CA - Court upholds Menendez brothers' convictions

[Noirdame79]

It's not a ridiculous argument, it's connecting the dots. Two young men were expected to attend university, complete degrees and work. Neither was interested in studying.

Their parents had $14M. The men wanted to live a wealthy lifestyle with nice cars, nice watch, expensive clothing. They decided to murder their parents, blame gangsters, and live the good life.

After meeting their lawyer, they produced an unbelievable story about abuse. It was not believed at the time, and there's no reason to believe it now. There was no 1980s culture that was ignorant of child abuse. That's a myth.

It was Jose's idea that Lyle attend Princeton, because he himself had never attended an Ivy League university. His grades weren't high enough to get him in, so Jose pulled a few strings (and made a generous donation to the University). Jose was living vicariously through Lyle, and didn't care what his son wanted. That is not good parenting. Erik had learning disabilities (including dysgraphia and dyslexia) but he managed to graduate from high school with a B average. He was excited about going to UCLA and moving into a dorm. Lyle was not opposed to going to college, he just didn't think that Princeton was right for him, but he felt he had to do what his father wanted. Lyle and Erik were both good tennis players and did work hard in school (as confirmed by their teachers, who were all fond of them) but they struggled due to their parents not getting any help for any learning issues they had, and their tennis practicing didn't leave much time for studying. Kitty would actually do their homework for them, and Jose and Kitty encouraged cheating, basically anything to get ahead, and they did that themselves. The parents were the problem.

Lyle told the police after the killings that it may have been business-related; he did not tell them that the mafia was responsible. The police considered that possibility when they were looking into Jose's business, and that was reported in the press at the time. Lyle became concerned that the mafia might come after him and Erik because of what was being reported in the media (aka that the mob may have been responsible) and that's why he hired bodyguards.

Again, there is no evidence that it was for money. The grand jury refused to hand down an indictment that the killings were motivated by financial gain because there was no evidence to support it.

There was a huge amount of evidence to support the abuse - eyewitness testimony, expert testimony, school records, photographs, and medical reports, all of which were present in the first trial. There was more evidence of abuse than in most abuse cases, and a prosecutor would be over the moon if they were prosecuting a child abuse case with that amount of evidence.

 

[steeltowngirl]

There was more evidence of abuse than in most abuse cases, and a prosecutor would be over the moon if they were prosecuting a child abuse case with that amount of evidence.

^ believe this.

If only there would have been an investigation of the abuse, charges brought. Possibly, the parents would have gone to jail, but would be alive today. Instead, they effectively received the death penalty and execution by their sons, minus the right to court and due process. Bypassing justice, and legally, committing murder.

jmo

 

[Noirdame79]

^ believe this.

If only there would have been an investigation of the abuse, charges brought. Possibly, the parents would have gone to jail, but would be alive today. Instead, they effectively received the death penalty and execution by their sons, minus the right to court and due process. Bypassing justice, and legally, committing murder.

jmo

If only, but given Jose's power, that likely would not have happened, at least not back then. I found it laughable when Pamela Bozanich said in her closing argument that if there was any evidence of Jose being a predator, the L.A. District Attorney's Office would have brought him up on charges. It's funny due to her involvement in the second McMartin Preschool trial, in which the prosecution presented faulty evidence and testimony to falsely convict Raymond Buckey of child sexual abuse. I cannot take anything she says seriously.

 

[Noirdame79]

Found this earlier post up thread to be interesting. The Los Angeles Times online July 9, 2019 article by Leila Miller is entitled ‘Psychiatrist who admitted altering notes in Menendez brothers’ murder trial in the ’90s surrenders license’. Link is given below to the article.

As I understand it, appears the defense counsel Abramsom was alleged to have pressured a defense witness therapist to alter their notes. Those allegations were apparently denied by counsel. The State Bar of California later cleared Abramson of misconduct for her representation of EM. IIUC the allegations of that pressured witness arose during the second trial. MOO

Psychiatrist who admitted altering notes in Menendez brothers’ murder trial in the ’90s surrenders license

A psychiatrist who caused an uproar in the 1990s when he admitted altering clinical notes in the infamous Menendez brothers’ murder trial has agreed to surrender his medical license over new allegations of wrongdoing, according to the Medical Board of California.

www.latimes.com

Neither Abramson nor Vicary were ever charged with any misconduct. The events leading up to Vicary surrendering his license had nothing to do with his handling of the Menendez case.

