December 10, 2024 • 49 mins
Your favorite RHOC couple is teaming up to bring you… Legally Brunette! Join Emily & Shane in their debut episode as they break down the Menendez Brothers case from a lawyer’s perspective.
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 our very first episode of Legally Brunette.
I will be your host today, Emily Simpson, and I
felt like the best co host for kind of like
a pop culture slash legal podcast would be with my husband,
Shane Simpson. And so, are you excited to be here?
Speaker 2 (00:21):
I am, because I know you have a lot of
knowledge on this, so I'm ready to hear it.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Yeah. So we're very excited for our first episode to
be about the Menindas brothers, the murders where we're at currently,
and I think what we're trying to do is kind
of pack as much information about Menindaz as we can
into one episode. As you all know, it's been a
cultural phenomena. I remember back in nineteen eighty nine when
(00:47):
this murder happened. I was a young girl in Middletown, Ohio,
and I used to watch this trial on court TV. Now,
clearly back at that time, I had a completely different
perspective on it than I do now. But I'm just wondering,
did you know about the murders because you grew up
in California.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
I did. I did. I didn't know it as much.
I didn't follow it like you did. The way I
followed it was through David Letterman. He did a lot
of top ten lests that would include the Menendez brothers.
Jay Leno did a lot of jokes about it. So
for that reason, I always saw it, but I had
no opinion of it other than they killed their parents
(01:28):
for money. That's what's my knowledge, although I'm not saying
that's correct, but that's what I knew of it back then.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
And you know, when you think about that time period,
back in the eighties and the nineties, I do believe
that that was the story that the media perpetuated, that
you had two wealthy, good looking young guys that grew
up in Beverly Hills, that led a very privileged lifestyle
and then decided that they wanted their parents' money and
(01:56):
they murdered them, right and even me following it on court,
TV and the media, that was my takeaway back then.
And so I really feel like it's so interesting that
thirty five years later, here we are talking about this
case and I was trying to understand what has made
it come back up and be such a huge phenomenon
(02:20):
that all these kids are making tiktoks about it. You know,
there was the recent release of Monsters on Netflix, which,
by the way, let's just be clear that Monsters is
a dramatization, it's not a documentary. And then there was
the recent documentary on Netflix where it's actually Eric and
Lyle speaking from prison. And I read something the other
(02:41):
day that I thought was really interesting because I did
not realize this, but this surge of TikTokers, who is
a completely different generation than you and I when we
were growing up. Their fascination with this case comes from
during the pandemic when we were all in quarantine. Court
TV was running reruns of the trial.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Oh is that what? I wondered? What started it?
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Yeah? And I didn't understand that either, because I knew
that there were all these TikTokers that were making tiktoks
about the Meninda's brothers and it was all basically the
same theme that they should go free.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Well, wait a minute, that's interesting. That means TikTokers are
watching court TV.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Yes, that was the part with that. I was like,
why are TikTokers watching court TV? But apparently they were
running reruns of Court TV. They ran the Meninda's trial
during the pandemic and it caught on and this new
generation watched a lot of the trial and then probably
saw snippets of the trial on social media.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Sure, and the.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
Consensus now it's a completely different phenomena is that they
should be released because they were abused by their parents.
And I was thinking about this, and this is what
I do, this is what keeps me up at nights.
I was thinking about how during our generation, we're kids,
we're gen X, right, Okay, were born in the seventies,
(04:01):
we were kids in the eighties, and we were in
high school and college in the nineties. And our generation,
I think made fun of the Menindez brothers, like you said,
because there was not the recognizing that sexual abuse could occur.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
With no no always. Then you have someone like me
who's not really paying attention, but yet it's thrown in
my face all the time and all the you know,
shows that I'm watching and news flashes or whatever. And
you know, you know, certainly, I as an eighteen year
old kid, I'm not paying attention, but I'm it's thrown
at me that they're guilty, that they killed their parents,
(04:38):
that they wanted to be you know, rich, and so
you just assume that that's the.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
Case, right, And I even remember seeing Saturday Night Live
snippets where they would make fun of them with the
sweaters with the with the blue and the pink sweaters,
because that's you know, remember in their first trial show.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Well then they'd always have the bad hairstyles, right because.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Lyle had the two pays, so they would always have
the bad hair. And then again you're.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
Down playing showing that these when you're making fun of them,
even down to their hairstyles, what you're saying, you're discrediting
them as valid people, as kids that might have issues
and problems and there might be more depth to the
crime other than just privileged kids or immature kids or
something exactly.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
And that's why I find this case so interesting. Now
Here we are in twenty twenty four and a different
generation has latched onto this case, and these kids are
more accepting. You know, we were Gen X, there was
you know, it was you were lucky if you got
a sandwich from your parents. So I think this new
generation of kids have been coddled more. There's more therapy,
(05:40):
there's gluten free, there's more acceptance of a lot of
things that go into your psyche and understanding psychological factors
and so that's where we are with Menendez. But let's
just go through because I know you don't know a
lot about the case, and I know so much about
this case. I could spend an entire probably nine hours
(06:02):
just talking about the facts of this case. But I'm
not going to do that, Please don't. I'm just going
to do a brief synopsis of some of the facts
of the night that it happened, and then we'll just
go from there. So Lyle and Eric Menindez were convicted
of the nineteen eighty nine murders of their parents, jose
and Mary Louise Mendez, who goes by the name Kitty,
and they're Beverly Hills home, which, by the way, the
(06:23):
address is seven twenty two North Elm Drive. And I
actually drove there. You know that I made a video.
I was in LA and I was really close to
the house, and so I could not miss the opportunity.
So I actually drove over to the home and parked
in front of it. And I will tell you it
is such a beautiful, calm, serene, magnificent Beverly Hills neighborhood
(06:49):
that when I was standing there, I'm trying to visualize
cords well, I mean a brutal, brutal murder taking place
right there in the home. Some of the forensics who
worked on the Menindaz murder scene describe it as the
most brutal murder scene that they had ever witnessed. The
brothers claim the killings were in self defense after years
(07:12):
of sexual and physical abuse by their father, Jose Menindez,
but prosecutors argued that the brothers killed their parents in
a bid to inherit their wealth, which at the time
was supposedly around fourteen million dollars, which is what they
would inherit. And again, this is back in nineteen eighty
nine seen mony. You're talking about a lot of money.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Money to day, certainly a lot back then.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
After a highly publicized trial, the first jury was unable
to reach a verdict. Actually, there were two juries in
the first trial. I don't know if you knew that
each boy, so Lyle and Eric, they each had their
own jury during the first trial. And there were actually
times when if there were specific witnesses that were speaking
(07:52):
to something that had specifically to do with Eric or
had to do with Lyle, the other jurors would have
to leave the courtroom. So can you imagine.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
That legitly that's a lot, right.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
Also, I believe the defense had fifty five. I might
not be right about that, but it was an exorbitant
amount of character witnesses who testified on behalf of Lyle
and Eric. So can you imagine just how long this
trial took, the depths of it, the character witnesses, the
(08:22):
two different juries. I don't know exactly. I think it
was maybe eight months. Don't quote me on that, but
it was a long It was a long trial. They
were sentenced after their second trial, which was in nineteen
ninety six. It resulted in both brothers being convicted of
first degree murder. They were sentenced to life in prison
without the possibility at the role. Also, there are you know,
(08:43):
I'll just go into a little bit, just a brief overlay,
but there a lot of people question the second trial
because the judge precluded a lot of the sexual abuse
evidence that was disclosed in the first trial. There were
a lot of emotions filed by the prosecution in the second trial,
which a lot of that evidence.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
That brings up a lot of questions for me because
it's like, why wouldn't you present the same evidence, you know,
was it and I don't know the answers, But was
it the judge thinking, well, let's shake it up because
the jury couldn't convict or find or affirm, you know,
not guilty, so let's shake it up to try to
get an outcome. Why wouldn't you present the same evidence.
And if you present the same evidence and you get
(09:23):
the same outcome, which is a hung jury, well then
that goes to show there's not enough evidence to convict.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
I don't disagree with what you're saying. I'll give you
a little bit of a timeline. When the Menindas brothers
went to trial for their second for the second trial,
it was I believe eight days after the OJ Simpson
verdict of not guilty, and the DA's office was looking
like an incompetent office.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
Well, they were an incompetent office after the OJ trial exactly.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
And so I think that a lot of that went
into the judge's decisions. Now here's where I have questions.
I am not a judge, but I don't know exactly
what authority a judge acted on that he precluded a
lot of the sexual abuse evidence in the second trial. Also,
I don't think there was a manslaughter option there were
(10:12):
there was either not guilty.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Wa Wait, In the first trial, what was what were
the charges?
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Well, it was premeditated manslaughter or not guilty.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Okay, well always not guilty, right, What were the charges
In the second trial.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
It was either they could either be convicted of premeditated
murder or not guilty. I don't think there was a
manslaughter option because there wasn't. There wasn't the allowance of
any mitigating factors of the abuse. Also, Lyle did not
take the stand and the second trial because he had
made a mistake and had spoken to a woman named
(10:46):
Norma Novelli. I believe that she was having phone conversations
with him over a long period of time from prison,
and I believe he made some incriminating statements that had
to do with his acting ability. You could have brought
that in and exactly so, he did not testify on
the stand because he could have been impeached with that. So,
(11:08):
you know, the second trial was completely different than the
first trial. They ended up getting convicted of premeditated murder
life without parole. So that's where we're at today and
now here we are, thirty five years.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Later, convicted of the same or both with the same
sentencing life without parole.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
Yes, both, and life.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Without parole is different than life. A lot of people think,
you hear life, but life is I think twenty years
in California not necessarily life. But then life without parole
is truly what we think of as life in prison,
which is you are not being released, which means, regardless
of your behavior in prison, you will not be released, right,
which can lead someone to think, well, then when you
(11:49):
go to prison and you got nothing to lose, you
try to escape, you don't follow the rules, you're not
incentivized for good behavior, and I think that will come
up later, So I decided to mention.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
That, right. So thirty five here we are, thirty five
years later, and this case has just been huge, mostly
because of the Monsters that came out on Netflix, which
you did not watch.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
No, but I've heard you watching it every night for
the last few months.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
I've watched it.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
I think falls.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
I think I've watched it maybe three times at this point,
And people go, why is.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
The family so angry all the time, Well, she falls
asleep to true crime and Monsters.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
I do want to make clear though, that I know
a lot of people have watched monsters, and we just
have to clarify that Monsters is a dramatization. I do
think that there are a lot of factual things and monsters,
but there are also a lot of scenes that are
the creator's imagination. There are scenes between Jose and Kitty
that no one could have known what they said or
(12:50):
what happened. They're obviously a creation. I also think that
the characters of Lyle and Eric and Monsters were very,
very one dimensional. They made Eric out to be kind
of a depressed, sad, weak person, and they clearly made
Lyle the aggressor. I think every scene that Lyle's in,
(13:15):
he's arguing, fighting, or yelling at someone.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Which I think the viewers or listeners will have which
one of the brothers is the one with no hair,
Which is the one with hair? That'll help me identify that.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
Okay. Eric is the younger brother. He was eighteen when
they committed the murders, and he has a full head
of hair, okay. And then Lyle is the older brother.
