CA - Court upholds Menendez brothers' convictions

[Chimera]

Thanks, @MassGuy .
You beat me to it.


Here's the DM link on it :

Lyle Menendez is DENIED parole after his brother's same fate

Lyle Menendez has been denied parole after his younger brother Erik suffered the same fate just a day prior.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[SophieRose]

In 2022, 14 percent of parole hearings in California resulted in the inmate’s release from the prison system.

Lyle Menendez Denied Release by California Parole Board, Ending Brothers’ Freedom Bid — for Now

The elder Menendez brother followed Erik's Thursday denial after a long day before state commissioners. But their hopes are not entirely dashed yet.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Cited during the Thursday hearing were Erik’s involvement with a prison gang in his early years locked up, possession of contraband cellphones, inappropriate behavior with visitors, drug smuggling and surprisingly, the fact that he killed his own mother was noted by the board members. Lyle has a slightly lower number of rule violations in prison over his decades of incarceration and is perhaps more involved in the rehabilitation of his fellow inmates. But this was not enough to convince the parole board that he is suitable for release.

Much of the discussion during Lyle’s hearing centered around his use of burner cell phones while in prison, and the contraband items may be what ultimately did both brothers in. Erik Menendez was caught with a burner phone as recently as January, when he was well aware of the risk that having it posed to his release. Also brought up by the Board during Friday’s hearing was Lyle’s plagiarism while he was attending Princeton and the fact that he bribed witnesses to testify using scripts he’s written during his initial trial.

 

[Inthedetails]

In 2022, 14 percent of parole hearings in California resulted in the inmate’s release from the prison system.

Lyle Menendez Denied Release by California Parole Board, Ending Brothers’ Freedom Bid — for Now

The elder Menendez brother followed Erik's Thursday denial after a long day before state commissioners. But their hopes are not entirely dashed yet.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Cited during the Thursday hearing were Erik’s involvement with a prison gang in his early years locked up, possession of contraband cellphones, inappropriate behavior with visitors, drug smuggling and surprisingly, the fact that he killed his own mother was noted by the board members. Lyle has a slightly lower number of rule violations in prison over his decades of incarceration and is perhaps more involved in the rehabilitation of his fellow inmates. But this was not enough to convince the parole board that he is suitable for release.

Much of the discussion during Lyle’s hearing centered around his use of burner cell phones while in prison, and the contraband items may be what ultimately did both brothers in. Erik Menendez was caught with a burner phone as recently as January, when he was well aware of the risk that having it posed to his release. Also brought up by the Board during Friday’s hearing was Lyle’s plagiarism while he was attending Princeton and the fact that he bribed witnesses to testify using scripts he’s written during his initial trial.

Welp, that'll do it.

jmopinion

 

[Seattle1]

I would like to hear his answer to the question of why he shot his mother as she was wounded and crawling away from him. That alone deflates any alleged "justified murder" due to alleged allegations against his father. If his father was a monster, why would he murder his mother after eliminating the alleged threat? If his father was a monster, then his mother was also a victim. Does he not understand that?

^^rsbm

Kitty was indeed a victim of the monstrous Jose, but this was always about the $$$$, and she had to go so they could carry out the plan to inherit the entire estate. Sales teams were waiting!

 

[DS2021]

Lyle Menendez also denied parole, will stay in prison with Erik Menendez

Lyle Menendez was denied parole during his first-ever parole hearing on Friday.

abcnews.go.com

One commissioner said it was Erik Menendez's behavior in prison, not the seriousness of the crime, that was the primary reason he was denied parole. The board noted Erik Menendez's inappropriate behavior with visitors, drug smuggling, misuse of state computers, violent incidents and illegal cellphone use

 

[Aegon_the_Conqueror]

I'm very open to a legal argument (not purely an emotional one) to granting them parole... but I just don't see it happening. The parents weren't sympathetic figures in the slightest, but I have yet to hear someone explain:

1. How it wasn't premeditated;
2. How their lives were in danger at that moment;
3. Why they didn't call the cops at some point between the decision to off their parents and the act (I get that it's difficult for victims of sexual abuse to tell anyone - but murder should be more difficult under any circumstance) - not that the LAPD are reliable, but had that failed it would've given support to their claim that they felt that killing them was their only escape from imminent danger; and
4. Most of all - how their lives were threatened by Kitty.

