CA - Court upholds Menendez brothers' convictions

[otto]

Lyle and Eric Menendez shot their father 4 times (he's dying) before putting their gun into their father's mouth (did they have to prop it open) and blowing off the back of his head. Their mother was alive when this happened. That adds emotional pain during death. They shot their mother 10 times before taking a break to reload, then fire the deadly shot. What did they say to each other and to their mother while this was going on?

If their father was the abuser, why did their mother get the worst of it with 6 more bullets and a reload slow death? She watched the murder of her husband by her son - maximum emotional pain. Gun in the mouth. Brutal. So far, this seems to be about Eric and Lyle having a twisted 6 year old childhood relationship with a toothbrush and a pin. Who put the gun in their father's mouth?

Maybe that's something Eric and Lyle Menendez could elaborate on in their documentary series - since dramatization is so disappointing. Who put the gun in their father's mouth? Who killed their mother?

 

[Bluebear15]

There's a documentary coming onto Netflix on Oct 7, which includes interviews with Lyle & Erik.

https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/the-menendez-brothers-documentary-release-date-photos-news

 

[Betty P]

Ok, I've decided to watch the Netflix show, I hope I don't regret it. This was one of those cases where everyone grew so weary of the trial, etc.

No matter how much their attorneys tried, the brothers were still unlikeable. It was difficult to summon any sympathy for the horrible murders. The materialism, arrogance, the manipulative, selfish behavior.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Ok, I've decided to watch the Netflix show, I hope I don't regret it. This was one of those cases where everyone grew so weary of the trial, etc.

No matter how much their attorneys tried, the brothers were still unlikeable. It was difficult to summon any sympathy for the horrible murders. The materialism, arrogance, the manipulative, selfish behavior.

I think it was worth the watch. I did not follow the case, but knew about it, not a lot, really. So, I watched with open eyes and without preconceived notions.

All of those traits were depicted - the materialism, arrogance, selfishness, manipulation. Also depicted was the abuse, in graphic detail, as told mainly through the brothers’ eyes, but also from relatives and acquaintances, to some degree.

There is no doubt the murders were premeditated. If the abuse by their father was anywhere near what was described, their mother had to know. Maybe they thought no one outside the family would believe them. Very troubling.

They were adults at the time of the murders. That’s the part that I can’t wrap my head around. They had options. They could have gone to authorities. They could have just left. I couldn’t see their actions as self-defense legally, and apparently a jury didn’t either.

Maybe they were abused, and maybe they murdered their parents for financial gain and revenge. Both could be true.

jmo

 

[gitana1]

I think it was worth the watch. I did not follow the case, but knew about it, not a lot, really. So, I watched with open eyes and without preconceived notions.

All of those traits were depicted - the materialism, arrogance, selfishness, manipulation. Also depicted was the abuse, in graphic detail, as told mainly through the brothers’ eyes, but also from relatives and acquaintances, to some degree.

There is no doubt the murders were premeditated. If the abuse by their father was anywhere near what was described, their mother had to know. Maybe they thought no one outside the family would believe them. Very troubling.

They were adults at the time of the murders. That’s the part that I can’t wrap my head around. They had options. They could have gone to authorities. They could have just left. I couldn’t see their actions as self-defense legally, and apparently a jury didn’t either.

Maybe they were abused, and maybe they murdered their parents for financial gain and revenge. Both could be true.

jmo

Yes. I’m with you.

I clearly remember the trial. I thought they lied about the abuse. The female attorney’s attempts to make her client seem frail and boyish were annoying.

Since then, more facts have come out to indicate that indeed, the father and possibly the mother were abusive. I mean there is usually a reason people become criminals.

Does that mitigate the crimes they committed? It could, for sure. But there are things that sort of mute those mitigators:

1. Premeditation.
2. They were adults who could have left instead of killing their parents.
3. The cold blooded manner of killing.
4. The crazy spending and buying and living large after the murders.

Is it true that they were so twisted by abuse that it turned them into killers? I’m certain. But as a society, we have consequences for criminal activity despite what led to it, for a reason: because unless they were totally insane or forced to kill or actually killing in self-defense (rather than worrying about some future possible harm to themselves), they had a choice. They could have gone to the police, filed for protective orders, etc.

They had a choice not to brutally murder their parents. Our laws aren’t supposed to enable people to take the law into their own hands.

 

[Betty P]

Yes. I’m with you.

I clearly remember the trial. I thought they lied about the abuse. The female attorney’s attempts to make her client seem frail and boyish were annoying.

Since then, more facts have come out to indicate that indeed, the father and possibly the mother were abusive. I mean there is usually a reason people become criminals.

Does that mitigate the crimes they committed? It could, for sure. But there are things that sort of mute those mitigators:

1. Premeditation.
2. They were adults who could have left instead of killing their parents.
3. The cold blooded manner of killing.
4. The crazy spending and buying and living large after the murders.