He was twenty one when the murders were committed, and
he has a to pay. Well, I don't in prison now.
If you see photos of them now, he just shaved
his Heady's balt but when he was younger, in his twenties,
(13:48):
he wore a to pay. And Eric even says that
he did not know his brother wore a to pay.
And there's a scene in Monsters where it shows Kitty
ripping off Lyle's to pay, and apparently, according to interviews
with Lyle and Eric, that was true, that really did happen.
She got angry, she ripped his two pay off, and
Eric had no idea that he had worn a to pay.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
It's a little insight into their the way their dinners
are taking place.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
Right all right. So here's something I just want to do.
There are lots of lots of documentaries, TV series, There's
films that have to do with the Menendez you know.
I think for me, the one that I would suggest
(14:34):
someone watching if you're trying to get into the Menindez
for the first time and you want some background information.
I do like the most recent documentary that is on Netflix.
It's Lyle and Eric their Interview from Prison. I think
that it gives a lot of background information. It interviews
the prosecutor, it interviews Lyle and Eric, it gives a
lot of insight. It interviews cops, police involved detectives. It's
(14:58):
very interesting and I think it's a good synopsis of
what happened. There's a lot of things out there that
are TV movies and things like that. I don't know.
I find them to be highly dramatized. But anyway, let's
get into here's something I want to do because I
want to hear your thoughts on this, because you never
agree with anything I say. But the biggest question right
now is should they be released? Because where we're at
(15:21):
now is there's two options. There's the Habeas petition and
there's also a recent and sing request.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
Okay, well, explain the Habeas petition.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
The Habeas petition was filed back in May of twenty
twenty three. And actually we'll have Alexandra on in a
little bit. Who is the current she represents them Meninda's
brothers currently, so we'll get some more insight into that.
But the Habeas petition was basically based on some new
evidence that came forward that corroborates the abuse. And those
two pieces of new evidence is one there is the
(15:54):
man named Roy Roussello. There was a new documentary. It's
not on Netflix. I'm not sure where it's at. But
it's the Menudo Menindez documentary.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
Okay, So the Habeast petition is just new evidence that
they want to introduce, right, Okay, in late terms.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
Right.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
And then the second one was a resentencing hearing.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
The second one is a recencing hearing, and it's basically
a request to re sentence, and it's based on a
lot of factors. I'm not sure exactly what all those
factors are, but it's basically like the family supports them.
They've been model prisoners during their time. There has been
some corroboration of abuse. They've been in prison long enough,
their family supports them. They're not, you know, a menace
(16:33):
to society. No one suspects that they would, you know,
commit crimes if they were really back to.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
The life without parole. So they're not incentivized for good
behavior and hopes of getting out. But yet they're maintaining
good behavior and I think they're working on their education, yes,
and they were supporting other prisoners in probably reforming it
and abuse.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
They work with hospice patients, they work with abuse suffers, abuse,
they've been model prisoners and like you said, it's very
significant that they were doing those things, never thinking that
there was a chance for them to be paroled. All Right,
I just want to go into a little bit of
an analysis because you're an attorney, and let's just talk
(17:17):
about some of the things that make this a premeditated
brutal murder that would suggest that they should stay in prison.
So Eric wrote a screenplay about a team killing his
parents for their inheritance. Before the murders, they also supposedly
watched a movie called The Billionaire Boys Club, which was
about murdering their parents for money.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Which start Judd Nelson.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
By the way, have you seen that movie? You are
a big jo when I watched it, Well, you might
have watched it the same night the Meninda's brothers watched it.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Possibly they bought that of a.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
Parent, right, but was it for for money? For an inheritance?
They bought the shotguns and the ammunition two days prior
to the murders. They use a fake ID to buy
the guns. And let's just talk a minute, because I
think this is just to be fair, we have to
talk about the brutality of the murders before.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
You get to the brutality. Yeah, those facts that you
stated two days before bought ammunition or whatever you said,
that would have that would take place regardless of the
intent behind the murders. If they were going to kill
and eliminate their parents because of abuse, they'd still have
(18:35):
to go get a gun, they'd still have to do
all those things. So it doesn't That doesn't sway someone.
That shouldn't sway someone as to the motive for reasoning
behind the murders.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
I think though, but when you buy the guns two days.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Although the high school script is a little questionable because
I didn't write high school script.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
On I think though that the fact that they bought
the guns two days prior and there's a cooling off
period and there wasn't anything that happened, well, I mean,
they do claim that they were scared for their life.
Their first defense was at an imperfect self defense. That's
where you have to really put yourself in the mind
(19:15):
of someone that's been sexually and physically abused. And I've
never been through that, so it's hard for me to
put myself in someone's shoes.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
And I'm guessing an imperfect self defense is when they
they're under the reasonable belief that they have a defense,
but legally they do not, or factually, perhaps they're incorrect exactly.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
That is where us, from a reasonable standard looking into it,
we would say your life wasn't in jeopardy. But from them,
given their own circumstances, the.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Equivalent would be if someone comes at me with a
fake gun and I defend myself, and then after the
fact we learned that the fake that the gun was fake,
and I never was really under any death threat of death, right, Okay.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
All right, So let's get a little bit into the
brutality of the murders. Just on that evening. They use
Mossberg shotguns. They were pump action shotguns. They went into
the foyer where their parents were sitting watching TV. They
were watching a movie. They were seated on the couch.
I believe they were eating ice cream, and they shot
them at close range. There were ten shots that hit Jose,
(20:22):
and I believe no ten hit Kitty. Five hit Jose.
You're talking about brutal, in your face up front murders, right,
which to me, if I think about it as an adult,
there's a lot of rage. That's a rage killing.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Oh yeah, that's not one shot to the head. They're dead, Okay,
mission accomplished, right, that's the I want you freaking dead, right,
and also I have a question whether any words exchanged
prior to that that we know of, whether it's accurate
or not.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
No, not that I not that I've ever read or
heard in testimony. Basically, what happened was they got the
shotguns out of the car. They entered into the foyer
of their home. Each son had a shotgun. They busted
through the double doors that were closed of the den
TV room. It was a wood paneled room, and they
just began firing at close range. And actually Kitty fell
(21:17):
to the ground. She jumped up from the couch. She
put her hand up in front of her face, a
defensive hand to stop the shot. She screamed, no, something
to that effect. She fell to the ground. She was
not dead. She tried to crawl away. They went back
to the car, reloaded, and entered the house and Lyle
shot her in the.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Face after Kitty was already dead.
Speaker 1 (21:39):
No, she was not dead, she was okay, she was
still she was shot. She was still alive, she was crawling.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Where was she shot? Why did they shoot one in
the head and not the other.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
Lyle walked around to the back of the couch and
shot Jose in the back of the head. So basically
eviscerated his brain.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
Okay, okay, so that was without any warning, right, But
then then the mud probably had some reaction.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
Well, she jumped up and apparently she put her arms up,
so she had shots through you know, her hand and
her arm. She I think she had a shot in
the face. She fell to the ground. She was not dead.
Jose was killed instantly. He was shot in the back
of the head. Kitty did not die instantly. She was
on the ground. She was crawling to get away. They
went back to the car, reloaded the shotguns, came.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
Back to the car, reload the shotguns, came and shot
their mother in the face. Lyle how many times?
Speaker 1 (22:32):
One time to the face.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
Okay, it's pretty bad. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Then after the murders, they left the house. They got
rid of This is interesting to me. They got rid
of the shotguns and apparently they dumped them somewhere along
Mall Hall and Drive. What is so incredible to me
is that thirty five years later, those shotguns have never
been found.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
Well, you've said that before, and I don't know if
I agree with that. I mean, I'm sure there's lots
of weapons that get tossed, and it's in LA and
some people probably found it and no one knew what
it was at the time when they found it, and
they repurposed it for some other crime, and then that
was the end of it.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
Yeah, I mean the only thing I can think is,
I mean they were found, no one knew the significance
of them, and then is there in some.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
Side of the road. I mean, anything could happen. If
you said that they were in the house and it
was never found, then I'd questioned it. But it's on
the public road. I don't think that's as big of
a deal as you make it out to be. Secondly,
if they found the guns even today, if they found
them today and they were preserved, what value would that
they've confessed to the crime.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
No, they did confess, and I know there's no value
to finding the weapons. I'm sure that's why the police
didn't bother searching, because it's not like they needed that
to you know, I mean, they.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
Didn't need a smoking gun. But then I go back,
I go back and forth lot. I go back to
why did they throw away the guns? Why are they
hiding the evidence?
Speaker 1 (23:55):
Well, that was this is part of the analysis. So
it's after they shot their parents, they they got rid
of the bloody clothes. I read. I think it was
in a book by Robert rand I read that they
got rid of the bloody clothes, like behind a gas
station somewhere they changed their clothes into I guess they
had some tennis clothes in their car. They tried to
buy movie tickets for an earlier movie time. They tried
(24:15):
to see Batman in an earlier time because they wanted
a timestamp on the movie to prove an alibi. They
also tried to meet up with a friend at the
Taste of La and then later tried to meet up
with him at Cheesecake, again trying to establish some type
of alibi. They were turned back.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
To that after the fact they tried to establish alibis.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
Yeah, after the fact they were trying to establish They
were trying to buy a movie ticket for earlier in
the night, you know, like the nine to ten showing.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
How did they forget that part? They should have bought
the ticket.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Before, Yeah, but they couldn't. I don't think you could
buy a ticket that early for a nine pm showing.
I don't know, I.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
I don't know. Presumably it was the Tim Burton Batman
with Chack Nicholson.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
It was it was the nineteen eighty nine Batman that
they were trying to buy tickets too. They returned back
to the home. This is almost around midnight, and at
a they realized they back home, and they realized that
there's no police there. They thought for sure that someone
would have heard the shots in this quiet, sleepy you know,
Beverly Hills neighborhood.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
As you described it earlier.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
It was it is, and no one did. So they
return home. They don't know what to do. There's no
police there. They enter the home. Lyle calls nine one
at eleven forty seven. They are yelling. They're emotional. They're saying,
someone shot our parents. The police show up two minutes later.
