CA - Court upholds Menendez brothers' convictions

[Leilei]

MOO, is that this was completely premeditated. Done for cash. If it was due to abuse, they were grown up, and living away from home. And why shoot the mother as well?

They should be in prison for life.

From my understanding, they were living at home, and their mother knew about the abuse but did nothing to protect them from it. IMO. And, as of now, they are in prison for life.

 

[otto]

My heart aches for the little boys who suffered the SA. By their father no less. I hope they are freed and go on to live as normal life as possible.

The conviction stands. There's nothing to suggest that the 53 and 55 year old men were abused as children. The decision was to alter the murderers' sentences from life to 50 years. With a 50 year sentence in California, is it possible to be released after 35 years if the murder(s) occurred when the murderer was under the age of 26?

They murdered their parents, and went on a spending spree, landing in their dad's office within 2 days to ask about their father's $5 million life insurance policy. Much to their shock, the policy was never implemented because Jose did not complete the medical exam. He did, however, complete the medical exam for his work-related insurance policy, which was a $15 million payout. Some of the same people today who claim the men were abused also claimed that Jose's company had something to do with the murder for money/greed.

Who has the money that was left over in the estate after the murders? How much money was left in 1989 (minus $700k) and how much is it today? Will the two men who murdered their parents enjoy their retirement on their father's hard work?

Nightmare on Elm Drive

Did Lyle and Erik Menendez murder their parents in their Beverly Hills mansion and then make taped confessions? The author talks to the mystery witness who says she heard everything, and uncovers the secrets that turned the Menendezes’ American dream into a fatal nightmare.

www.vanityfair.com

 

[Noirdame79]

The financial motive was never proven in either trial. It was merely a prosecution theory. It was also confirmed via eyewitness testimony that the mother was abusive and neglectful and put her husband and lifestyle first. Erik had graduated from high school a few months before and had never lived away from home. Lyle was home visiting from Princeton. Their mental ages were younger due to trauma. They also didn't think that they could successfully get away from their father, who was wealthy and powerful. People have been killed by their abusers after leaving the situation or when they are attempting to leave.

JMO

MOO, is that this was completely premeditated. Done for cash. If it was due to abuse, they were grown up, and living away from home. And why shoot the mother as well?

They should be in prison for life.

 

[otto]

Their most recent mugshots - and hopefully, their last.

View attachment 540339

If you had to guess which of the brothers is the brains, left (Erik?) and right (Lyle?), who would it be?

 

[otto]

The parents were standing when they were shot; the medical examiner. Dr. Irwin Golden, confirmed this in his testimony at the first trial.

Dr. Ann Burgess has maintained her stance in this case; she's also a crime scene analyst and her conclusion is that it was done out of fear and the overkill at the crime scene supports that. As I've mentioned before, Lyle and Erik were always going to serve time. They've been incarcerated since 1990. An acquittal was not going to happen. If they had been convicted of manslaughter, they probably would have served 25 years - 10 years for each parent, plus a weapons charge. It was never going to be a get out of jail free card. As I previously stated, killing your abuser is not the same as targeting random or innocent people.

There's no question they were abused, IMO. There is more than enough evidence and eyewitness testimony. Dr. Burgess was not the only expert witness who came to the conclusion that the brothers were abused and in fear. Dr. John Conte, Dr. Stuart Hart, and Dr. Ann Tyler came to the same conclusion. The fact that the prosecution in the first trial chose not to call their own experts speaks volumes.

MOO

Erik and Lyle never thought they would get caught. They killed their parents, faked movie tickets, brilliant performance regarding 911 call. This was immediately followed by a spending spree.

Eric believed that they could say anything to their psychologist, including committing murder, and they have 100% confidentiality.

There's no evidence that they were abused.

 

[otto]

The financial motive was never proven in either trial. It was merely a prosecution theory. It was also confirmed via eyewitness testimony that the mother was abusive and neglectful and put her husband and lifestyle first. Erik had graduated from high school a few months before and had never lived away from home. Lyle was home visiting from Princeton. Their mental ages were younger due to trauma. They also didn't think that they could successfully get away from their father, who was wealthy and powerful. People have been killed by their abusers after leaving the situation or when they are attempting to leave.