Is it true that they were so twisted by abuse that it turned them into killers? I’m certain. But as a society, we have consequences for criminal activity despite what led to it, for a reason: because unless they were totally insane or forced to kill or actually killing in self-defense (rather than worrying about some future possible harm to themselves), they had a choice. They could have gone to the police, filed for protective orders, etc.

They had a choice not to brutally murder their parents. Our laws aren’t supposed to enable people to take the law into their own hands.

Two episodes in and its so unpleasant to watch.

I remember the case, too. It occupied the news media heavily, and was only replaced by OJ Simpson murdering his wife and Ron Goldman.
I agree with all your points and my opinion hasn't changed. Much of it has to do with how they went about it and how it seemed as much a grab for their parents fortune as revenge for the abuse. They could have walked away, gotten jobs, got their own apartments, etc. and waited for their parents to pass on, to inherit the estate. They certainly should have reported it to police, though admittedly, it would have been difficult to get LAPD or Bev Hills PD to respond. In 1989, there hadn't been much awareness raised about child sexual abuse.

Learning more about possible abuse doesn't change or mitigate the circumstances, though. As you say, it was premeditated, they had other options and they couldn't use an insanity defense. In most cases, wouldn't the killers end up with LWOP? Do they still present a possible threat?

 

[theonewithallthequestions]

Psychiatrists who evaluated the brothers at the time said that their mental growth was stunted and that they had the mental capacity of I believe 8-10 (Erik) and 12-14 (Lyle).

IMO It’s easy to say/think, “why didn’t they just leave.” But they had been abused, isolated, and were taught to mistrust everyone for so long (and starting from such an early age of life). That kind of treatment has an impact on brain development and they likely couldn’t think about the situation rationally like a person who grew up in a safe, loving environment.

There’s also a lot of misinformation regarding the spending spree.
-Family members have said that their spending after the murders was on par for what the family spent beforehand. They grew up rich and always had access to credit cards.
-All of their purchases were approved of by their family. Their uncle was the executor of their parent’s estate and they called him before making any purchases.
-The brothers didn’t think they were inheriting anything. Their parents told them several times they had already been written out of the will. Family and friends testified to this
-The brothers knew they weren’t getting a payout from their father’s multi million dollar work insurance. They knew that their dad skipped taking his physical due to a heart issue he was trying to keep secret. He was scheduled to take the required physical in a few months I believe. The only payout the brothers received was from a personal insurance policy that they weren’t even aware of until after the murders

 

[Seattle1]

I've not watched "Monsters" but I've long believed premeditation and greed over rode any physical/sexual abuse.

These were not children but young men, 18 and 21, and I think they both felt justified in taking the lives of their parents when at the same time feared being written out of the will and thought it best to act sooner than later-- for financial gain.

On Aug 20, 1989, the parents had recently purchased a condo for Lyle at Princeton where he was supposed to return to NJ the following week after being suspended for more than a year, and Erik was a registering freshman in LA.

IMO, the parents were welcoming being empty nesters, and on this fatal date, the sons were actually looking at the best opportunity of their lives to move away from their alleged tormentors. IMO, they desired to make the break but not without the gold!

I remember following the mistrial with the horrible testimony about abuse when 2.5 years of taped calls between Lyle and Norma came out which really put the witness testimony in perspective, including Lyle. I definitely felt played. JMO

Lyle Menendez Agreed to Taping of Phone Calls, Woman Testifies

A San Fernando Valley woman, who befriended Lyle Menendez and for 2 1/2 years taped phone calls she had with him, testified Monday that he freely gave his consent to being recorded because they planned to write a book together.

www.latimes.com

ETA: After 34 years of incarceration, I did support them being considered for release but not for reduced charge of self defense. I'll never believe they murdered in self defense!

 

[gitana1]

Psychiatrists who evaluated the brothers at the time said that their mental growth was stunted and that they had the mental capacity of I believe 8-10 (Erik) and 12-14 (Lyle).

IMO It’s easy to say/think, “why didn’t they just leave.” But they had been abused, isolated, and were taught to mistrust everyone for so long (and starting from such an early age of life). That kind of treatment has an impact on brain development and they likely couldn’t think about the situation rationally like a person who grew up in a safe, loving environment.

There’s also a lot of misinformation regarding the spending spree.
-Family members have said that their spending after the murders was on par for what the family spent beforehand. They grew up rich and always had access to credit cards. -All of their purchases were approved of by their family. Their uncle was the executor of their parent’s estate and they called him before making any purchases.
-The brothers didn’t think they were inheriting anything. Their parents told them several times they had already been written out of the will. Family and friends testified to this
-The brothers knew they weren’t getting a payout from their father’s multi million dollar work insurance. They knew that their dad skipped taking his physical due to a heart issue he was trying to keep secret. He was scheduled to take the required physical in a few months I believe. The only payout the brothers received was from a personal insurance policy that they weren’t even aware of until after the murders

They bought real estate. Super expensive cars. They didn’t have the ability to do that in their own, before that.
And they were mentally competent enough to conduct such transactions.

But let’s go with they were emotionally aged 8-10 and 12-14. What do we think about kids those ages who would do what these two did? In the manner in which they did it?

