CA - Court upholds Menendez brothers' convictions

[Recidivist]

Free the boys!

 

[cocomod]

Manslaughter would have been an appropriate conviction in this case - 25 years - 10 years for each parent, plus a weapon charge - which means that the Menendez brothers were not going to "get off". That's the misconception that many people have about this case - neither the brothers nor their attorneys ever claimed that the killings were justified, or that the parents deserved to die. They were just trying to explain why it happened.

RSBM

I think they should be able to get out given the sentence they have served.

For me, I look at all of the parents that abuse and kill their children and get out in 20. The rapists that serve little to no sentence. The DUI drivers that have 20 tickets, then they hit and kill someone to then only serve 10-20.

I honestly believe these boys were abused. I don’t see another motive and I don’t see complete evil in them. JMHO

 

[Chelly]

I am wondering now about gender bias. If the Menendez brothers had been girls, would they be out of prison by now?

 

[arielilane]

I vaguely recall the trial and media claims of Menendez bros' motive for money, the over sensationalization of defense attorney with one of the brothers, etc. Had the new evidence been introduced into court it possibly would have made a difference? Agree with others, it’s time to free the brothers. MOO

 

[LunaticFringe]

Free the boys!

They should have been sent to Death Row.I hope they both die in prison.

 

[Noirdame79]

They should have been sent to Death Row.I hope they both die in prison.

Watch the first trial. The prosecution's case was extremely weak and they couldn't prove any of their theories. That was why, in the second trial, the judge and prosecutors did everything in their power to limit and block defense evidence and testimony, because they knew they wouldn't get a conviction without it.

It's bizarre that the D.A.'s Office sought the death penalty against the Menendez brothers, who had no history of violence prior to killing their parents, yet this same D.A.'s Office did not seek the death penalty against O.J. Simpson, who not only did have a history of violence but was known to have abused and stalked one of the people that he killed. It makes no sense.

 

[Recidivist]

They should have been sent to Death Row.I hope they both die in prison.

California no longer has a death row.

 

[ilovewings]

They should have been sent to Death Row.I hope they both die in prison.

Sadly think about the abused children out there- there are lots: if just half those children murdered their parents there would not be enough room in the prisons to hold them all.

The question for me is this: Were they in imminent danger: I don't believe that was the case, no matter what they say, and they say after the fact THEY REALIZED THEY WERE NOT IN IMMINENT DANGER THAT NIGHT!

It is fascinating how, with hindsight and social media, some of these murder cases get a new life. I am sure if Ted Bundy were still alive there would be those saying he really wasn't such a bad guy, and go thru his life's experiences- so maybe he should not have gotten the death penalty, blah blah blah.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

I am wondering now about gender bias. If the Menendez brothers had been girls, would they be out of prison by now?

I think, yes; definitely yes. Had the sexual abuse been allowed in the 2nd trial, as it should have been, I don't think they'd have been convicted. I strongly recommend the documentary Menendez and Menudo.

 

[Noirdame79]

Sadly think about the abused children out there- there are lots: if just half those children murdered their parents there would not be enough room in the prisons to hold them all.

The question for me is this: Were they in imminent danger: I don't believe that was the case, no matter what they say, and they say after the fact THEY REALIZED THEY WERE NOT IN IMMINENT DANGER THAT NIGHT!

It is fascinating how, with hindsight and social media, some of these murder cases get a new life. I am sure if Ted Bundy were still alive there would be those saying he really wasn't such a bad guy, and go thru his life's experiences- so maybe he should not have gotten the death penalty, blah blah blah.

They believed at the time that they were imminent danger when they killed their parents. The fear was 100% real, which is why it should have ended in a manslaughter conviction.

People do kill their abusers out of fear. Not every situation is the same, some abuse victims feel they have no other option, which is where Learned Helplessness comes in.

The comparison with serial killers is ridiculous. Killing your abusers out of fear in no way compares to torturing and murdering a large number of people. There is no room for Ted Bundy or any other serial killer into this discussion.

 

[ilovewings]

They believed at the time that they were imminent danger when they killed their parents. The fear was 100% real, which is why it should have ended in a manslaughter conviction.

People do kill their abusers out of fear. Not every situation is the same, some abuse victims feel they have no other option, which is where Learned Helplessness comes in.

The comparison with serial killers is ridiculous. Killing your abusers out of fear in no way compares to torturing and murdering a large number of people. There is no room for Ted Bundy or any other serial killer into this discussion.

My point was that retrospectively we tend to look at cases differently-- especially these days with social media and podcasts.

 

[Noirdame79]

My point was that retrospectively we tend to look at cases differently-- especially these days with social media and podcasts.

True. However, with this case, social media has also made it possible for people to watch the first trial in its entirety, which is why many have changed their minds about this case. The defense was very strong, had expert witnesses, and was able to refute the prosecution's motives (which changed throughout the trial) and they were even able to show that some of the state's witnesses were lying.

 

[LunaticFringe]

California no longer has a death row.

I know...I meant back when it happened.