JMO

Murder for money/ inheritance is demonstrated (circumstantial evidence) by the spending spree that followed the murders. The murderers claimed that the spending was in the name of honouring their father's wishes.

How is early childhood abuse of Mr and Mr Menendez demonstrated, excluding uncorroborated testimony?

Because Erik had never lived anywhere but at home until the age of 18 (like most), he had a diminished mental age? That will come as a surprise to most. Parents helping with their children's college applications and eating dessert in front of the TV are not a threat. By all accounts, except for uncorroborated testimony from the shooters, the victims were thinking about how to advance their son's futures. Their sons were thinking about how to get their hands on their father's wealth and insurance policy immediately.

 

[Jw192]

The parents were standing when they were shot; the medical examiner. Dr. Irwin Golden, confirmed this in his testimony at the first trial.

Dr. Ann Burgess has maintained her stance in this case; she's also a crime scene analyst and her conclusion is that it was done out of fear and the overkill at the crime scene supports that. As I've mentioned before, Lyle and Erik were always going to serve time. They've been incarcerated since 1990. An acquittal was not going to happen. If they had been convicted of manslaughter, they probably would have served 25 years - 10 years for each parent, plus a weapons charge. It was never going to be a get out of jail free card. As I previously stated, killing your abuser is not the same as targeting random or innocent people.

There's no question they were abused, IMO. There is more than enough evidence and eyewitness testimony. Dr. Burgess was not the only expert witness who came to the conclusion that the brothers were abused and in fear. Dr. John Conte, Dr. Stuart Hart, and Dr. Ann Tyler came to the same conclusion. The fact that the prosecution in the first trial chose not to call their own experts speaks volumes.

MOO

The sitting/standing debate has been back and forthed in both trials with different people testifying to different things, Golden himself has since stated he is unsure of the positioning when shot. The TV was on so it's just my opinion that they were seated until at least when the brothers burst into the room brandishing shotguns.

Burgess is a woman who's career I respect, admire and I've also fortunately met her, however seeing a woman who I respect and admire literally tie herself in knots and contradict herself on the stand, just makes me cringe.

"There's no question they were abused" - to you maybe, but to many many others the topic of abuse is very very questionable. The "evidence" of abuse opens the doors to many questions and no matter how much you will it to be factually true, it just isn't. Not in a court of law and in anyway. Abuse is a spectrum too, I mentioned in my comment how sometimes my opinion leans towards the brothers being pushed around somewhat by Jose, like he was by all accounts a bossy and pushy guy so I can imagine him being hard on the brothers - psychological/physical abuse (to an extent) but as I said, regardless of what happened, they planned and acted out a premeditated parricide and there is zero justification for that in law. It couldn't have ever been manslaughter, then or now and even the DA has stated just yesterday that it wasn't manslaughter, it was a clear cut murder.

35 years is a long time and I've known other horrendous criminals serve a lot less so I'm not completely against the brothers having the possibility of going up to a parole board, however I believe that the way some people are talking about this case nowadays is absurd and is basically making out that they shouldn't have ever been put in prison blah blah.

Abuse (of any kind) IF it did happen is simply a mitigating factor at sentencing NOT what a double murder trial should be about, nor is it an excuse to shoot people to bits with a shotgun.

*My opinions *

 

[Salah11]

If you had to guess which of the brothers is the brains, left (Erik?) and right (Lyle?), who would it be?

View attachment 540360

Lyle is the manipulative one so the right one. I believe tapes released from a girlfriend while in jail she was recording him showed he was putting on a show.

Imo

 

[Noirdame79]

The sitting/standing debate has been back and forthed in both trials with different people testifying to different things, Golden himself has since stated he is unsure of the positioning when shot. The TV was on so it's just my opinion that they were seated until at least when the brothers burst into the room brandishing shotguns.

Burgess is a woman who's career I respect, admire and I've also fortunately met her, however seeing a woman who I respect and admire literally tie herself in knots and contradict herself on the stand, just makes me cringe.