I’ve heard of kids shooting their parents. Usually one shot. But to open their mouth and insert the shotgun? Or to shoot over and over and over? What 9 or 13 year old does something like that? Premeditated? And what should happen to a child if they do?

Also, when diagnosing them as “emotionally” childlike, does that meant that intellectually they were disabled? Did not have the mental capacity to understand what they were doing? Or the consequences?

IMO, no. They were aware of different options that they could have taken. They knew they could be charged with murder and even sentenced to death if they killed their parents. They understood the finality of death.

I don’t see how their supposed emotional age mitigates the crimes they committed under the circumstances.

ETA: I looked it up. One’s emotional age has to do with their maturity level. Not their intellectual capacity or even their emotional quotient (EQ).

 

[theonewithallthequestions]

They bought real estate. Super expensive cars. They didn’t have the ability to do that in their own, before that.
And they were mentally competent enough to conduct such transactions.

But let’s go with they were emotionally aged 8-10 and 12-14. What do we think about kids those ages who would do what these two did? In the manner in which they did it?

I’ve heard of kids shooting their parents. Usually one shot. But to open their mouth and insert the shotgun? Or to shoot over and over and over? What 9 or 13 year old does something like that? Premeditated? And what should happen to a child if they do?

Also, when diagnosing them as “emotionally” childlike, does that meant that intellectually they were disabled? Did not have the mental capacity to understand what they were doing? Or the consequences?

IMO, no. They were aware of different options that they could have taken. They knew they could be charged with murder and even sentenced to death if they killed their parents. They understood the finality of death.

I don’t see how their supposed emotional age mitigates the crimes they committed under the circumstances.

ETA: I looked it up. One’s emotional age has to do with their maturity level. Not their intellectual capacity or even their emotional quotient (EQ).

As I said in my post, child abuse impacts brain development. Nobody, not even the brothers, has said that they were justified in killing their parents. The reason the abuse is important and brought up is because due to the events that they testified occurred in the days leading up to the murders (threatening to expose their father’s abuse) they thought they were in danger. That might not be the conclusion an average person would make, but to two people who had been abused and threatened their whole lives? I can see how they would genuinely believe that their lives were in danger.

Again, the purchases were approved of by their family. Their uncle, Carlos Baralt, was the executor of their parents estate.

I have not seen or heard anything about either brother opening their father’s mouth and inserting a shotgun.

I also think it’s telling that to this day, both sides of their family believe and support the brothers and want them to be released.

 

[Seattle1]

I think it was worth the watch. I did not follow the case, but knew about it, not a lot, really. So, I watched with open eyes and without preconceived notions.

All of those traits were depicted - the materialism, arrogance, selfishness, manipulation. Also depicted was the abuse, in graphic detail, as told mainly through the brothers’ eyes, but also from relatives and acquaintances, to some degree.

There is no doubt the murders were premeditated. If the abuse by their father was anywhere near what was described, their mother had to know. Maybe they thought no one outside the family would believe them. Very troubling.

They were adults at the time of the murders. That’s the part that I can’t wrap my head around. They had options. They could have gone to authorities. They could have just left. I couldn’t see their actions as self-defense legally, and apparently a jury didn’t either.

Maybe they were abused, and maybe they murdered their parents for financial gain and revenge. Both could be true.

jmo

I perceived Kitty was emotionally abused by her husband if not both physically and emotionally abused but I believe she was murdered by her sons because this was the only way they could inherit 100% of the estate. Mom needed to be eliminated from the probate equation. JMO

 

[theonewithallthequestions]

I perceived Kitty was emotionally abused by her husband if not both physically and emotionally abused but I believe she was murdered by her sons because this was the only way they could inherit 100% of the estate. Mom needed to be eliminated from the probate equation. JMO

Family members testified that the brothers believed they had already been written out of the will before the murders

Per Jose’s sister, Marta Menendez Cano:
“Both brothers wrongly believed that they had been written out of the will, she said, and “were so honestly convinced they got nothing they were not interested in the numbers.””

“Included in the estimates she gave the brothers at the Aug. 24 meeting, Cano said Monday, were assets not part of the probated estate: a $650,000 insurance policy, which was paid to the brothers, and a $5-million policy, which was not paid because Jose Menendez did not take the required physical exam.
At that meeting, she said, Lyle and Erik Menendez believed that their father had written them out of his will. But Cano said she knew better because her brother had told her four months beforehand that he had not altered his will, written in 1981.”

Source: Size of Estate Shocked Brothers, Aunt Testifies : Trial: Judge has not decided if Menendez jurors will hear her testimony--a key piece of evidence in defense's case.

Estate Executor and Uncle Carlos Baralt:

“Baralt said that in June or July, 1989, Jose Menendez, who was his brother-in-law, told him of his plans for the will.

“He wanted to leave Erik and Lyle off the will,” Baralt said. “I did express some concern about how he would tell them. . . . He said he already had.””

Source: Father's Plans to Disinherit Menendez Brothers Described