In the second trial, Judge Stanley Weisberg (who had also presided over the previous Menendez trial) not only barred television coverage, he also put severe limits on what evidence and testimony the defense could use. At the time, both the judge and the District Attorney's Office were under a tremendous amount of pressure to get a conviction, not only because the first trial had ended in hung juries but also due in large part to the OJ Simpson acquittal. Prosecutor David Conn also fought to keep the testimony and evidence from the defense from the first trial out. This included photos of the brothers taken when they were children, in which they were naked and the emphasis was on the lower parts of their bodies. He ultimately won, and the only testimony allowed by the defense until the penalty phase was that of the brothers themselves. They had no family members, friends or experts (on child sexual abuse and medical evidence), as they had had in the first trial, to corroborate their claims. The only other defense witnesses who testified were not permitted to do so until after the brothers had been convicted. The brothers, despite the terrible crime they committed, were still legally entitled to a defense, and the judge and prosecution made sure that they didn't have one. Ironically, it is for this very reason that the brothers can now appeal their case once again. At the time, it was argued that "the battered woman syndrome" could not be used for them because they are male, which is ridiculous because males can be and often are abused. Jose Menendez was 44 years old at the time of his death, and in very good physical shape, so it's not hard to believe that he posed a threat, and he was also a very prominent, powerful individual; and no matter what the parent is always seen has having more credibility in abuse situations, even when the abused children grow up. I speak from personal experience, because by the time I was able to talk about the abuse I suffered as a child, I was accused of lying, told that there was something wrong with me and that I was crazy. Kitty Menendez, while in some ways a victim in her own right, was not an innocent bystander. No matter how bad things got, and how unhappy she and her sons became, she refused to leave the marriage; she always chose to stay with Jose. She essentially chose her husband over her children, and she failed to protect them. The argument that the brothers were adults who could have left is a valid one, but you have to remember that neither Lyle nor Erik had the skills necessary to survive in the real world, because their parents did not allow them to live normal lives. In many ways, psychologically and emotionally, they were still children.
Most of the brothers' family members rallied to their defense, testified for them in the first trial and remain supportive of them. While they agree that nothing excuses what Lyle and Erik did, they also know that the brothers were not given the unconditional love, nurturing and guidance that they needed.
It has been confirmed by family members (and by Erik Menendez himself in a taped interview with journalist Robert Rand in October 1989) that Jose showered with his sons, even when they were old enough to do so themselves. This is not normal. Neither is the fact that when the family lived in Calabasas, Jose drilled a hole in the ceiling of Erik's bedroom in order to spy on him. In the first trial, it was ironically, the prosecution who wanted to present this evidence (which Judge Weisberg would not allow), claiming that the reason that Jose did this was because he was "concerned about his son's sexuality". In a blatant attempt to present their own agenda, they overlooked the fact that this behavior on Jose's part was not only highly inappropriate, but actually exposed a disturbing character trait. (The prosecution in both trials was always trying to prove that Erik was gay or bisexual, and that was the real reason that he knew about sex between males, and Jose, who was known to be homophobic, was upset about this. Erik did admit to being confused about his sexuality, and if his father was molesting him, that could account for why. Also, many fathers who sexually abuse their sons are homophobic). Spying on someone in an area that is supposed to be private, such as a bedroom and/or a bathroom, is actually a form of sexual abuse. When Jose Menendez did this, he was committing what is called "psychological incest". Again, this is not normal behavior; parents who are loving, respectful and genuinely concerned about their children do not drill holes in walls or ceilings in their children's bedrooms and spy on them. If this scenario had involved a father spying on a daughter in the same manner, no matter what the reasoning, I highly doubt the prosecution would have tried to present it as evidence; not only would it have been an outrage, but it would have been a benefit to the defense.
As for the possibility of a third trial, time will tell.