All of this assuming that yes, they were victims of sexual abuse (witness testimony cleared the reasonable doubt bar for me), but whether or not Jose threatened their live(s) is more plausible than proven.

These four points are why I think their convictions will never be commuted to Murder 2, and therefore, never granted parole, although I'm open to legal grounds for doing so or to grant them parole anyway. Erik's comments to the board regarding the 4th point only cement my concerns, because his explanation was either entirely emotional (and therefore legally irrelevant) at best and complete BS at worst:

"I saw my mother and my father as one person after I learned that she knew, so when I was running into the den, I was in a state of terror, of panic, of rage."

Validating that he knows that her murder was far more inexcusable:

"On that night I saw them as one person. Had she not been in the room, maybe it would have been different."

"I wish to God I did not do that."

As for the violations, which were (supposedly) the deciding factor this time, those were sheer stupidity. The most serious ones (violence, substance abuse, drug smuggling) seem to be old; "inappropriate behavior with guests" I assume refers to banging their wives, no timelines given for those. While they shouldn't be a factor forever, they still shouldn't have done them. The more recent ones (cell phones, etc) seem to be less serious, but weighed more heavily on the the minds of the board members. This may seem petty, but the board was right - at a time when their freedom was being considered, they should have been on their best behavior. They might have been able to disregard minor infractions for less-serious charges, but when the board is being asked to make the tremendous leap from Murder One to "low risk" and parole, the brothers should have known that it would require a proportional effort by them - one of perfection.

 

[LAborn]

I'm very open to a legal argument (not purely an emotional one) to granting them parole... but I just don't see it happening. The parents weren't sympathetic figures in the slightest, but I have yet to hear someone explain:

1. How it wasn't premeditated;
2. How their lives were in danger at that moment;
3. Why they didn't call the cops at some point between the decision to off their parents and the act (I get that it's difficult for victims of sexual abuse to tell anyone - but murder should be more difficult under any circumstance) - not that the LAPD are reliable, but had that failed it would've given support to their claim that they felt that killing them was their only escape from imminent danger; and
4. Most of all - how their lives were threatened by Kitty.

All of this assuming that yes, they were victims of sexual abuse (witness testimony cleared the reasonable doubt bar for me), but whether or not Jose threatened their live(s) is more plausible than proven.

These four points are why I think their convictions will never be commuted to Murder 2, and therefore, never granted parole, although I'm open to legal grounds for doing so or to grant them parole anyway. Erik's comments to the board regarding the 4th point only cement my concerns, because his explanation was either entirely emotional (and therefore legally irrelevant) at best and complete BS at worst:

"I saw my mother and my father as one person after I learned that she knew, so when I was running into the den, I was in a state of terror, of panic, of rage."

Validating that he knows that her murder was far more inexcusable:

"On that night I saw them as one person. Had she not been in the room, maybe it would have been different."

"I wish to God I did not do that."

As for the violations, which were (supposedly) the deciding factor this time, those were sheer stupidity. The most serious ones (violence, substance abuse, drug smuggling) seem to be old; "inappropriate behavior with guests" I assume refers to banging their wives, no timelines given for those. While they shouldn't be a factor forever, they still shouldn't have done them. The more recent ones (cell phones, etc) seem to be less serious, but weighed more heavily on the the minds of the board members. This may seem petty, but the board was right - at a time when their freedom was being considered, they should have been on their best behavior. They might have been able to disregard minor infractions for less-serious charges, but when the board is being asked to make the tremendous leap from Murder One to "low risk" and parole, the brothers should have known that it would require a proportional effort by them - one of perfection.

If a woman has suffered domestic abuse for years, then finally kills the abuser when the person isn't an imminent threat, isn't it justified? Or at least taken into account? I believe the brothers suffered a lifetime of sexual abuse, mainly because over the course of their lives they told at least two people, a cousin, and a good friend. Also, a Menudo band member was sexually abused by Jose.

It was premeditated, that was the point. Erik was threatened with continued sexual abuse, and Lyle decided to protect Erik by putting an end to it. They also believed their parents would ultimately kill them.