"There's no question they were abused" - to you maybe, but to many many others the topic of abuse is very very questionable. The "evidence" of abuse opens the doors to many questions and no matter how much you will it to be factually true, it just isn't. Not in a court of law and in anyway. Abuse is a spectrum too, I mentioned in my comment how sometimes my opinion leans towards the brothers being pushed around somewhat by Jose, like he was by all accounts a bossy and pushy guy so I can imagine him being hard on the brothers - psychological/physical abuse (to an extent) but as I said, regardless of what happened, they planned and acted out a premeditated parricide and there is zero justification for that in law. It couldn't have ever been manslaughter, then or now and even the DA has stated just yesterday that it wasn't manslaughter, it was a clear cut murder.

35 years is a long time and I've known other horrendous criminals serve a lot less so I'm not completely against the brothers having the possibility of going up to a parole board, however I believe that the way some people are talking about this case nowadays is absurd and is basically making out that they shouldn't have ever been put in prison blah blah.

Abuse (of any kind) IF it did happen is simply a mitigating factor at sentencing NOT what a double murder trial should be about, nor is it an excuse to shoot people to bits with a shotgun.

*My opinions *

It was never an excuse, it was an explanation. The term "the abuse excuse" was coined by Alan Dershowitz. Given his reputation, his connection to Jeffrey Epstein and his tendency to defend abusers, 'nuff said.

If you've seen the first trial, there is more than enough evidence that the abuse took place. The photos of Lyle and Erik,'s genitals, (found in an envelope with the mother's signature on it) is hard to overlook. Even if you buy into the, in my opinion, ridiculous prosecution theory that eight-year-old Lyle and six-year-old Erik took the pictures, there is no reasoning whatsoever for the parents to save and keep the photos.

In the first trial, the prosecution keep changing motives. First it was the greed theory, and when the evidence proved otherwise, then they switched to motive to hatred, and despite the abuse, the brothers expressed love for their parents and wanted to be loved by their parents. Then it was the control theory, which originated from the discredited Dr. L. Jerome Oziel; the December 11, 1989 tape, is his theories, and the brothers simply parroted his theories, because they had already decided that they weren't going to tell Oziel the real reason why they killed their parents. Erik even said at one point in the tape, "What I did, I did because I had no choice." Lyle and Erik loved their parents and wanted to be part of their lives, as long as the abuse stopped.

MOO.

 

[Noirdame79]

Lyle is the manipulative one so the right one. I believe tapes released from a girlfriend while in jail she was recording him showed he was putting on a show.

Imo

The woman who made those tapes, Norma Novelli, was not his girlfriend (also keep in mind that she was in her 50s, and had children older than him). If you listen to the actual recordings (which you can find online) there is nothing that Lyle said that suggests that he was lying or contradicts what he testified to. Novelli turned on Lyle when he became engaged to his first wife (who recently issued a statement that she believes Lyle and Erik should be released), because she was hoping that he would see her in a romantic way. That was why she went public, not because she was outraged over what Lyle said. She recorded those calls without his knowledge; in the forward to the book of the transcripts, she claimed that he manipulated her, which does not ring true.

JMO

 

[imstilla.grandma]

Oct. 24, 2024. Prosecutors say they will petition the court to resentence the brothers, and that it could lead to their release

https://kfor.com/news/national/ap-us-news/ap-timeline-of-the-menendez-brothers-murder-case/

 

[theonewithallthequestions]

There absolutely is evidence of sexual abuse. I find it pretty appalling how dismissive some people are of the abuse and the effects that repeated severe abuse at the hands of your parents, the two people meant to love and protect you, has on a child. JMO

I believe Kitty’s brother’s son is one of Lyle and Erik’s strongest supporters. He testified in the first trial on their behalf and still is in their corner today (he was at the family press conference last week)

 

[Noirdame79]

There absolutely is evidence of sexual abuse. I find it pretty appalling how dismissive some people are of the abuse and the effects that repeated severe abuse at the hands of your parents, the two people meant to love and protect you, has on a child. JMO

I believe Kitty’s brother’s son is one of Lyle and Erik’s strongest supporters. He testified in the first trial on their behalf and still is in their corner today (he was at the family press conference last week)

Kitty's sister, who spoke at the press conference, was also a defense witness at the first trial. It's very telling that almost all of the brothers' relatives support and believe them (the exception being Kitty's two brothers, one of whom died in 2017). JMO

 

[Jw192]

It was never an excuse, it was an explanation. The term "the abuse excuse" was coined by Alan Dershowitz. Given his reputation, his connection to Jeffrey Epstein and his tendency to defend abusers, 'nuff said.

