always tried
to stay active and that he did plates like three
times a week, and he would ride his bike, load
up his bicycle in his suv and drive to Albuquerque
(30:30):
and ride on trails. But I don't know. I don't
know exactly the timeline because I feel like his health
has declined recently.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
So I sure Snowballs could have been exponential. Yeah, so
maybe like these friends six months ago knew of his activity,
but in the last six months he declined, they weren' updated, right,
So I was making that up right.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
While speaking to The New York Times, Tom Allen, who
had been friends with Hackman for around twenty years, insisted
the star seemed happy to have his wife run things
and take care of him. She was very protective of him,
this friend told the Alet, adding that Hackman had said
he probably would have tied long ago without the care
of his beloved wife, who looked after him and made
sure he had a healthy diet. Alan also said that
(31:12):
Betsy would serve as something of a gatekeeper for her
husband and would often set up golf games or meetings
for the two friends. I don't know, See, I always
wonder about that. Is she really all that one concerned
about his health and his well being and that's why
she controls everything? Or is she just controlling because she
likes to control him and not And she only allows
(31:34):
him to go golfing with his friends when she sets
it up. She only allows him to talk to his
kids when she lets him talk to his kids.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
The world will never know.
Speaker 1 (31:41):
The world will never know. But I, you know, I
don't know about Betsy. So who will inherit gene Hackman's
multi million dollar fortune?
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Well, if he has a will that's what that will dictate. Otherwise,
it'll probably go to his children.
Speaker 1 (31:56):
Geane and Betsy had no children together, so betsy'says state
will likely go to her relatives. However, Jane was a
father from his marriage to Faye Maltice and leaves behind
Christopher who is sixty five, Elizabeth who is sixty three,
and Leslie who is fifty eight.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
Do they have a pre nup?
Speaker 1 (32:11):
Okay? I would bet there's no prenup because Betsy does
not seem like the type of woman that would have
a prenup. She's running the show. You think Betsy signed
a prenup? Absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
She's like, I'm thirty years younger, babe, Yeah, if you
want me, There's no prenup. No.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
The details of who will inherit Jean's estate have not
been shared publicly, but according to the Wealth Advisor, it
will likely go to his children. But here's the thing
I thought was interesting, and this is just me being
a conspiracy theorist again, is that his children would not
have inherited his estate unless Betsy died too.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
Well, as couples die at the same time and they
both have their own offspring right or their own wills.
What do you do, because usually wills will say, if
I die, everything to my wife. If I die, everything
to my husband. So what happens when they both died
at the same time, like a plane crash, Well.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
Revert, don't talk about plane crashes. It reverts to children.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Okay, like a suicide bomber? Is that better? Yes? Thank you?
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
I just think it's interesting. Well, if Jean died, just
Jane and not Betsy, then the estate would have gone
to Betsy unless he had a will overriding that it
went to Betsy, right, unless he left everything to his children.
But there's no way that would happen. Betsy would not
let that happen. But come in.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
Betsy's going to come in and say, no, Jeene Hackman
died first, and everything should go to his wife. Assuming
there's no other overwriting documents. Everything should go to his wife.
And then therefore they should come to me, the son
of Betsy.
Speaker 1 (33:46):
Betsy has no children.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
Oh, she doesn't have any children. Well should I be
paying attention?
Speaker 1 (33:50):
Yes, you should be.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Betsy has no children, yeah, but she has then you
go up right to the parents or whoever.
Speaker 1 (33:57):
The estate would have gone to Betsy. But Betsy died too,
So now the estate's going to go to his children,
most likely, unless there's some will out there that he
has written that we don't know about that somebody finds anyway. Supposedly,
Gene Hackman has one of the biggest royalty streams of Hollywood.
I was about to say, I don't think he was
worth that much, causing people to speculate that perhaps it
(34:21):
was a murder and cover up.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
Like Emily. This is Emily's notes.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
These are mine down.
Speaker 2 (34:29):
Here, Bigot, one of the royalties.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
It was the Aliens. How likely is it that both
he and his wife died of natural causes? It is
not likely. I'm sorry, there's more to the story. Jean's
property was located just fifty miles away from Zoro Ranch,
which is one of Epstein's residences. There is no evidence
that he was linked to Jeffrey Epstein in anyway, so
this could just be a coincidence. However, listen to this.
(34:54):
Are you ready? This is Bill Gates. Private jets stopped
in New Mexico the same day they found Ackman's body.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
I'm sure lots of jets landed on that same day.
Speaker 1 (35:05):
Not in New Mexico. Really, not the same day that
they found Gene Hackman's body.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
I don't know, you didn't.
Speaker 1 (35:13):
This is this is the conspiracy theorist stuff that I
always find that I like. Was Hakman going to spill
all of Hollywood secrets at his old age to receive
some sort of repentance?
Speaker 2 (35:23):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
We shall see, stay tuned. I like the conspiracy theory,
so we.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
Shall not see he's dead.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
No, I'm saying, maybe they find a will. There could
be more information that comes out, or people could come
forward and say that they were involved in this murder plot,
alleged murder plot. Bruce Willis's wife urges support for caregivers
amid Gene Hackman's death. That was a USA Today article.
So basically, this is Bruce Willis's wife, and you know
(35:49):
he has dementia, So she's saying all of the burden
of taking care of Gene Hackman shouldn't have been put
on Betsy, even though I still think Betsy wanted to
be the only caretaker. But that's just my theory. But
basically saying or advocating that Betsy needed someone looking in
on them, that there should have been someone that came daily,
that there should have been someone that lived with them,
(36:10):
that you know. And I don't know about the children.
I don't know. I don't know that relationship. I don't
know if they were strange. I don't know if it
was normal for them to only talk to their dad
or something.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
Their sixties. I mean they do have a different I
mean their kids are checking on them, right, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (36:27):
All right, anyway, so the world will never no. I
want the world should know. I want the world should know.
Speaker 2 (36:32):
The world would never know.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
All right. Well, anyway, we're apparently Shane and I are
watching Crimson Tide tonight.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
Yeah, it's good.
Speaker 1 (36:38):
So we'll give you a movie review on the next podcast,
so it will be legal topics and movie reviews. Thank
you everyone for listening to Legally Brunette. We appreciate it
as always, and if there are any cases out there
that you would like for us to discuss and talk about,
please feel free to dm us and let us know. Also,
next podcast, we plan on going through the Ruby Frankie case,
(37:03):
which Shane is reluctant to talk about.
Speaker 2 (37:06):
It hurts me. Is it Netflix or Hulu?
Speaker 1 (37:09):
I believe it's on Hulu, So if you haven't watched it.
You can watch it. The reason that I think it's
interesting that Shane and I discuss it, even though he
does not like to talk about anything that has to
do with child abuse, is that there's other elements. There
is the Mormon religion, there is parenting, and there is YouTube,
there's the vlogging issue, and then there's also the legality
(37:31):
of the child abuse and all of that. So I
think there's a lot of really interesting topics that he
and I can discuss. So anyway, thank you again for listening.
Please tune in to our previous Legally Brunette episodes and
our future ones.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
Yeah, all of them. Just listen to all of it.
Yess
Hosts And Creators
Teddi Mellencamp
Tamra Judge
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.