By the brothers' accounts Kitty sexually abused both too. I also heard they thought it was a mercy killing.

Why on earth would they call the cops?!? LAPD is notoriously horrible, and why would they send themselves willingly to the wolves? Had they tried to call the cops about the sexual abuse the cops would have done nothing, then Jose would have amped up the abuse. Lose. Lose. Remember at the time this happened sexual abuse wasn't talked about, especially incest and homosexual abuse. The lost the retrial because the sexual assault information wasn't allowed as evidence. Had it been, they would have been freed or gotten a lesser charge.

Erik thought his abuse was going to end with going away to college, until his father informed him he'd be going to UCLA and continue to live at home (and suffer sexual abuse). Erik told his brother and there in lies the beginning of their plans.

They should never have received the sentence they did in the first place. And now they have served well over the number of years anyone with a standard murder charge would have served, let alone manslaughter.

They need to be freed immediately. Jose's family supports them being released. They know what a horrible person he was!

 

[otto]

I do not believe that the parents were sex offenders.

At the time of the murders, the brothers were two spoiled-rotten, privileged, lazy, underachieving young men. One was expelled from university, the other was too lazy to study.

They wanted to live their expensive lifestyle, but they didn't want to work for it. They were adults, and their parents very likely told them to study or work, and, if they work, they pay for their room and board. That's standard for many families.

The brothers wanted the money. They said that they killed their parents because they feared their parents would kill them. There's no evidence to explain that alleged fear.

Their father had high expectations of them and gave them every opportunity to succeed. Their mother was a typical stay at home mom who raised the children while their father worked hard to provide a great quality of life. The parents are the victims of a brutal murder.

The brothers have won the hearts of strangers by capitalizing on the notion of being a "victim". They flipped the script. The brothers are the victims, their parents are the criminals. Their parents forced them to commit murder - they had no choice.

The brothers are liars, so there's no reason to believe their claims that they were abused by their parents.

 

[agilbe]

I do not believe that the parents were sex offenders.

At the time of the murders, the brothers were two spoiled-rotten, privileged, lazy, underachieving young men. One was expelled from university, the other was too lazy to study.

They wanted to live their expensive lifestyle, but they didn't want to work for it. They were adults, and their parents very likely told them to study or work, and, if they work, they pay for their room and board. That's standard for many families.

The brothers wanted the money. They said that they killed their parents because they feared their parents would kill them. There's no evidence to explain that alleged fear.

Their father had high expectations of them and gave them every opportunity to succeed. Their mother was a typical stay at home mom who raised the children while their father worked hard to provide a great quality of life. The parents are the victims of a brutal murder.

The brothers have won the hearts of strangers by capitalizing on the notion of being a "victim". They flipped the script. The brothers are the victims, their parents are the criminals. Their parents forced them to commit murder - they had no choice.

The brothers are liars, so there's no reason to believe their claims that they were abused by their parents.

Well put. I have felt the same.

 

[Cedars]

If a woman has suffered domestic abuse for years, then finally kills the abuser when the person isn't an imminent threat, isn't it justified? Or at least taken into account? I believe the brothers suffered a lifetime of sexual abuse, mainly because over the course of their lives they told at least two people, a cousin, and a good friend. Also, a Menudo band member was sexually abused by Jose.

It was premeditated, that was the point. Erik was threatened with continued sexual abuse, and Lyle decided to protect Erik by putting an end to it. They also believed their parents would ultimately kill them.

By the brothers' accounts Kitty sexually abused both too. I also heard they thought it was a mercy killing.

Why on earth would they call the cops?!? LAPD is notoriously horrible, and why would they send themselves willingly to the wolves? Had they tried to call the cops about the sexual abuse the cops would have done nothing, then Jose would have amped up the abuse. Lose. Lose. Remember at the time this happened sexual abuse wasn't talked about, especially incest and homosexual abuse. The lost the retrial because the sexual assault information wasn't allowed as evidence. Had it been, they would have been freed or gotten a lesser charge.

Erik thought his abuse was going to end with going away to college, until his father informed him he'd be going to UCLA and continue to live at home (and suffer sexual abuse). Erik told his brother and there in lies the beginning of their plans.