If you've seen the first trial, there is more than enough evidence that the abuse took place. The photos of Lyle and Erik,'s genitals, (found in an envelope with the mother's signature on it) is hard to overlook. Even if you buy into the, in my opinion, ridiculous prosecution theory that eight-year-old Lyle and six-year-old Erik took the pictures, there is no reasoning whatsoever for the parents to save and keep the photos.

In the first trial, the prosecution keep changing motives. First it was the greed theory, and when the evidence proved otherwise, then they switched to motive to hatred, and despite the abuse, the brothers expressed love for their parents and wanted to be loved by their parents. Then it was the control theory, which originated from the discredited Dr. L. Jerome Oziel; the December 11, 1989 tape, is his theories, and the brothers simply parroted his theories, because they had already decided that they weren't going to tell Oziel the real reason why they killed their parents. Erik even said at one point in the tape, "What I did, I did because I had no choice." Lyle and Erik loved their parents and wanted to be part of their lives, as long as the abuse stopped.

MOO.

So you believe that the brothers told Oziel what he wanted to hear and "parroted his theories", with what they verbalized being VERY convincing, but you refuse to believe they didn't do the same/similar with the abuse narrative...

I admire your passion for the brothers and respect your opinion that they were without a doubt abused, however I cannot agree with it.

They have spent the past 35 years exactly where they deserved to be after their vicious actions and IF they get a chance at parole then they want to thank their lucky stars (and the likes of tiktok/Ryan Murphy) as IMO the only reason they have this potential opportunity is because of social media and societal pressure on the "bigwigs", not as a result of any "new evidence" which lets be honest here, isn't credible in law (this supposed letter), or because the verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt was incorrect.

Again abuse IF factual is a mitigating factor at sentencing, not a green card to pew pew people.

 

[sds71]

Family members of the Menendez brothers speak out after the Los Angeles D.A. recommends resentencing: “We've waited 35 years for someone to believe and move forward with the courage that's been shown in the last few days.”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1849808902067495083

 

[Noirdame79]

So you believe that the brothers told Oziel what he wanted to hear and "parroted his theories", with what they verbalized being VERY convincing, but you refuse to believe they didn't do the same/similar with the abuse narrative...

I admire your passion for the brothers and respect your opinion that they were without a doubt abused, however I cannot agree with it.

They have spent the past 35 years exactly where they deserved to be after their vicious actions and IF they get a chance at parole then they want to thank their lucky stars (and the likes of tiktok/Ryan Murphy) as IMO the only reason they have this potential opportunity is because of social media and societal pressure on the "bigwigs", not as a result of any "new evidence" which lets be honest here, isn't credible in law (this supposed letter), or because the verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt was incorrect.

Again abuse IF factual is a mitigating factor at sentencing, not a green card to pew pew people.

It has nothing to do with Ryan Murphy or Tik Tok. The DA has been reviewing their case since last year after Roy Rosello, formerly of the Latin boy band Menudo, came forward, stating that Jose Menendez raped him when he was 14. The reason why this is significant is because the prosecution (in both trials, but especially the second one) stated that there was no abuse and that Jose and Kitty would never abuse their children, and specifically, that Jose would not sexually abuse his sons and that he was not a predator. Another victim coming forward makes that argument invalid.

MOO

 

[housewife]

Kitty's sister, who spoke at the press conference, was also a defense witness at the first trial. It's very telling that almost all of the brothers' relatives support and believe them (the exception being Kitty's two brothers, one of whom died in 2017). JMO

I was watching the testimony of Brian Andersen Sr (Kitty's brother). It was really bizarre. He claimed that the boys would talk back to their parents constantly, but he couldn't give an example of it happening. He claimed to be the closest family member to Kitty, but didn't know much about her depression, heavily troubled marriage or the boys. He could never recall how old the boys were when he visited them, or when Eric's birthday was. He also defended Jose's illegal hand signals during a tennis match and LIED on the stand about Kitty consoling Eric afterwards. Just bizarre stuff.