They come out of the house. They drop to their knees.
They're crying, pounding the ground. Our parents have been shot.
(25:31):
They blame it on the mafia because their dad was supposedly,
you know, it was a big wig at RCA. So
they blame it on well, not at the time. He
worked for RCA earlier, but then he worked for Live
Entertainment after that. There's all the evidence of the spending spree.
You know, they bought rolllexes they house.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
Soon after, they spend money.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
Okay, well, they bought new suits and rolllexes. I believe
either one day or two days before the funeral, the
memorial service in Hollywood for their parents, they spent sixteen
thousand dollars on money clips and three new rolexes. That
was a day or two before the memorial so that
was within days of the murders.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
Probably not related. But in Billionaire Boys Club they did
the same thing. They spiffed themselves up with Mercedes and
suits and Rolexes and try to really look like we
got our a game on right. But of course they
were also pursuing business ventures.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
But anyway, go ahead, okay, so well then that's another Also,
I believe Lyle bought a restaurant in New Jersey, so
they spent. They spent a lot of money. They actually
got I think seven hundred thousand dollars from an insurance
policy pretty immediately after the murders, and they also were
authorized to use their dad's AMX up to two hundred
and fifty thousand. They also bought I think a Geep
(26:43):
a Porsche.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
But see if they had all this money, like the
two hundred and fifty grand or whatever line of credit
or whatever it was. Then they had access to money.
It's not like, you know, Dad won't buy us this,
and they're stingy and they're going to give away the money,
and you know, we have to go to school. We
don't want to go to school. We just want our money. Now,
(27:06):
that leads me to think that they were living a
wonderful life financially, So why would they Where's the motive? No,
I agree, I think that I have anyway, not conclusion.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
No, I don't disagree with you. I think the prosecution
and the media pushed very hard that the motive was
for money. But if you analyze their lifestyle, you're not
talking about two kids that were withheld anything. I think
they lived. Yeah, they had to pay, they had They
lived a very lavish lifestyle. I don't think their parents,
you know, I think they gave them everything that they needed.
(27:41):
So sometimes when I think about the spending spree, if
we're talking about the abuse being true, then maybe that
was their way of exhibiting their freedom. Yeah, not so much.
We just want all this money, but that was the
way that they could outwardly exert that. They find out.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
Now we have money. It's now we don't have our
parents abusing us or controlling us and dictating our lives.
Right yeah. So it's like you let a dog out
in the yard, out of the yard, and all of
sudd Now they're just roaming free, right yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
Okay, So let's talk about some things that I think
were very fundamental for me when I was going through
this case and reading things and watching things that really
led me to believe that the abuse allegations were real.
There was detailed testimony and a lot of emotion in
the first trial when Eric and Lyle both testified. If
(28:49):
you have the opportunity, I would say, either watch their testimony.
You can find YouTube videos of it, or read the
trial transcripts. I don't think that you can act. To me,
that's not acting. That's real, hardcore emotion. There are also
two family witnesses that corroborated the abuse. I believe there
(29:10):
were two cousins that testified that they had seen abuse
within the home. There was a letter that Eric had
written to his cousin Andy eight months prior to the murder,
kind of outlining that the abuse was happening. That's one
of the pieces of evidence that was found later, there's
the declaration of Roy Roussello from Minuto, who claims that
Jose Mendez drugged him and raped him in his home.
(29:34):
And then also in the most recent Netflix documentary, this
was really an AHA moment for me. They're interviewing Pam
who was the prosecutor in the first trial, and she
openly admits that they could not find one character witness
to testify on behalf of Jose to say he was
a good man. Not one, not a single character witness.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Would they testify the opposite?
Speaker 1 (29:58):
I'm sure, But the prosecutor is not going to.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
No, no, But have you heard anything or because not
not witnessing or testifying that he was a good man
doesn't mean he was a bad man. Was anyone Did
anyone have bad thoughts and interactions with him?
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Well, I'm sure they did. I think he was ruthless
in business, we know that, Yeah, I mean, all the
things I've read is he was ruthless, he had a
bad reputation, he was difficult to deal with, like, he
was not liked. I mean all those attributes also made
him a very highly skilled executive. I mean he got
pretty far. And then lastly, it's just their behavior in
(30:39):
prison I think is very commendable. The fact that they are.
They were sentenced to life without parole, and yet they
dedicated their lives to being educated, getting degrees and they're
both married.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
Well they are, maybe they are crazy. What are your
thoughts on that? I don't know. All I know is
there's no conjugal visits for people that are in prison
for life without problem is very true. I was going
to get to that how they did marry for love?
Speaker 1 (31:06):
They did for love because it wasn't for sex, for sure,
it was not supposedly though. So Eric is still married
to the same woman. Her name is Tammy. They got
married I believe, back in the nineties. She I think
is close to sixty at this point, he's like fifty
five or something.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
That's fine, that's close in age.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
My question is if they do get released, do you
think that marriage will last?
Speaker 2 (31:28):
Well, I don't know. I don't know anything about the marriage.
I mean, I can't I can't comment on that. I
just can say that they haven't lived together before along,
they haven't even gone out to eat. I mean, I
don't even know. Yeah, they're going to come across new,
uh traits of their personalities. They go out together. Yeah,
so we're hopeful.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
So Lyle has been married a couple of times. He's
currently married, but he's been married. Yeah, he's been married
a couple of times. I think I believe he's married
to his second wife right now. But she recently hosted
on Facebook because she runs a Facebook page for him,
that they are separated, but they remain best friends and
she still supports him. But he currently as far as
(32:10):
I know, I think the Daily Mail reported this, he
has a girlfriend that's twenty one and she's British. I
believe she flew out to the prison and she has
visited him and there were photos of them together.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Oh, this makes for a good episode of Life After
lock Up, it does, right now. That's good reality TV.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
Shane and I used to watch that a lot.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
Yeah, the Menenda's edition.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
All right, So, based upon what we've gone through, we
did an analysis of why it was premeditated, the brutality
of the murders. But then some of the things that
convinced me that the abuse is true, that the abuse
was corroborated by family members. There was the letter that
was found from the cousin or that Eric had written
to the cousin the Menudo, you know, member that came
(32:54):
forward and said Jose had raped him.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Well, let's be clear then, so all this new evidence
leans towards they were abused and that would be the motive,
which doesn't mean it wasn't a murder, and it doesn't
justify murder because my parents have annoyed me from time
to time, and the world knows you've annoyed me for
time to time.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
I do, I do.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
Murder is never an option. Now, I haven't been abused
to the extent that they claim they have been, so
I certainly can't judge them. But what I'm getting at is,
so if if we find we being the court finds
that they have been abused, and that indeed is the
motive and it was not money, then are they supposed
(33:40):
to be out of jail? Should they still be in
jail because you know, murder is not.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
Well, that's the argument that's to be made, And I'm
asking you from your legal analysis your opinion based upon
all the things we talked about that make it premeditated
a brutal murder, and then some of the things that
I put on the other side that have to do
with the crop of abuse, what they endured, what they've
gone through, do you think that they should be re
(34:07):
sentenced to a lesser sentence which would allow them to
be immediately eligible for pearl.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
Okay, I have real strong opinions on this. Okay, Ready,
I don't know. I know enough to know that I
don't know what it's like to be abused, right, And
I don't know what the situation would be to have
a father as he's painted out to be. So far
to say, you know, I mean, and how I would
handle it if I would run away or leave or
(34:34):
punch my dad in the face or whatever it is.
I mean, I don't know how. I don't know how
I would handle it. So who am I to sit
here and judge them for how they handled whatever abuse
they encounter. I just don't know, and I'm not, Unfortunately,
I'm not in a position where my opinion really matters
(34:55):
to them. So I just can't go any further than
that other than saying I don't know, and I have
sympathy for people in that situation. I know. There's the
battered woman syndrome, right, which is I don't know where
it stands today legally, but it was recognized at one
point that in the battered woman syndrome, that she's in
(35:18):
no position to be able to get up and leave,
that her only way of survival for her and possibly
her children is to kill the man and that's the
only way out, and that was recognized before.
Speaker 1 (35:30):
And I think that's a valid point that you make,
because I've read and heard many people who have commentated
on this case who are psychologists who are knowledgeable, who
have said things such as, if these were the Menindez sisters,
they would either have been it would have been a
lesser charge of manslaughter because it.
Speaker 2 (35:48):
Comes off less violent and less physically aggressive if it's
a female.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
I think you mean.
Speaker 2 (35:56):
It's perceived if it's the Menendez sisters, as you said,
just I think me watching it as a young child,
and even now, it just naturally comes off as less aggressive. Wow,
they really that was their only way out, you know.
And you don't see daughters killing parents. You don't vision
(36:17):
and vision daughters killing parents for money. So you're saying,
and it's all prejudging and none of it's accurate. We
shouldn't be like that, But I'm just saying that's how
it comes off.
Speaker 1 (36:27):
But I'm just saying if they were females, I think
the abuse allegations that they made would have been believed.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
Oh, yes, I'm sorry, I'll start listening to you now. O.
Speaker 1 (36:36):
Yes, okay, I'm just saying if they were females when
the abuse allegations came up, I think people would have
probably wholeheartedly believed what they were saying. You know, the
prosecutor paying it's.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
More easy to accept that a man would be horrific
towards young women, right versus the other way around, exactly.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
It was the understanding during that time period. In the
early nineties, there were two hung juries. In the first trial,
all of the men voted for premeditated murder. Men could
not wrap their heads around the fact that boys could
be sexually abused by their fathers. Right and the prosecution.
I saw it in a video I believe was on
(37:16):
YouTube somewhere where the prosecutor Pam says to the judge
in open court, it is our position that boys cannot
be sexually abused. Yeah, that's that's why this case is
so fundamental for today's society, and it's such an earmark
(37:38):
of accepting the fact that boys can be abused by
their parents. Right and that's where we're at, and hopefully
we have a recensing hearing coming up on January thirtieth.
There's a new DA in LA. His name's Nathan Hochman.
He's taking office soon. They had to delay the resentencing
to January thirtieth because he said he wanted time to
(37:58):
review everything. He wants to at the totality of the circumstances.
I believe he wants to go back and read all
the trials, transcripts, both trials.