They should never have received the sentence they did in the first place. And now they have served well over the number of years anyone with a standard murder charge would have served, let alone manslaughter.

They need to be freed immediately. Jose's family supports them being released. They know what a horrible person he was!

In the opinion of many psychologists, abusers were themselves abused when they were children.

So, perhaps Jose experienced a lifetime of abuse, and took it out on his children because he didn't know any other way to be a father. Perhaps he couldn't help himself, for exactly the reasons you explain above. So then, you would have to acknowledge he was a victim of abuse (not just a victim of murder, which most people regard as pretty much up at the top tier of being victimized).

IMO, the world cannot be easily divided up into pure good and pure evil, and that's
why the law focuses on the concrete, proveable, actions people take, rather than purely imaginary scenarios, about other people's feelings, etc.

JMO

 

[mrsevanpeters]

They have served 36 years, I think they should get out now. I read that it was said that they would still be a risk to the public, I really do not believe they would be any danger to anyone. I mean Gypsy Rose only served 8 years, I know she manipulated someone to do it for her but she is out now living her life. I think Erik and Lyle deserve some time to live out the rest of their lives free.

 

[agilbe]

They have served 36 years, I think they should get out now. I read that it was said that they would still be a risk to the public, I really do not believe they would be any danger to anyone. I mean Gypsy Rose only served 8 years, I know she manipulated someone to do it for her but she is out now living her life. I think Erik and Lyle deserve some time to live out the rest of their lives free.

I don't believe Gypsy Rose had any major infractions in prison and served good time. That was not the case for Erik and Lyle. If I remember correctly she orchestrated the killing of her mother but didn't actually commit the deed. They did kill their parents. Good or bad I do think that Erik and Lyle will at some time be released.

 

[Inthedetails]

I'm very open to a legal argument (not purely an emotional one) to granting them parole... but I just don't see it happening. The parents weren't sympathetic figures in the slightest, but I have yet to hear someone explain:

1. How it wasn't premeditated;
2. How their lives were in danger at that moment;
3. Why they didn't call the cops at some point between the decision to off their parents and the act (I get that it's difficult for victims of sexual abuse to tell anyone - but murder should be more difficult under any circumstance) - not that the LAPD are reliable, but had that failed it would've given support to their claim that they felt that killing them was their only escape from imminent danger; and
4. Most of all - how their lives were threatened by Kitty.

All of this assuming that yes, they were victims of sexual abuse (witness testimony cleared the reasonable doubt bar for me), but whether or not Jose threatened their live(s) is more plausible than proven.

These four points are why I think their convictions will never be commuted to Murder 2, and therefore, never granted parole, although I'm open to legal grounds for doing so or to grant them parole anyway. Erik's comments to the board regarding the 4th point only cement my concerns, because his explanation was either entirely emotional (and therefore legally irrelevant) at best and complete BS at worst:

"I saw my mother and my father as one person after I learned that she knew, so when I was running into the den, I was in a state of terror, of panic, of rage."

Validating that he knows that her murder was far more inexcusable:

"On that night I saw them as one person. Had she not been in the room, maybe it would have been different."

"I wish to God I did not do that."

As for the violations, which were (supposedly) the deciding factor this time, those were sheer stupidity. The most serious ones (violence, substance abuse, drug smuggling) seem to be old; "inappropriate behavior with guests" I assume refers to banging their wives, no timelines given for those. While they shouldn't be a factor forever, they still shouldn't have done them. The more recent ones (cell phones, etc) seem to be less serious, but weighed more heavily on the the minds of the board members. This may seem petty, but the board was right - at a time when their freedom was being considered, they should have been on their best behavior. They might have been able to disregard minor infractions for less-serious charges, but when the board is being asked to make the tremendous leap from Murder One to "low risk" and parole, the brothers should have known that it would require a proportional effort by them - one of perfection.

Seems that they expected parole based on new attitudes toward their original convictions, but, in actuality, they were denied parole based on their behavior in prison.

jmopinion

 

[Cedars]

I don't believe Gypsy Rose had any major infractions in prison and served good time. That was not the case for Erik and Lyle. If I remember correctly she orchestrated the killing of her mother but didn't actually commit the deed. They did kill their parents. Good or bad I do think that Erik and Lyle will at some time be released.