Contrast his testimony to that of his ex-wife, Patricia, with whom Kitty confided that she wished she could also get a divorce.

Contrast his testimony to that of his son, Brian Jr, who actually lived with the Menendez family and experienced the abusive parents first-hand.

I also found out that Brian Sr initially refused to be a witness! In April 1992, the defense team told the family that the boys had killed their parents and wanted to finally disclose their abuse. They got crickets from Brian Sr.
In October, he petitioned the probate court to exclude the Menendez family from any money left in Jose and Kitty's estate. He wanted the money exclusively awarded to the "Andersen" side. In November, the court responded that they would not consider his petition unless or until the brothers were actually convicted.

So suddenly, 10 days before the trial, he decided to become a witness for the prosecution.

 

[housewife]

Well in that case, hypothetically speaking of course, every felon doing time in CA should be allowed to walk free -- if they state they were abused as kids, without proof to back it up.
Regardless of that criminal's crimes, no less.

RSBM
IMO I feel like that's a mischaracterization of considering abuse as a mitigating factor in sentencing.

Murdering your parents seems, imo, 10x worse than a killing a store clerk while in the middle of a robbery.
Not to minimize murder during a robbery... that's terrible as well.
But the people who raised you ?
Agree to disagree, that's all.

Being raped by your sperm donor seems, imo, 10x worse than being raped by a stranger.
Because they were supposed to have raised you. And you have to continue living with them. You can never be free.
CSA is common, usually perpetrated by a family member, and insidious, unfortunately.

Outside of hearsay, there's simply no proof.
The family members advocating for Eric and Lyle, why were they silent before ?
Going back outside to reload and pressing the barrel of the rifle against your own mother's face is unspeakably horrendous.
Nauseating.

I was nauseated when I realized Kitty had known all those years her sons were being raped and she did nothing to protect them. Horrendously evil for a "mother" to allow unspeakable rape and sadistic sexual torture. To be fair imo Kitty was a victim of Jose as well as an enabler.

At the ages of 18 and 21 they could have left.
They could have taken their dad to court and pressed charges.

How could they press charges if no one in the 1990's realized or understood that boys can be raped?
If adult domestic violence survivors find it difficult to leave their abuser, wouldn't it stand to reason that younger victims would find it even more difficult?

 

[housewife]

Burgess is a woman who's career I respect, admire and I've also fortunately met her, however seeing a woman who I respect and admire literally tie herself in knots and contradict herself on the stand, just makes me cringe.

RSBM
How lucky you got to meet her!
Can you elaborate on how Burgess contradicted herself? I haven't watched her testimony yet.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I believe they became eligible for parole after serving 25 years. I'm sure sympathizers will argue they've already served 10 years more than required under the new sentence guidelines. JMO

PAROLE ELIGIBILITY - Board of Parole Hearings

There are two general classes of incarcerated persons in the California prison system: incarcerated persons sentenced to determinate terms, and incarcerated per

www.cdcr.ca.gov

Interesting @Seattle1 ….. and IANAL. But surprises that in this case, later applied guidelines are being used to reduce what might have been applied or allowed decades ago. IIUC essentially retroactively utilizing a letter enacted requirement for past offenses.

And yet to the best of my recollection there are often cases sometimes solved decades later, where one has to sentence against the sentencing guidelines that were in place at the time of offense. Whether those were more lenient, or more strict. By example, the case of Madeline Soto in Florida. IIUC there are some offenses that cannot be cited against a certain new requirement because they happened just prior to the enactment of the new laws. (There is a thread here WS on that case.)

It does not seem fair to the victims in this case in CA to now apply later developed standards or guidelines to ‘relax’ or ‘adjust’ the sentence for the convicted crimes. And IMO not particularly pleased that the LA DA has chosen a resentencing option in this case. MOO