Speaker 2 (38:05):
I did see an interview with him where he said,
I'm not going to, you know, just because they got
popularity on Netflix and this, and that we're not going
to just rush it. I think he was like, I'm
going to treat this like any other case, which is
I need to look at everything, not just watch a
documentary exactly.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
I saw a recent interview I respected that on TMZ
and he said that he wanted to make two things
crystal clear, One that there was no preferential treatment, that
he was going to do a thorough review of all
the facts in the Meninda's case. And two and I
thought this was really interesting. He said he loves the
media attention that this case is getting because it allows
so many people to get involved in the criminal justice system,
(38:43):
and he really urged everyone to not just watch a
dramatization like Monsters, but if you truly want to get
involved and you truly want to understand it, read the
trial transcripts, watch the trial, watch the cour TV.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Be so quick to judge exactly, Know that there's a
lot more to a murder then just it's cold blooded exactly.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
And with that, I think, thank you for giving me
your opinion. Sure, what we're going to do now. I
actually have a very good friend named Alexandra who is
an attorney and she represents them and in those brothers.
She works for Mark Geragos, and we're going to have
her come on and we're going to ask her some
questions about the case.
Speaker 2 (39:21):
I'll be exciting.
Speaker 1 (39:23):
Hi, guys, Hi alex thanks for being here of course. Okay,
first of all, give me a little background. Alex and
I are friends. I actually adore her. But besides that,
give us a little background on how long you've been
involved with the case. How long have you worked with Garagoes.
Where are we at with that?
Speaker 3 (39:42):
Oh, I've been with Mark probably, I mean probably about
eight years now. I've known in my whole life when
I was a public defender. He used to think I
worked for him already, a really good family friend, and
we've been partners probably for about eight years now, and
we came on to the Menandez case. I think it's
(40:04):
been a little bit more than a year now.
Speaker 1 (40:06):
Right when the.
Speaker 3 (40:07):
Habeas was filed, we came in because it was filed
by Cliff Gardner, who's really behind the scenes, but he's
a genius in a pellet work, and so he asked
us if we would come in and do the footwork,
and so we came in right about them.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
Okay, Now, we were talking about this earlier because we
were trying to distinguish the habeas petition from the resentencing,
which are two different routes to grant them freedom. At
this point, do you have a preference, like do you
feel like the resentencing is a better route for your
clients or the habeas.
Speaker 3 (40:39):
Well, the resentencing is cleaner because if the resentsing is granted,
if the judge reduces it to a misdemeanor, they're immediately released.
Speaker 1 (40:48):
So that's the.
Speaker 3 (40:49):
Cleanest way for them to get out. If the habeas
is granted, it gives them the option of a new trial.
So there's a potential there that we have an entirely
new Menendez Brothers Jurney.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
And that's a mess.
Speaker 3 (41:02):
So for me, as a representative of my clients, I
would love to have the door just be opened and
let them be freed. So the resentencing is my preference
obviously right now.
Speaker 1 (41:11):
The hearing coming up on January thirtieth is that is
the resentencing. Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (41:15):
That's correct?
Speaker 1 (41:16):
Okay, Now when we talk about resentencing, what are the
factors that they taken into consideration, Like is the new
evidence taken into consideration at that point as well, or
is it more based upon kind of the family support,
their behavior in prison, things like that.
Speaker 3 (41:30):
So the resentsing is really just what have they done
from the time that they've been in prison until now.
That's really the only thing you're looking at and the
only real consideration for the judges. Is there a potential
that they're going to be released and re offend by
committing a super strike? And there's very specific charges that
(41:51):
are super strikes, you know, murder, rape, things like that.
So the question is is there anything in their history
while they've been in prison that would make you think
that they are potentially going to refund at a very
very serious level.
Speaker 1 (42:06):
And I assume there's nothing. Everything I've read is that
they've been nothing about model prisoners. They've gotten degrees, they've
helped other prisoners and abuse sand hospice and things like that.
Is that correct, that's correct.
Speaker 3 (42:19):
Not only have they been model citizens, but there are
no other inmates that I have ever heard of that
are like them. They had no potential for getting out,
all of their appeals had been denied, and so they
were resolved to the fact that they were going to
be in prison for the rest of their lives. And
at that point they started creating programs for other prisoners
so that when they were released they had a better
(42:41):
chance of survival without recidivism. And they focused solely on
people who needed to be comforted towards the end of
their life, who were in prison. Everything for everyone else.
So yeah, I cannot even imagine if somebody wanted to
come in and actually focus on the resentencing shoes, anything
that they would say about their time in prison, that
(43:03):
shows that they have not been rehabilitated.
Speaker 1 (43:06):
Right. And also, let me ask you, I know you
know them personally because you speak to them often. How
are they doing emotionally or mentally with everything that's going on,
with all the support they're getting from social media, are
they prepared if because there is the possibility that they
remain in prison.
Speaker 3 (43:27):
It's always an option, It's always on their minds. You know,
there's been already through this process. Just in the last year,
there's been these peaks in these valleys. I think that
from the inside it's hard to know exactly what's happening
on the outside. They don't get watched TMZ. They get
reports that are you know, third, fourth, fifth parties sometimes
(43:49):
and so they've had a lot of ups and downs.
Speaker 1 (43:52):
But they're dealing with it with it better.
Speaker 3 (43:54):
Than I ever would. They deal with everything better than
I ever would.
Speaker 2 (43:58):
Right, That was a question I was gonna ask. Are
they aware of all the support that they're getting outside
the gates, outside the prison?
Speaker 1 (44:05):
Yeah, they are.
Speaker 3 (44:05):
It means a lot time.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
I mean, that's got to be somewhat humbling to finally
have that support after you know, three decades.
Speaker 3 (44:11):
Yeah, and it's funny that you say that it they
are very thoughtful, very humble people.
Speaker 1 (44:18):
You know, Shane and I were talking before you came
on about how when the trial first occurred back in
the nineties. It was a completely different time period, and
I was saying, I think a lot of that. I've
actually I text you at night. I'm like, I'm laying
in bed and I think about these things. I was
thinking about how that time period, the people within our
peer group, we were gen X, and that was very
you know, you just you put your big girl pants on.
(44:40):
There weren't participation trophies, there wasn't gluten free, there was
nothing warm and fuzzy. It was basically like you just
you took care of yourself. And now we have this
whole new generation that watch court TV, that saw the trial,
that listened to them testify, that knows about what they've
been through. And it's a different generation and they accept
them and they believe them, and they and they embrace them.
(45:04):
And that has to be so amazing for them to
after all this time, to actually feel like what they've
been through is being recognized, right.
Speaker 3 (45:13):
I Mean, they were the butt of jokes. They were
Saturday Night Live skits about them. They were just made
fun of constantly. And for them to be this complete
oneint eighty is I think great just for them. I mean,
people don't like it. When I say it, a lot
of times I get black for it. But you know,
they are victims. They are victims, and they were put
in the position that they were in because they were abused,
and so it's I think it's healing for them to
(45:35):
see that they are being recognized as victims, not just
as monsters.
Speaker 1 (45:40):
Right.
Speaker 3 (45:40):
Yeah, I think it's great. And one thing that hasn't
really been spoken about a lot is that when they
were in and when they were putting their story out there,
when they got on the stand and they started talking
about what was happening, people inside of the jails came
to them and said, oh, my god, I would never
have done that. I never would have told my story.
But now that you have, can I talk to you
(46:02):
about it? Because I've never had anybody to talk to.
So they've started support groups inside for victims of sexual
violence and abuse that did not exist. And the idea
that there are not support groups for things like that
inside of the prisons boggled my mind. But they are
the ones who started the creation of those support groups.
Speaker 1 (46:26):
Or Yeah, that's really amazing work that they've done. Also,
how do you see them if they were let go,
if they become free. How do you see them giving back?
Is that what they talk about? Have you had conversations
with them about that? Like how they see themselves once
they're free.
Speaker 3 (46:43):
They want to keep continuing doing the work that they've
been doing. Everything they talk about about their goals are
to continue doing the work of reforming the prisons that
they've been doing from the inside.
Speaker 2 (46:53):
They might be even more motivated to do so if
they were to be released in any terms, they would
probably see the value in speaking up and recognizing prisoners
as victims of abuse or whatever they've been through. That
they might want to continue their work because they're seeing
like the fruits, right, Yeah, that that that people can
(47:14):
be released, people can be reformed, people can you know,
continue to help others. So they might be in you know,
they might feel it's more valuable for them to do
this and they'll want to just continue it. Yeah, that's
that's that's yeah, it's probably it'd probably be hard for
them to not want to continue it if they see
the results that can come of it.
Speaker 1 (47:32):
Thank you so much. I appreciate it, and I will
talk to you soon. Okay, bye bye, okay, bye bye Okay.
Speaker 2 (47:38):
So, if they do get released under under any terms,
whether it be resentencing or a new trial. And they
get out of jail, then you know, we wonder if
they're going to stay married, and this's that. But can
they there's so much popularity around this, so much Hollywood
around this, so to speak, can they benefit from any
(47:59):
of this because obviously Netflix drama, everyone's benefiting from it.
Speaker 1 (48:03):
Yeah, you know what, they actually can. So in New
York you're precluded from making money from a crime. However,
in California that's not true. So they actually can profit
from their stories.
Speaker 2 (48:15):
As far as you know, there's no restrictions.
Speaker 1 (48:17):
There's no restrictions, you know they As far as what
I've read, there is no There's nothing left of this
fourteen million dollar inheritance. It has all gone. It went.
A lot of it paid for the defense the first
couple of trials. Also, the house had a mortgage that
had to be paid, there were taxes that had to
be paid.
Speaker 2 (48:33):
Everyone was probably, yeah, putting their hand in thee.
Speaker 1 (48:36):
There's no money left. However, you're talking about two men
that are on the popularity scale of like a Kardashian.
So if they do happen by chance to come out
of prison, I am sure that there will be some
bidding wars over who gets the first interview with them,
and you're talking millions.
Speaker 2 (48:54):
Of because the worry would be they come out of
jail or prison and then they don't like have something
to you know, to grasp on to financially support themselves.
And yet everyone else is profited. But you're saying that
they can they carefully, they do it properly and not
be taken advantage of. But they can use their stories.
Speaker 1 (49:15):
Yes, interviews, social media, book deals. Yes, there there is
the potential for.
Speaker 4 (49:22):
The reality shows podcast, There is the potential for them
to make a lot of money. Yes, okay, all right,
thanks guys for listening to our very first podcast on
the Menindez Brothers, and thanks so much for listening.