 

[LunaticFringe]

Watch the first trial. The prosecution's case was extremely weak and they couldn't prove any of their theories. That was why, in the second trial, the judge and prosecutors did everything in their power to limit and block defense evidence and testimony, because they knew they wouldn't get a conviction without it.

It's bizarre that the D.A.'s Office sought the death penalty against the Menendez brothers, who had no history of violence prior to killing their parents, yet this same D.A.'s Office did not seek the death penalty against O.J. Simpson, who not only did have a history of violence but was known to have abused and stalked one of the people that he killed. It makes no sense.

I don't have to watch it. They blew their parents away. There is absolutely nothing that will ever convince me that they shouldn't be incarcerated. NOTHING.

 

[LunaticFringe]

They believed at the time that they were imminent danger when they killed their parents. The fear was 100% real, which is why it should have ended in a manslaughter conviction.

People do kill their abusers out of fear. Not every situation is the same, some abuse victims feel they have no other option, which is where Learned Helplessness comes in.

The comparison with serial killers is ridiculous. Killing your abusers out of fear in no way compares to torturing and murdering a large number of people. There is no room for Ted Bundy or any other serial killer into this discussion.

The only people that were in danger were the ones who were murdered in cold blood.

 

[Noirdame79]

I don't have to watch it. They blew their parents away. There is absolutely nothing that will ever convince me that they shouldn't be incarcerated. NOTHING.

Again, they should have been convicted of manslaughter, which would have amounted to 25 years.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Many victims of abuse feel they can't leave. Their parents controlled everything. They knew that their father was a powerful man who had the resources to track them down in if they left; they didn't think they could successfully escape their parents, nor did they think anyone would believe them. There are people who kill their abusers out of fear, and they often do so when the abuser is vulnerable because the victim knows that they can't defend themselves during a confrontation, but that does not mean that the abuser has not been or is not a threat to them.

The brothers stated that they believed that their parents were going to kill them that night. They realized after the fact that they were mistaken but they still believe that it would have happened at some point. Jose was not going to let his sons live to expose the abuse or to leave, because he would be ruined and he would lose control over them. Kitty was Jose's partner in abusing their children and she too, would not have wanted the truth to come out. Lyle stated that he believed that their parents would kill him and Erik, and then tell people that they ran away - which is not far-fetched when you consider domestic homicides that have been covered up.

Manslaughter would have been an appropriate conviction in this case - 25 years - 10 years for each parent, plus a weapon charge - which means that the Menendez brothers were not going to "get off". That's the misconception that many people have about this case - neither the brothers nor their attorneys ever claimed that the killings were justified, or that the parents deserved to die. They were just trying to explain why it happened.

I agree with this. If the allegations were true, and it appears that there is credible new additional evidence supporting them, this is a different case. So, the issue is not that they "get off". The issue is that they will have already served the time they would have been sentenced to had the case been tried with this evidence (including this additional new evidence) being admissible.

jmo

 

[Noirdame79]

Menendez Case Myth # 1

Jose and Kitty Menendez were sitting on the couch when they were shot.

This myth has been perpetuated by the prosecutors in both trials as well as by the media. In his articles about the case in Vanity Fair, the late Dominick Dunne added the embellishment that the parents, in addition to sitting down at the time of the shooting, were eating ice cream and strawberries. This part of the myth has become so persuasive and common that many people have cited it as fact. However, by looking at the crime scene photos and/or footage, this is false. There was one bowl on the coffee table that had a spoon in it and a small amount of liquid in it that was never analyzed. There was no other glassware or utensils in the den, nor was there any food. I read somewhere (probably in one of the earlier books about the case) that Kitty was lying on the couch with her head in Jose's lap when the first shots were fired. The version that Pamela Bozanich likes to tell is that Jose was asleep when he was shot, and therefore had no idea what was happening or who was doing it, and that Kitty "got up and ran around".

The problem with all of this is that the medical examiner, Dr. Irwin Golden, was a prosecution witness in the first trial, and during cross-examination, he concluded that Jose was standing when the shooting began, and Kitty likely was as well. He stated that there were no bullet holes in the couch, and most of the shots could not have hit them if they were sitting down. This corroborates the testimony of Lyle and Erik Menendez, both of whom testified that their parents were standing when they entered the room. In the second trial, the lead prosecutor, the late David Conn, deliberately did not call Golden as a witness. Instead, he called a private pathologist Dr. Robert Lawrence, and Roger McCarthy of Failure Analysis Associates, the latter of whom had never examined a crime scene. Lawrence claimed that all of Jose's wounds were received while he was sitting down, while almost all of Kitty's wounds were inflicted while she was lying on the floor. This contradicted Golden's findings, as he concluded that except for the final, fatal wound, none of the shotgun blasts to Kitty were fired while she was on the floor, and except for the final fatal wound to Jose, all of his injuries were inflicted while he was standing. Lawrence and McCarthy used wooden mannequins pierced with wooden rods to demonstrate their conclusions regarding the angles of the shotgun blasts, etc. As a rebuttal, the defense called Martin Fackler, an expert in wound ballistics, and Ron Linhart, the assistant director of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department crime lab. They both contradicted, via their own analysis, the prosecution's version of events and stated that Jose and Kitty were standing at some point during the shooting.