 

[otto]

It was Jose's idea that Lyle attend Princeton, because he himself had never attended an Ivy League university. His grades weren't high enough to get him in, so Jose pulled a few strings (and made a generous donation to the University). Jose was living vicariously through Lyle, and didn't care what his son wanted. That is not good parenting. Erik had learning disabilities (including dysgraphia and dyslexia) but he managed to graduate from high school with a B average. He was excited about going to UCLA and moving into a dorm. Lyle was not opposed to going to college, he just didn't think that Princeton was right for him, but he felt he had to do what his father wanted. Lyle and Erik were both good tennis players and did work hard in school (as confirmed by their teachers, who were all fond of them) but they struggled due to their parents not getting any help for any learning issues they had, and their tennis practicing didn't leave much time for studying. Kitty would actually do their homework for them, and Jose and Kitty encouraged cheating, basically anything to get ahead, and they did that themselves. The parents were the problem.

Lyle told the police after the killings that it may have been business-related; he did not tell them that the mafia was responsible. The police considered that possibility when they were looking into Jose's business, and that was reported in the press at the time. Lyle became concerned that the mafia might come after him and Erik because of what was being reported in the media (aka that the mob may have been responsible) and that's why he hired bodyguards.

Again, there is no evidence that it was for money. The grand jury refused to hand down an indictment that the killings were motivated by financial gain because there was no evidence to support it.

There was a huge amount of evidence to support the abuse - eyewitness testimony, expert testimony, school records, photographs, and medical reports, all of which were present in the first trial. There was more evidence of abuse than in most abuse cases, and a prosecutor would be over the moon if they were prosecuting a child abuse case with that amount of evidence.

In 1980, like today, parents sometimes want their children to study for a specific degree at university. How often do we hear that someone became a doctor, dentist, or lawyer to make their parents proud? That is as common today as it was 80 years ago. That's not abuse, that's parenting.

Parents doing homework for their children? That still happens today. That's not abuse, and that's not child neglect. That's misguided parents trying to get their child to the finish line.

There is evidence that the men murdered their parents for money. Specifically, as soon as their parents were dead, the men started spending their parents' money to buy a house and restaurant, a Porsche, Rolex, and more. They were showing off their wealth and luxury living with limos and chauffeurs. That is evidence that the men murdered for money.

I haven't facts supporting evidence of abuse. Is there a link to that evidence?

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Neither Abramson nor Vicary were ever charged with any misconduct. The events leading up to Vicary surrendering his license had nothing to do with his handling of the Menendez case.

Yes @Noirdame79 ….. I understand. And as I stated in the prior message, I found it interesting.

It is sometimes said that a leopard doesn’t change or lose its spots. MOO

 

[otto]

Neither Abramson nor Vicary were ever charged with any misconduct. The events leading up to Vicary surrendering his license had nothing to do with his handling of the Menendez case.

Vicary was disciplined, and was no longer allowed to testify in court. He was not charged, but his reputation was permanently damaged. His loss of licence was a consequence of unethical conduct as a professional - including during the Menendez trial.

"He was also placed on probation for three years in April 1998 in relation to his work during the high-profile murder trial of Erik and Lyle Menendez, who were convicted of fatally shooting their parents in 1989 at the family’s Beverly Hills mansion. Lyle was 21 and Erik was 18 at the time of the killings.
...

The State Bar of California cleared Abramson of misconduct, but Vicary was removed in 1996 from a panel of mental health professionals who are appointed by county judges to analyze and testify about defendants in court."

Psychiatrist who admitted altering notes in Menendez brothers’ murder trial in the ’90s surrenders license

A psychiatrist who caused an uproar in the 1990s when he admitted altering clinical notes in the infamous Menendez brothers’ murder trial has agreed to surrender his medical license over new allegations of wrongdoing, according to the Medical Board of California.

www.latimes.com

 

[Noirdame79]

In 1980, like today, parents sometimes want their children to study for a specific degree at university. How often do we hear that someone became a doctor, dentist, or lawyer to make their parents proud? That is as common today as it was 80 years ago. That's not abuse, that's parenting.

Parents doing homework for their children? That still happens today. That's not abuse, and that's not child neglect. That's misguided parents trying to get their child to the finish line.

There is evidence that the men murdered their parents for money. Specifically, as soon as their parents were dead, the men started spending their parents' money to buy a house and restaurant, a Porsche, Rolex, and more. They were showing off their wealth and luxury living with limos and chauffeurs. That is evidence that the men murdered for money.