Speaker 2 (49:34):
Thank you,
Hi, guys, Welcome to our very first episode of Legally Brunette.
I will be your host today, Emily Simpson, and I
felt like the best co host for kind of like
a pop culture slash legal podcast would be with my husband,
Shane Simpson. And so, are you excited to be here?
Speaker 2 (00:21):
I am, because I know you have a lot of
knowledge on this, so I'm ready to hear it.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Yeah. So we're very excited for our first episode to
be about the Menindas brothers, the murders where we're at currently,
and I think what we're trying to do is kind
of pack as much information about Menindaz as we can
into one episode. As you all know, it's been a
cultural phenomena. I remember back in nineteen eighty nine when
(00:47):
this murder happened. I was a young girl in Middletown, Ohio,
and I used to watch this trial on court TV. Now,
clearly back at that time, I had a completely different
perspective on it than I do now. But I'm just wondering,
did you know about the murders because you grew up
in California.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
I did. I did. I didn't know it as much.
I didn't follow it like you did. The way I
followed it was through David Letterman. He did a lot
of top ten lests that would include the Menendez brothers.
Jay Leno did a lot of jokes about it. So
for that reason, I always saw it, but I had
no opinion of it other than they killed their parents
(01:28):
for money. That's what's my knowledge, although I'm not saying
that's correct, but that's what I knew of it back then.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
And you know, when you think about that time period,
back in the eighties and the nineties, I do believe
that that was the story that the media perpetuated, that
you had two wealthy, good looking young guys that grew
up in Beverly Hills, that led a very privileged lifestyle
and then decided that they wanted their parents' money and
(01:56):
they murdered them, right and even me following it on court,
TV and the media, that was my takeaway back then.
And so I really feel like it's so interesting that
thirty five years later, here we are talking about this
case and I was trying to understand what has made
it come back up and be such a huge phenomenon
(02:20):
that all these kids are making tiktoks about it. You know,
there was the recent release of Monsters on Netflix, which,
by the way, let's just be clear that Monsters is
a dramatization, it's not a documentary. And then there was
the recent documentary on Netflix where it's actually Eric and
Lyle speaking from prison. And I read something the other
(02:41):
day that I thought was really interesting because I did
not realize this, but this surge of TikTokers, who is
a completely different generation than you and I when we
were growing up. Their fascination with this case comes from
during the pandemic when we were all in quarantine. Court
TV was running reruns of the trial.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Oh is that what? I wondered? What started it?
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Yeah? And I didn't understand that either, because I knew
that there were all these TikTokers that were making tiktoks
about the Meninda's brothers and it was all basically the
same theme that they should go free.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Well, wait a minute, that's interesting. That means TikTokers are
watching court TV.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Yes, that was the part with that. I was like,
why are TikTokers watching court TV? But apparently they were
running reruns of Court TV. They ran the Meninda's trial
during the pandemic and it caught on and this new
generation watched a lot of the trial and then probably
saw snippets of the trial on social media.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Sure, and the.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
Consensus now it's a completely different phenomena is that they
should be released because they were abused by their parents.
And I was thinking about this, and this is what
I do, this is what keeps me up at nights.
I was thinking about how during our generation, we're kids,
we're gen X, right, Okay, were born in the seventies,
(04:01):
we were kids in the eighties, and we were in
high school and college in the nineties. And our generation,
I think made fun of the Menindez brothers, like you said,
because there was not the recognizing that sexual abuse could occur.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
With no no always. Then you have someone like me
who's not really paying attention, but yet it's thrown in
my face all the time and all the you know,
shows that I'm watching and news flashes or whatever. And
you know, you know, certainly, I as an eighteen year
old kid, I'm not paying attention, but I'm it's thrown
at me that they're guilty, that they killed their parents,
(04:38):
that they wanted to be you know, rich, and so
you just assume that that's the.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
Case, right, And I even remember seeing Saturday Night Live
snippets where they would make fun of them with the
sweaters with the with the blue and the pink sweaters,
because that's you know, remember in their first trial show.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Well then they'd always have the bad hairstyles, right because.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Lyle had the two pays, so they would always have
the bad hair. And then again you're.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
Down playing showing that these when you're making fun of them,
even down to their hairstyles, what you're saying, you're discrediting
them as valid people, as kids that might have issues
and problems and there might be more depth to the
crime other than just privileged kids or immature kids or
something exactly.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
And that's why I find this case so interesting. Now
Here we are in twenty twenty four and a different
generation has latched onto this case, and these kids are
more accepting. You know, we were Gen X, there was
you know, it was you were lucky if you got
a sandwich from your parents. So I think this new
generation of kids have been coddled more. There's more therapy,
(05:40):
there's gluten free, there's more acceptance of a lot of
things that go into your psyche and understanding psychological factors
and so that's where we are with Menendez. But let's
just go through because I know you don't know a
lot about the case, and I know so much about
this case. I could spend an entire probably nine hours
(06:02):
just talking about the facts of this case. But I'm
not going to do that, Please don't. I'm just going
to do a brief synopsis of some of the facts
of the night that it happened, and then we'll just
go from there. So Lyle and Eric Menindez were convicted
of the nineteen eighty nine murders of their parents, jose
and Mary Louise Mendez, who goes by the name Kitty,
and they're Beverly Hills home, which, by the way, the
(06:23):
address is seven twenty two North Elm Drive. And I
actually drove there. You know that I made a video.
I was in LA and I was really close to
the house, and so I could not miss the opportunity.
So I actually drove over to the home and parked
in front of it. And I will tell you it
is such a beautiful, calm, serene, magnificent Beverly Hills neighborhood
(06:49):
that when I was standing there, I'm trying to visualize
cords well, I mean a brutal, brutal murder taking place
right there in the home. Some of the forensics who
worked on the Menindaz murder scene describe it as the
most brutal murder scene that they had ever witnessed. The
brothers claim the killings were in self defense after years
(07:12):
of sexual and physical abuse by their father, Jose Menindez,
but prosecutors argued that the brothers killed their parents in
a bid to inherit their wealth, which at the time
was supposedly around fourteen million dollars, which is what they
would inherit. And again, this is back in nineteen eighty
nine seen mony. You're talking about a lot of money.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Money to day, certainly a lot back then.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
After a highly publicized trial, the first jury was unable
to reach a verdict. Actually, there were two juries in
the first trial. I don't know if you knew that
each boy, so Lyle and Eric, they each had their
own jury during the first trial. And there were actually
times when if there were specific witnesses that were speaking
(07:52):
to something that had specifically to do with Eric or
had to do with Lyle, the other jurors would have
to leave the courtroom. So can you imagine.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
That legitly that's a lot, right.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
Also, I believe the defense had fifty five. I might
not be right about that, but it was an exorbitant
amount of character witnesses who testified on behalf of Lyle
and Eric. So can you imagine just how long this
trial took, the depths of it, the character witnesses, the
(08:22):
two different juries. I don't know exactly. I think it
was maybe eight months. Don't quote me on that, but
it was a long It was a long trial. They
were sentenced after their second trial, which was in nineteen
ninety six. It resulted in both brothers being convicted of
first degree murder. They were sentenced to life in prison
without the possibility at the role. Also, there are you know,
(08:43):
I'll just go into a little bit, just a brief overlay,
but there a lot of people question the second trial
because the judge precluded a lot of the sexual abuse
evidence that was disclosed in the first trial. There were
a lot of emotions filed by the prosecution in the second trial,
which a lot of that evidence.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
That brings up a lot of questions for me because
it's like, why wouldn't you present the same evidence, you know,
was it and I don't know the answers, But was
it the judge thinking, well, let's shake it up because
the jury couldn't convict or find or affirm, you know,
not guilty, so let's shake it up to try to
get an outcome. Why wouldn't you present the same evidence.
And if you present the same evidence and you get
(09:23):
the same outcome, which is a hung jury, well then
that goes to show there's not enough evidence to convict.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
I don't disagree with what you're saying. I'll give you
a little bit of a timeline. When the Menindas brothers
went to trial for their second for the second trial,
it was I believe eight days after the OJ Simpson
verdict of not guilty, and the DA's office was looking
like an incompetent office.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
Well, they were an incompetent office after the OJ trial exactly.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
And so I think that a lot of that went
into the judge's decisions. Now here's where I have questions.
I am not a judge, but I don't know exactly
what authority a judge acted on that he precluded a
lot of the sexual abuse evidence in the second trial. Also,
I don't think there was a manslaughter option there were
(10:12):
there was either not guilty.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Wa Wait, In the first trial, what was what were
the charges?
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Well, it was premeditated manslaughter or not guilty.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Okay, well always not guilty, right, What were the charges
In the second trial.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
It was either they could either be convicted of premeditated
murder or not guilty. I don't think there was a
manslaughter option because there wasn't. There wasn't the allowance of
any mitigating factors of the abuse. Also, Lyle did not
take the stand and the second trial because he had
made a mistake and had spoken to a woman named
(10:46):
Norma Novelli. I believe that she was having phone conversations
with him over a long period of time from prison,
and I believe he made some incriminating statements that had
to do with his acting ability. You could have brought
that in and exactly so, he did not testify on
the stand because he could have been impeached with that. So,
(11:08):
you know, the second trial was completely different than the
first trial. They ended up getting convicted of premeditated murder
life without parole. So that's where we're at today and
now here we are, thirty five years.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Later, convicted of the same or both with the same
sentencing life without parole.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
Yes, both, and life.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Without parole is different than life. A lot of people think,
you hear life, but life is I think twenty years
in California not necessarily life. But then life without parole
is truly what we think of as life in prison,
which is you are not being released, which means, regardless
of your behavior in prison, you will not be released, right,
which can lead someone to think, well, then when you
(11:49):
go to prison and you got nothing to lose, you
try to escape, you don't follow the rules, you're not
incentivized for good behavior, and I think that will come
up later, So I decided to mention.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
That, right. So thirty five here we are, thirty five
years later, and this case has just been huge, mostly
because of the Monsters that came out on Netflix, which
you did not watch.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
No, but I've heard you watching it every night for
the last few months.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
I've watched it.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
I think falls.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
I think I've watched it maybe three times at this point,
And people go, why is.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
The family so angry all the time, Well, she falls
asleep to true crime and Monsters.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
I do want to make clear though, that I know
a lot of people have watched monsters, and we just
have to clarify that Monsters is a dramatization. I do
think that there are a lot of factual things and monsters,
but there are also a lot of scenes that are
the creator's imagination. There are scenes between Jose and Kitty
that no one could have known what they said or
(12:50):
what happened. They're obviously a creation. I also think that
the characters of Lyle and Eric and Monsters were very,
very one dimensional. They made Eric out to be kind
of a depressed, sad, weak person, and they clearly made
Lyle the aggressor. I think every scene that Lyle's in,
(13:15):
he's arguing, fighting, or yelling at someone.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Which I think the viewers or listeners will have which
one of the brothers is the one with no hair,
Which is the one with hair? That'll help me identify that.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
Okay. Eric is the younger brother. He was eighteen when
they committed the murders, and he has a full head
of hair, okay. And then Lyle is the older brother.