This may seem minor, but it's important to note that Bozanich, Conn, Dunne, et al deliberately stated misinformation. They probably did this to make the parents appear more helpless. Pamela Bozanich conducted the direct examination of Golden in the first trial, Dunne was present throughout the first trial, and Conn studied the transcripts from the first trial, so they were all aware of Golden's testimony. Jose and Kitty standing at the time of the shooting is an example of why their sons, in their fearful and confused state, saw them as a threat to their safety.

Here's Dr. Irwin Golden's testimony from the first trial. One of Lyle's attorneys, Michael Burt, conducted the cross-examination.

More to come at a later time.

 

[ilovewings]

Menendez Case Myth # 1

Jose and Kitty Menendez were sitting on the couch when they were shot.

This myth has been perpetuated by the prosecutors in both trials as well as by the media. In his articles about the case in Vanity Fair, the late Dominick Dunne added the embellishment that the parents, in addition to sitting down at the time of the shooting, were eating ice cream and strawberries. This part of the myth has become so persuasive and common that many people have cited it as fact. However, by looking at the crime scene photos and/or footage, this is false. There was one bowl on the coffee table that had a spoon in it and a small amount of liquid in it that was never analyzed. There was no other glassware or utensils in the den, nor was there any food. I read somewhere (probably in one of the earlier books about the case) that Kitty was lying on the couch with her head in Jose's lap when the first shots were fired. The version that Pamela Bozanich likes to tell is that Jose was asleep when he was shot, and therefore had no idea what was happening or who was doing it, and that Kitty "got up and ran around".

The problem with all of this is that the medical examiner, Dr. Irwin Golden, was a prosecution witness in the first trial, and during cross-examination, he concluded that Jose was standing when the shooting began, and Kitty likely was as well. He stated that there were no bullet holes in the couch, and most of the shots could not have hit them if they were sitting down. This corroborates the testimony of Lyle and Erik Menendez, both of whom testified that their parents were standing when they entered the room. In the second trial, the lead prosecutor, David Conn, deliberately did not call Golden as a witness. Instead, he called a private pathologist Dr. Robert Lawrence, and Roger McCarthy of Failure Analysis Associates, the latter of whom had never examined a crime scene. Lawrence claimed that all of Jose's wounds were received while he was sitting down, while almost all of Kitty's wounds were inflicted while she was lying on the floor. This contradicted Golden's findings, as he concluded that except for the final, fatal wound, none of the shotgun blasts to Kitty were fired while she was on the floor, and except for the final fatal wound to Jose, all of his injuries were inflicted while he was standing. Lawrence and McCarthy used wooden mannequins pierced with wooden rods to demonstrate their conclusions regarding the angles of the shotgun blasts, etc. As a rebuttal, the defense called Martin Fackler, an expert in wound ballistics, and Ron Linhart, the assistant director of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department crime lab. They both contradicted, via their own analysis, the prosecution's version of events and stated that Jose and Kitty were standing at some point during the shooting.

This may seem minor, but it's important to note that Bozanich, Conn, Dunne, et al deliberately stated misinformation. Pamela Bozanich conducted the direct examination of Golden in the first trial, Dunne was present throughout the first trial, and Conn studied the transcripts from the first trial, so they were all aware of Golden's testimony. They probably did this to make the parents appear more helpless. Jose and Kitty standing at the time of the shooting is an example of why their sons, in their fearful and confused state, saw them as a threat to their safety.

Here's is Dr. Irwin Golden's testimony from the first trial. One of Lyle's attorneys, Michael Burt, conducted the cross-examination.

More to come at a later time.

I am not convinced that because his parents were standing up they thought they were in immediate danger. sorry. I have said before, even if it is true that they were abused, and that is awful, were they in immediate danger- I believe they testified they thought they were but later learned that was not true and admitted they were not in immediate danger at the time they murdered their parents.

 

[Noirdame79]

I am not convinced that because his parents were standing up they thought they were in immediate danger. sorry. I have said before, even if it is true that they were abused, and that is awful, were they in immediate danger- I believe they testified they thought they were but later learned that was not true and admitted they were not in immediate danger at the time they murdered their parents.

Yes, they thought they were at the time, but later learned that they weren't, which is where "imperfect defense" comes in. They realized after the fact that their parents weren't going to kill them that particular night, but they didn't know that at the time. It's important to note because during Erik's cross-examination in the first trial, prosecutor Lester Kuriyama made a point of misstating the evidence, that his parents were seated and watching TV when he and his brother came into the den (trying to paint the picture that they just ambushed their parents), but Erik corrected him, stating that they were standing when he saw them, and they weren't watching TV. If it wasn't important, why did the prosecution in both trials try to distort the evidence given by the medical examiner?