I haven't facts supporting evidence of abuse. Is there a link to that evidence?

The first trial is available to watch on both YouTube and Court TV's website. The corroborative evidence of abuse was entered as evidence and shown to the juries.

Doing your children's homework does not help them, it hinders them. Lyle and Erik would fail their tests because their homework was being done for them. How did that help them? What makes it worse is that Kitty was also a former grade school teacher. The teachers all knew that Kitty was doing her sons' homework but were too afraid to confront Jose and Kitty. Doing your children's homework doesn't help them learn, and is a form of educational neglect, just as Jose and Kitty refused to get Erik help for his learning problems. It is abuse.

As a parent, it is wrong to make your children live your dreams instead of their own. That is toxic. Your children are not you. This was about Jose getting to live through Lyle regarding attending an Ivy League University. He would also help Lyle with his assignments over the phone, which proved that Lyle didn't get into Princeton on his own merit, but because Jose paid to get him in. That is setting your children up for failure. That is toxic, abusive, and shows that you don't really care about them. You care about appearances, not the child.

Again, spending large amounts of money, which they were accustomed to doing, does not prove it was for money. None of it came from the estate, they had to get approval from their relatives for every purchase they made (if you watch the first trial, this was corroborated by several people, including relatives). They were not free to buy whatever they wanted, and they did seek advice from their relatives regarding purchases. That does not fit with the profile of two greedy kids who were spending money on whatever their hearts desired. If they wanted to kill their parents for money, they would have done it earlier, like when Jose told them they were out of the will months prior, or they would have waited for him to take the physical for an insurance policy through his company, which they knew he had not done at the time of the killings. If you watch the first trial, you will be made aware of this. The money motive was one of many motives that the prosecution was unable to prove.

 

[Noirdame79]

Vicary was disciplined, and was no longer allowed to testify in court. He was not charged, but his reputation was permanently damaged. His loss of licence was a consequence of unethical conduct as a professional - including during the Menendez trial.

"He was also placed on probation for three years in April 1998 in relation to his work during the high-profile murder trial of Erik and Lyle Menendez, who were convicted of fatally shooting their parents in 1989 at the family’s Beverly Hills mansion. Lyle was 21 and Erik was 18 at the time of the killings.
...

The State Bar of California cleared Abramson of misconduct, but Vicary was removed in 1996 from a panel of mental health professionals who are appointed by county judges to analyze and testify about defendants in court."

Psychiatrist who admitted altering notes in Menendez brothers’ murder trial in the ’90s surrenders license

A psychiatrist who caused an uproar in the 1990s when he admitted altering clinical notes in the infamous Menendez brothers’ murder trial has agreed to surrender his medical license over new allegations of wrongdoing, according to the Medical Board of California.

www.latimes.com

He surrendered his license because he had over-prescribed his patients, and that was years after the trials. It had nothing to do with how he handled this case. He edited those notes at the request of Leslie Abramson, and those lines had nothing to do with the abuse, nor did they suggest that the abuse was fabricated.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

He surrendered his license because he had over-prescribed his patients, and that was years after the trials. It had nothing to do with how he handled this case. He edited those notes at the request of Leslie Abramson, and those lines had nothing to do with the abuse, nor did they suggest that the abuse was fabricated.

Thank you for the additional clarification @Noirdame79 . Is there a public document or link that further describes that result and the disposition of the matter with the therapist?

Would also be interested to see what the State of California documents (if publicly available) indicate as to the defense counsel. I am only able to locate details behind a paywall.

Regarding a defense witness’ notes and a suggestion of being altered and / or changed at the request of a defense attorney……. IMO even an allegation of such is rather troubling and disturbing. MOO

 

[Noirdame79]

Thank you for the additional clarification @Noirdame79 . Is there a public document or link that further describes that result and the disposition of the matter with the therapist?

Would also be interested to see what the State of California documents (if publicly available) indicate as to the defense counsel. I am only able to locate details behind a paywall.

Regarding a defense witness’ notes and a suggestion of being altered and / or changed at the request of a defense attorney……. IMO even an allegation of such is rather troubling and disturbing. MOO

I don't think I will be allowed to link to it but there is an article in the L.A. Times about it (from 2019), he was also accused of inadequate record-keeping.

The altering of the notes should not have happened, however, I will say that the prosecutors in the case have also been very unethical and dishonest themselves.