He was twenty one when the murders were committed, and
he has a to pay. Well, I don't in prison now.
If you see photos of them now, he just shaved
his Heady's balt but when he was younger, in his twenties,
(13:48):
he wore a to pay. And Eric even says that
he did not know his brother wore a to pay.
And there's a scene in Monsters where it shows Kitty
ripping off Lyle's to pay, and apparently, according to interviews
with Lyle and Eric, that was true, that really did happen.
She got angry, she ripped his two pay off, and
Eric had no idea that he had worn a to pay.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
It's a little insight into their the way their dinners
are taking place.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
Right all right. So here's something I just want to do.
There are lots of lots of documentaries, TV series, There's
films that have to do with the Menendez you know.
I think for me, the one that I would suggest
(14:34):
someone watching if you're trying to get into the Menindez
for the first time and you want some background information.
I do like the most recent documentary that is on Netflix.
It's Lyle and Eric their Interview from Prison. I think
that it gives a lot of background information. It interviews
the prosecutor, it interviews Lyle and Eric, it gives a
lot of insight. It interviews cops, police involved detectives. It's
(14:58):
very interesting and I think it's a good synopsis of
what happened. There's a lot of things out there that
are TV movies and things like that. I don't know.
I find them to be highly dramatized. But anyway, let's
get into here's something I want to do because I
want to hear your thoughts on this, because you never
agree with anything I say. But the biggest question right
now is should they be released? Because where we're at
(15:21):
now is there's two options. There's the Habeas petition and
there's also a recent and sing request.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
Okay, well, explain the Habeas petition.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
The Habeas petition was filed back in May of twenty
twenty three. And actually we'll have Alexandra on in a
little bit. Who is the current she represents them Meninda's
brothers currently, so we'll get some more insight into that.
But the Habeas petition was basically based on some new
evidence that came forward that corroborates the abuse. And those
two pieces of new evidence is one there is the
(15:54):
man named Roy Roussello. There was a new documentary. It's
not on Netflix. I'm not sure where it's at. But
it's the Menudo Menindez documentary.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
Okay, So the Habeast petition is just new evidence that
they want to introduce, right, Okay, in late terms.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
Right.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
And then the second one was a resentencing hearing.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
The second one is a recencing hearing, and it's basically
a request to re sentence, and it's based on a
lot of factors. I'm not sure exactly what all those
factors are, but it's basically like the family supports them.
They've been model prisoners during their time. There has been
some corroboration of abuse. They've been in prison long enough,
their family supports them. They're not, you know, a menace
(16:33):
to society. No one suspects that they would, you know,
commit crimes if they were really back to.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
The life without parole. So they're not incentivized for good
behavior and hopes of getting out. But yet they're maintaining
good behavior and I think they're working on their education, yes,
and they were supporting other prisoners in probably reforming it
and abuse.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
They work with hospice patients, they work with abuse suffers, abuse,
they've been model prisoners and like you said, it's very
significant that they were doing those things, never thinking that
there was a chance for them to be paroled. All Right,
I just want to go into a little bit of
an analysis because you're an attorney, and let's just talk
(17:17):
about some of the things that make this a premeditated
brutal murder that would suggest that they should stay in prison.
So Eric wrote a screenplay about a team killing his
parents for their inheritance. Before the murders, they also supposedly
watched a movie called The Billionaire Boys Club, which was
about murdering their parents for money.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Which start Judd Nelson.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
By the way, have you seen that movie? You are
a big jo when I watched it, Well, you might
have watched it the same night the Meninda's brothers watched it.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Possibly they bought that of a.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
Parent, right, but was it for for money? For an inheritance?
They bought the shotguns and the ammunition two days prior
to the murders. They use a fake ID to buy
the guns. And let's just talk a minute, because I
think this is just to be fair, we have to
talk about the brutality of the murders before.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
You get to the brutality. Yeah, those facts that you
stated two days before bought ammunition or whatever you said,
that would have that would take place regardless of the
intent behind the murders. If they were going to kill
and eliminate their parents because of abuse, they'd still have
(18:35):
to go get a gun, they'd still have to do
all those things. So it doesn't That doesn't sway someone.
That shouldn't sway someone as to the motive for reasoning
behind the murders.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
I think though, but when you buy the guns two days.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Although the high school script is a little questionable because
I didn't write high school script.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
On I think though that the fact that they bought
the guns two days prior and there's a cooling off
period and there wasn't anything that happened, well, I mean,
they do claim that they were scared for their life.
Their first defense was at an imperfect self defense. That's
where you have to really put yourself in the mind
(19:15):
of someone that's been sexually and physically abused. And I've
never been through that, so it's hard for me to
put myself in someone's shoes.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
And I'm guessing an imperfect self defense is when they
they're under the reasonable belief that they have a defense,
but legally they do not, or factually, perhaps they're incorrect exactly.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
That is where us, from a reasonable standard looking into it,
we would say your life wasn't in jeopardy. But from them,
given their own circumstances, the.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Equivalent would be if someone comes at me with a
fake gun and I defend myself, and then after the
fact we learned that the fake that the gun was fake,
and I never was really under any death threat of death, right, Okay.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
All right, So let's get a little bit into the
brutality of the murders. Just on that evening. They use
Mossberg shotguns. They were pump action shotguns. They went into
the foyer where their parents were sitting watching TV. They
were watching a movie. They were seated on the couch.
I believe they were eating ice cream, and they shot
them at close range. There were ten shots that hit Jose,
(20:22):
and I believe no ten hit Kitty. Five hit Jose.
You're talking about brutal, in your face up front murders, right,
which to me, if I think about it as an adult,
there's a lot of rage. That's a rage killing.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Oh yeah, that's not one shot to the head. They're dead, Okay,
mission accomplished, right, that's the I want you freaking dead, right,
and also I have a question whether any words exchanged
prior to that that we know of, whether it's accurate
or not.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
No, not that I not that I've ever read or
heard in testimony. Basically, what happened was they got the
shotguns out of the car. They entered into the foyer
of their home. Each son had a shotgun. They busted
through the double doors that were closed of the den
TV room. It was a wood paneled room, and they
just began firing at close range. And actually Kitty fell
(21:17):
to the ground. She jumped up from the couch. She
put her hand up in front of her face, a
defensive hand to stop the shot. She screamed, no, something
to that effect. She fell to the ground. She was
not dead. She tried to crawl away. They went back
to the car, reloaded, and entered the house and Lyle
shot her in the.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Face after Kitty was already dead.
Speaker 1 (21:39):
No, she was not dead, she was okay, she was
still she was shot. She was still alive, she was crawling.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Where was she shot? Why did they shoot one in
the head and not the other.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
Lyle walked around to the back of the couch and
shot Jose in the back of the head. So basically
eviscerated his brain.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
Okay, okay, so that was without any warning, right, But
then then the mud probably had some reaction.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
Well, she jumped up and apparently she put her arms up,
so she had shots through you know, her hand and
her arm. She I think she had a shot in
the face. She fell to the ground. She was not dead.
Jose was killed instantly. He was shot in the back
of the head. Kitty did not die instantly. She was
on the ground. She was crawling to get away. They
went back to the car, reloaded the shotguns, came.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
Back to the car, reload the shotguns, came and shot
their mother in the face. Lyle how many times?
Speaker 1 (22:32):
One time to the face.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
Okay, it's pretty bad. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Then after the murders, they left the house. They got
rid of This is interesting to me. They got rid
of the shotguns and apparently they dumped them somewhere along
Mall Hall and Drive. What is so incredible to me
is that thirty five years later, those shotguns have never
been found.
Speaker 2 (22:53):
Well, you've said that before, and I don't know if
I agree with that. I mean, I'm sure there's lots
of weapons that get tossed, and it's in LA and
some people probably found it and no one knew what
it was at the time when they found it, and
they repurposed it for some other crime, and then that
was the end of it.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
Yeah, I mean the only thing I can think is,
I mean they were found, no one knew the significance
of them, and then is there in some.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
Side of the road. I mean, anything could happen. If
you said that they were in the house and it
was never found, then I'd questioned it. But it's on
the public road. I don't think that's as big of
a deal as you make it out to be. Secondly,
if they found the guns even today, if they found
them today and they were preserved, what value would that
they've confessed to the crime.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
No, they did confess, and I know there's no value
to finding the weapons. I'm sure that's why the police
didn't bother searching, because it's not like they needed that
to you know, I mean, they.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
Didn't need a smoking gun. But then I go back,
I go back and forth lot. I go back to
why did they throw away the guns? Why are they
hiding the evidence?
Speaker 1 (23:55):
Well, that was this is part of the analysis. So
it's after they shot their parents, they they got rid
of the bloody clothes. I read. I think it was
in a book by Robert rand I read that they
got rid of the bloody clothes, like behind a gas
station somewhere they changed their clothes into I guess they
had some tennis clothes in their car. They tried to
buy movie tickets for an earlier movie time. They tried
(24:15):
to see Batman in an earlier time because they wanted
a timestamp on the movie to prove an alibi. They
also tried to meet up with a friend at the
Taste of La and then later tried to meet up
with him at Cheesecake, again trying to establish some type
of alibi. They were turned back.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
To that after the fact they tried to establish alibis.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
Yeah, after the fact they were trying to establish They
were trying to buy a movie ticket for earlier in
the night, you know, like the nine to ten showing.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
How did they forget that part? They should have bought
the ticket.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Before, Yeah, but they couldn't. I don't think you could
buy a ticket that early for a nine pm showing.
I don't know, I.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
I don't know. Presumably it was the Tim Burton Batman
with Chack Nicholson.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
It was it was the nineteen eighty nine Batman that
they were trying to buy tickets too. They returned back
to the home. This is almost around midnight, and at
a they realized they back home, and they realized that
there's no police there. They thought for sure that someone
would have heard the shots in this quiet, sleepy you know,
Beverly Hills neighborhood.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
As you described it earlier.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
It was it is, and no one did. So they
return home. They don't know what to do. There's no
police there. They enter the home. Lyle calls nine one
at eleven forty seven. They are yelling. They're emotional. They're saying,
someone shot our parents. The police show up two minutes later.