I agree.

It's as though people wanted to turn professional sports outcomes into something based on "which team we like the best", or "which athlete appears nicest vs which one appears mean", based on highly biased TV specials or social media.

Whereas the law, similar to sports, is about hard facts. Who gets the ball in the net, who crosses the finish line first, who can be proven to have fired a gun at close range, who expresses sincere remorse....

IMO it's very dangerous to turn legal decisions over to emotionally driven members of the public - that'a how so many women were burned as witches, etc.

 

[Catmommy]

The Menendez brothers have always acted like the rules of society don't apply to them. Fortunately, the rules of prison do.

 

[SophieRose]

I believe he said he discovered she had known about the SA and never tried to stop it. In his mind that made her a partner in crime with his father. In reality they had to remove both parents in order to get their hands on all the money. Of course leaving her alive also meant she could identify their assailants. MOO

They later claimed that she had also sexually assaulted them. Sorry, I read the below and think such liars.

California board denies Lyle Menendez parole after rejecting his brother Erik's appeal

Lyle Menendez was denied parole Friday by the same board that a day earlier rejected his brother Erik’s appeal for freedom after serving decades in prison for killing their parents in 1989 at their Beverly Hills mansion. The reason was the same: misbehavior behind bars.

www.pbs.org

He [Lyle] also said his mother also sexually abused him. He appeared uncomfortable discussing this with the panel, who asked why he didn’t disclose his mother’s abuse in a risk assessment conducted earlier this year.

Commissioners asked if one death made him more sorrowful than the other.

“My mother. Because I loved her and couldn’t imagine harming her in any way,” he said. “I think also I learned a lot after about her life, her childhood, reflecting on how much fear maybe she felt.”

Later, he broke down in tears when recounting how they confronted their mother about Jose Menendez’s abuse of his younger brother.

“I couldn’t wrap my mind around the fact that she knew,” he said.

 

[friendlysleuther]

I don't believe Gypsy Rose had any major infractions in prison and served good time. That was not the case for Erik and Lyle. If I remember correctly she orchestrated the killing of her mother but didn't actually commit the deed. They did kill their parents. Good or bad I do think that Erik and Lyle will at some time be released.

I have seen it be up for debate many times on if she did or didn’t have physical involvement in the killing

 

[friendlysleuther]

They later claimed that she had also sexually assaulted them. Sorry, I read the below and think such liars.

<RSBM>

Exactly. At the time of his arrest, he claimed that he feared his parents were going to murder him that evening. Today, he claims that his father abused him and his mother did nothing to stop it.

Just like his criminal activities before and after the murders, his goal was always personal profit. Home invasion robberies, murdering a multi-millionaire, and tax fraud have one common goal: easy money.

IMO…

None of us here will ever know if what they’re saying about the SA is true.

So, we shouldn’t be so fast to call these two liars about SA.

I, too, haven’t been believed before.. I, too, have been called a liar. it’s not fun.. and it’s a big reason as to why when people are abused, that they don’t & don’t want to come forward.

 

[crussell821]

IMO…

None of us here will ever know if what they’re saying about the SA is true.

So, we shouldn’t be so fast to call these two liars about SA.

I, too, haven’t been believed before.. I, too, have been called a liar. it’s not fun.. and it’s a big reason as to why when people are abused, that they don’t & don’t want to come forward.

ESPECIALLY males who are assaulted by other males. There is a huge stigma, definitely back then.

 

[Aegon_the_Conqueror]

Seems that they expected parole based on new attitudes toward their original convictions, but, in actuality, they were denied parole based on their behavior in prison.

jmopinion

Yeah. Part of their growing public sympathy has been based on their perception as "model prisoners". In a lot of ways, they have made the best use of their time in prison. I don't know the details of the incidents of violence, other than the fact that they happened a long time ago (were they the aggressors, or were they mutual fights? I doubt they would've been written up for self-defense). Other than that, it doesn't seem to be anything really bad, there's just a lot of them, including while their freedom was being considered. Maybe now they'll realize that the huge leap from Murder 1 to parole requires a proportional effort on their part.

Personally, I can't imagine a legal argument for granting them parole considering the circumstances, but if there were one and they were to be released, I wouldn't have a problem with it, either.