They come out of the house. They drop to their knees.
They're crying, pounding the ground. Our parents have been shot.
(25:31):
They blame it on the mafia because their dad was supposedly,
you know, it was a big wig at RCA. So
they blame it on well, not at the time. He
worked for RCA earlier, but then he worked for Live
Entertainment after that. There's all the evidence of the spending spree.
You know, they bought rolllexes they house.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
Soon after, they spend money.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
Okay, well, they bought new suits and rolllexes. I believe
either one day or two days before the funeral, the
memorial service in Hollywood for their parents, they spent sixteen
thousand dollars on money clips and three new rolexes. That
was a day or two before the memorial so that
was within days of the murders.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
Probably not related. But in Billionaire Boys Club they did
the same thing. They spiffed themselves up with Mercedes and
suits and Rolexes and try to really look like we
got our a game on right. But of course they
were also pursuing business ventures.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
But anyway, go ahead, okay, so well then that's another Also,
I believe Lyle bought a restaurant in New Jersey, so
they spent. They spent a lot of money. They actually
got I think seven hundred thousand dollars from an insurance
policy pretty immediately after the murders, and they also were
authorized to use their dad's AMX up to two hundred
and fifty thousand. They also bought I think a Geep
(26:43):
a Porsche.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
But see if they had all this money, like the
two hundred and fifty grand or whatever line of credit
or whatever it was. Then they had access to money.
It's not like, you know, Dad won't buy us this,
and they're stingy and they're going to give away the money,
and you know, we have to go to school. We
don't want to go to school. We just want our money. Now,
(27:06):
that leads me to think that they were living a
wonderful life financially, So why would they Where's the motive? No,
I agree, I think that I have anyway, not conclusion.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
No, I don't disagree with you. I think the prosecution
and the media pushed very hard that the motive was
for money. But if you analyze their lifestyle, you're not
talking about two kids that were withheld anything. I think
they lived. Yeah, they had to pay, they had They
lived a very lavish lifestyle. I don't think their parents,
you know, I think they gave them everything that they needed.
(27:41):
So sometimes when I think about the spending spree, if
we're talking about the abuse being true, then maybe that
was their way of exhibiting their freedom. Yeah, not so much.
We just want all this money, but that was the
way that they could outwardly exert that. They find out.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
Now we have money. It's now we don't have our
parents abusing us or controlling us and dictating our lives.
Right yeah. So it's like you let a dog out
in the yard, out of the yard, and all of
sudd Now they're just roaming free, right yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
Okay, So let's talk about some things that I think
were very fundamental for me when I was going through
this case and reading things and watching things that really
led me to believe that the abuse allegations were real.
There was detailed testimony and a lot of emotion in
the first trial when Eric and Lyle both testified. If
(28:49):
you have the opportunity, I would say, either watch their testimony.
You can find YouTube videos of it, or read the
trial transcripts. I don't think that you can act. To me,
that's not acting. That's real, hardcore emotion. There are also
two family witnesses that corroborated the abuse. I believe there
(29:10):
were two cousins that testified that they had seen abuse
within the home. There was a letter that Eric had
written to his cousin Andy eight months prior to the murder,
kind of outlining that the abuse was happening. That's one
of the pieces of evidence that was found later, there's
the declaration of Roy Roussello from Minuto, who claims that
Jose Mendez drugged him and raped him in his home.
(29:34):
And then also in the most recent Netflix documentary, this
was really an AHA moment for me. They're interviewing Pam
who was the prosecutor in the first trial, and she
openly admits that they could not find one character witness
to testify on behalf of Jose to say he was
a good man. Not one, not a single character witness.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Would they testify the opposite?
Speaker 1 (29:58):
I'm sure, But the prosecutor is not going to.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
No, no, But have you heard anything or because not
not witnessing or testifying that he was a good man
doesn't mean he was a bad man. Was anyone Did
anyone have bad thoughts and interactions with him?
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Well, I'm sure they did. I think he was ruthless
in business, we know that, Yeah, I mean, all the
things I've read is he was ruthless, he had a
bad reputation, he was difficult to deal with, like, he
was not liked. I mean all those attributes also made
him a very highly skilled executive. I mean he got
pretty far. And then lastly, it's just their behavior in
(30:39):
prison I think is very commendable. The fact that they are.
They were sentenced to life without parole, and yet they
dedicated their lives to being educated, getting degrees and they're
both married.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
Well they are, maybe they are crazy. What are your
thoughts on that? I don't know. All I know is
there's no conjugal visits for people that are in prison
for life without problem is very true. I was going
to get to that how they did marry for love?
Speaker 1 (31:06):
They did for love because it wasn't for sex, for sure,
it was not supposedly though. So Eric is still married
to the same woman. Her name is Tammy. They got
married I believe, back in the nineties. She I think
is close to sixty at this point, he's like fifty
five or something.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
That's fine, that's close in age.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
My question is if they do get released, do you
think that marriage will last?
Speaker 2 (31:28):
Well, I don't know. I don't know anything about the marriage.
I mean, I can't I can't comment on that. I
just can say that they haven't lived together before along,
they haven't even gone out to eat. I mean, I
don't even know. Yeah, they're going to come across new,
uh traits of their personalities. They go out together. Yeah,
so we're hopeful.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
So Lyle has been married a couple of times. He's
currently married, but he's been married. Yeah, he's been married
a couple of times. I think I believe he's married
to his second wife right now. But she recently hosted
on Facebook because she runs a Facebook page for him,
that they are separated, but they remain best friends and
she still supports him. But he currently as far as
(32:10):
I know, I think the Daily Mail reported this, he
has a girlfriend that's twenty one and she's British. I
believe she flew out to the prison and she has
visited him and there were photos of them together.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Oh, this makes for a good episode of Life After
lock Up, it does, right now. That's good reality TV.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
Shane and I used to watch that a lot.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
Yeah, the Menenda's edition.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
All right, So, based upon what we've gone through, we
did an analysis of why it was premeditated, the brutality
of the murders. But then some of the things that
convinced me that the abuse is true, that the abuse
was corroborated by family members. There was the letter that
was found from the cousin or that Eric had written
to the cousin the Menudo, you know, member that came
(32:54):
forward and said Jose had raped him.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Well, let's be clear then, so all this new evidence
leans towards they were abused and that would be the motive,
which doesn't mean it wasn't a murder, and it doesn't
justify murder because my parents have annoyed me from time
to time, and the world knows you've annoyed me for
time to time.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
I do, I do.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
Murder is never an option. Now, I haven't been abused
to the extent that they claim they have been, so
I certainly can't judge them. But what I'm getting at is,
so if if we find we being the court finds
that they have been abused, and that indeed is the
motive and it was not money, then are they supposed
(33:40):
to be out of jail? Should they still be in
jail because you know, murder is not.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
Well, that's the argument that's to be made, And I'm
asking you from your legal analysis your opinion based upon
all the things we talked about that make it premeditated
a brutal murder, and then some of the things that
I put on the other side that have to do
with the crop of abuse, what they endured, what they've
gone through, do you think that they should be re
(34:07):
sentenced to a lesser sentence which would allow them to
be immediately eligible for pearl.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
Okay, I have real strong opinions on this. Okay, Ready,
I don't know. I know enough to know that I
don't know what it's like to be abused, right, And
I don't know what the situation would be to have
a father as he's painted out to be. So far
to say, you know, I mean, and how I would
handle it if I would run away or leave or
(34:34):
punch my dad in the face or whatever it is.
I mean, I don't know how. I don't know how
I would handle it. So who am I to sit
here and judge them for how they handled whatever abuse
they encounter. I just don't know, and I'm not, Unfortunately,
I'm not in a position where my opinion really matters
(34:55):
to them. So I just can't go any further than
that other than saying I don't know, and I have
sympathy for people in that situation. I know. There's the
battered woman syndrome, right, which is I don't know where
it stands today legally, but it was recognized at one
point that in the battered woman syndrome, that she's in
(35:18):
no position to be able to get up and leave,
that her only way of survival for her and possibly
her children is to kill the man and that's the
only way out, and that was recognized before.
Speaker 1 (35:30):
And I think that's a valid point that you make,
because I've read and heard many people who have commentated
on this case who are psychologists who are knowledgeable, who
have said things such as, if these were the Menindez sisters,
they would either have been it would have been a
lesser charge of manslaughter because it.
Speaker 2 (35:48):
Comes off less violent and less physically aggressive if it's
a female.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
I think you mean.
Speaker 2 (35:56):
It's perceived if it's the Menendez sisters, as you said,
just I think me watching it as a young child,
and even now, it just naturally comes off as less aggressive. Wow,
they really that was their only way out, you know.
And you don't see daughters killing parents. You don't vision
(36:17):
and vision daughters killing parents for money. So you're saying,
and it's all prejudging and none of it's accurate. We
shouldn't be like that, But I'm just saying that's how
it comes off.
Speaker 1 (36:27):
But I'm just saying if they were females, I think
the abuse allegations that they made would have been believed.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
Oh, yes, I'm sorry, I'll start listening to you now. O.
Speaker 1 (36:36):
Yes, okay, I'm just saying if they were females when
the abuse allegations came up, I think people would have
probably wholeheartedly believed what they were saying. You know, the
prosecutor paying it's.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
More easy to accept that a man would be horrific
towards young women, right versus the other way around, exactly.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
It was the understanding during that time period. In the
early nineties, there were two hung juries. In the first trial,
all of the men voted for premeditated murder. Men could
not wrap their heads around the fact that boys could
be sexually abused by their fathers. Right and the prosecution.
I saw it in a video I believe was on
(37:16):
YouTube somewhere where the prosecutor Pam says to the judge
in open court, it is our position that boys cannot
be sexually abused. Yeah, that's that's why this case is
so fundamental for today's society, and it's such an earmark
(37:38):
of accepting the fact that boys can be abused by
their parents. Right and that's where we're at, and hopefully
we have a recensing hearing coming up on January thirtieth.
There's a new DA in LA. His name's Nathan Hochman.
He's taking office soon. They had to delay the resentencing
to January thirtieth because he said he wanted time to
(37:58):
review everything. He wants to at the totality of the circumstances.
I believe he wants to go back and read all
the trials, transcripts, both trials.
Speaker 2 (38:05):
I did see an interview with him where he said,
I'm not going to, you know, just because they got
popularity on Netflix and this, and that we're not going
to just rush it. I think he was like, I'm
going to treat this like any other case, which is
I need to look at everything, not just watch a
documentary exactly.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
I saw a recent interview I respected that on TMZ
and he said that he wanted to make two things
crystal clear, One that there was no preferential treatment, that
he was going to do a thorough review of all
the facts in the Meninda's case. And two and I
thought this was really interesting. He said he loves the
media attention that this case is getting because it allows
so many people to get involved in the criminal justice system,
(38:43):
and he really urged everyone to not just watch a
dramatization like Monsters, but if you truly want to get
involved and you truly want to understand it, read the
trial transcripts, watch the trial, watch the cour TV.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Be so quick to judge exactly, Know that there's a
lot more to a murder then just it's cold blooded exactly.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
And with that, I think, thank you for giving me
your opinion. Sure, what we're going to do now. I
actually have a very good friend named Alexandra who is
an attorney and she represents them and in those brothers.
She works for Mark Geragos, and we're going to have
her come on and we're going to ask her some
questions about the case.
Speaker 2 (39:21):
I'll be exciting.
Speaker 1 (39:23):
Hi, guys, Hi alex thanks for being here of course. Okay,
first of all, give me a little background. Alex and
I are friends. I actually adore her. But besides that,
give us a little background on how long you've been
involved with the case. How long have you worked with Garagoes.
Where are we at with that?
Speaker 3 (39:42):
Oh, I've been with Mark probably, I mean probably about
eight years now. I've known in my whole life when
I was a public defender. He used to think I
worked for him already, a really good family friend, and
we've been partners probably for about eight years now, and
we came on to the Menandez case. I think it's
(40:04):
been a little bit more than a year now.
Speaker 1 (40:06):
Right when the.
Speaker 3 (40:07):
Habeas was filed, we came in because it was filed
by Cliff Gardner, who's really behind the scenes, but he's
a genius in a pellet work, and so he asked
us if we would come in and do the footwork,
and so we came in right about them.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
Okay, Now, we were talking about this earlier because we
were trying to distinguish the habeas petition from the resentencing,
which are two different routes to grant them freedom. At
this point, do you have a preference, like do you
feel like the resentencing is a better route for your
clients or the habeas.
Speaker 3 (40:39):
Well, the resentencing is cleaner because if the resentsing is granted,
if the judge reduces it to a misdemeanor, they're immediately released.
Speaker 1 (40:48):
So that's the.
Speaker 3 (40:49):
Cleanest way for them to get out. If the habeas
is granted, it gives them the option of a new trial.
So there's a potential there that we have an entirely
new Menendez Brothers Jurney.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
And that's a mess.
Speaker 3 (41:02):
So for me, as a representative of my clients, I
would love to have the door just be opened and
let them be freed. So the resentencing is my preference
obviously right now.
Speaker 1 (41:11):
The hearing coming up on January thirtieth is that is
the resentencing. Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (41:15):
That's correct?
Speaker 1 (41:16):
Okay, Now when we talk about resentencing, what are the
factors that they taken into consideration, Like is the new
evidence taken into consideration at that point as well, or
is it more based upon kind of the family support,
their behavior in prison, things like that.
Speaker 3 (41:30):
So the resentsing is really just what have they done
from the time that they've been in prison until now.
That's really the only thing you're looking at and the
only real consideration for the judges. Is there a potential
that they're going to be released and re offend by
committing a super strike? And there's very specific charges that
(41:51):
are super strikes, you know, murder, rape, things like that.
So the question is is there anything in their history
while they've been in prison that would make you think
that they are potentially going to refund at a very
very serious level.
Speaker 1 (42:06):
And I assume there's nothing. Everything I've read is that
they've been nothing about model prisoners. They've gotten degrees, they've
helped other prisoners and abuse sand hospice and things like that.
Is that correct, that's correct.
Speaker 3 (42:19):
Not only have they been model citizens, but there are
no other inmates that I have ever heard of that
are like them. They had no potential for getting out,
all of their appeals had been denied, and so they
were resolved to the fact that they were going to
be in prison for the rest of their lives. And
at that point they started creating programs for other prisoners
so that when they were released they had a better
(42:41):
chance of survival without recidivism. And they focused solely on
people who needed to be comforted towards the end of
their life, who were in prison. Everything for everyone else.
So yeah, I cannot even imagine if somebody wanted to
come in and actually focus on the resentencing shoes, anything
that they would say about their time in prison, that
(43:03):
shows that they have not been rehabilitated.
Speaker 1 (43:06):
Right. And also, let me ask you, I know you
know them personally because you speak to them often. How
are they doing emotionally or mentally with everything that's going on,
with all the support they're getting from social media, are
they prepared if because there is the possibility that they
remain in prison.
Speaker 3 (43:27):
It's always an option, It's always on their minds. You know,
there's been already through this process. Just in the last year,
there's been these peaks in these valleys. I think that
from the inside it's hard to know exactly what's happening
on the outside. They don't get watched TMZ. They get
reports that are you know, third, fourth, fifth parties sometimes
(43:49):
and so they've had a lot of ups and downs.
Speaker 1 (43:52):
But they're dealing with it with it better.
Speaker 3 (43:54):
Than I ever would. They deal with everything better than
I ever would.
Speaker 2 (43:58):
Right, That was a question I was gonna ask. Are
they aware of all the support that they're getting outside
the gates, outside the prison?
Speaker 1 (44:05):
Yeah, they are.
Speaker 3 (44:05):
It means a lot time.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
I mean, that's got to be somewhat humbling to finally
have that support after you know, three decades.
Speaker 3 (44:11):
Yeah, and it's funny that you say that it they
are very thoughtful, very humble people.
Speaker 1 (44:18):
You know, Shane and I were talking before you came
on about how when the trial first occurred back in
the nineties. It was a completely different time period, and
I was saying, I think a lot of that. I've
actually I text you at night. I'm like, I'm laying
in bed and I think about these things. I was
thinking about how that time period, the people within our
peer group, we were gen X, and that was very
you know, you just you put your big girl pants on.
(44:40):
There weren't participation trophies, there wasn't gluten free, there was
nothing warm and fuzzy. It was basically like you just
you took care of yourself. And now we have this
whole new generation that watch court TV, that saw the trial,
that listened to them testify, that knows about what they've
been through. And it's a different generation and they accept
them and they believe them, and they and they embrace them.
(45:04):
And that has to be so amazing for them to
after all this time, to actually feel like what they've
been through is being recognized, right.
Speaker 3 (45:13):
I Mean, they were the butt of jokes. They were
Saturday Night Live skits about them. They were just made
fun of constantly. And for them to be this complete
oneint eighty is I think great just for them. I mean,
people don't like it. When I say it, a lot
of times I get black for it. But you know,
they are victims. They are victims, and they were put
in the position that they were in because they were abused,
and so it's I think it's healing for them to
(45:35):
see that they are being recognized as victims, not just
as monsters.
Speaker 1 (45:40):
Right.
Speaker 3 (45:40):
Yeah, I think it's great. And one thing that hasn't
really been spoken about a lot is that when they
were in and when they were putting their story out there,
when they got on the stand and they started talking
about what was happening, people inside of the jails came
to them and said, oh, my god, I would never
have done that. I never would have told my story.
But now that you have, can I talk to you
(46:02):
about it? Because I've never had anybody to talk to.
So they've started support groups inside for victims of sexual
violence and abuse that did not exist. And the idea
that there are not support groups for things like that
inside of the prisons boggled my mind. But they are
the ones who started the creation of those support groups.
Speaker 1 (46:26):
Or Yeah, that's really amazing work that they've done. Also,
how do you see them if they were let go,
if they become free. How do you see them giving back?
Is that what they talk about? Have you had conversations
with them about that? Like how they see themselves once
they're free.
Speaker 3 (46:43):
They want to keep continuing doing the work that they've
been doing. Everything they talk about about their goals are
to continue doing the work of reforming the prisons that
they've been doing from the inside.
Speaker 2 (46:53):
They might be even more motivated to do so if
they were to be released in any terms, they would
probably see the value in speaking up and recognizing prisoners
as victims of abuse or whatever they've been through. That
they might want to continue their work because they're seeing
like the fruits, right, Yeah, that that that people can
(47:14):
be released, people can be reformed, people can you know,
continue to help others. So they might be in you know,
they might feel it's more valuable for them to do
this and they'll want to just continue it. Yeah, that's
that's that's yeah, it's probably it'd probably be hard for
them to not want to continue it if they see
the results that can come of it.
Speaker 1 (47:32):
Thank you so much. I appreciate it, and I will
talk to you soon. Okay, bye bye, okay, bye bye Okay.
Speaker 2 (47:38):
So, if they do get released under under any terms,
whether it be resentencing or a new trial. And they
get out of jail, then you know, we wonder if
they're going to stay married, and this's that. But can
they there's so much popularity around this, so much Hollywood
around this, so to speak, can they benefit from any
(47:59):
of this because obviously Netflix drama, everyone's benefiting from it.
Speaker 1 (48:03):
Yeah, you know what, they actually can. So in New
York you're precluded from making money from a crime. However,
in California that's not true. So they actually can profit
from their stories.
Speaker 2 (48:15):
As far as you know, there's no restrictions.
Speaker 1 (48:17):
There's no restrictions, you know they As far as what
I've read, there is no There's nothing left of this
fourteen million dollar inheritance. It has all gone. It went.
A lot of it paid for the defense the first
couple of trials. Also, the house had a mortgage that
had to be paid, there were taxes that had to
be paid.
Speaker 2 (48:33):
Everyone was probably, yeah, putting their hand in thee.
Speaker 1 (48:36):
There's no money left. However, you're talking about two men
that are on the popularity scale of like a Kardashian.
So if they do happen by chance to come out
of prison, I am sure that there will be some
bidding wars over who gets the first interview with them,
and you're talking millions.
Speaker 2 (48:54):
Of because the worry would be they come out of
jail or prison and then they don't like have something
to you know, to grasp on to financially support themselves.
And yet everyone else is profited. But you're saying that
they can they carefully, they do it properly and not
be taken advantage of. But they can use their stories.
Speaker 1 (49:15):
Yes, interviews, social media, book deals. Yes, there there is
the potential for.
Speaker 4 (49:22):
The reality shows podcast, There is the potential for them
to make a lot of money. Yes, okay, all right,
thanks guys for listening to our very first podcast on
the Menindez Brothers, and thanks so much for listening.
Speaker 2 (49:34):
Thank you,
Hosts And Creators
Teddi Mellencamp
Tamra Judge
Popular Podcasts
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.
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.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.