Juror's had said, "No father would do that to his sons."
But now this letter would seem to substantiate it. And now with the MeToo movement, we know so much more. These boys went into prison about 1990. If they could have gotten it down to manslaughter, they would be out by now.
If the Menendez Brothers could get their conviction overturned, that would really be something. As it is today, survivors get sent to Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Recovery, and to Get Saved. They are not taken seriously. Maybe this can change?
Do we know how often these cock-suckers have had their rectums stretched out and how many gallons of semen have been deposited in their months in the big house?
^^^^^ To say that though one would have to believe that these two murdered their parents and that their are no mitigating circumstances which should mitigate how we respond to it. And the 1988 letter, evidence which was not available at trial, was written a full year before the murders.
And to think they probably could have gotten away with it if the younger brother wouldn't have blabbed to his therapist (at least that's my understanding).
They're now saying they killed them because of sexual abuse. I read about the letter, its allegedly written by Lyle.....advising an ex to try to testify about family being afraid the mom is trying to poison them. Getting testimony on the veracity of a 31 year old letter is tough.
Stories of abuse are often times inadmissible in cases where there the killers admit to planning the murders, coz they're basically designed to get juries to hate the victims and thus legitimate the acts of the murderers...
I don't believe they could argue against the premeditation of the murders. Which makes the case for pre-emptive self defense difficult.
The problem is that they admitted to conspiring and planning the murders. And then came up with the abuse angle after admitting to premeditated murders.
Lyle and Erik admitted at trial to conspiring and planning the murders, yes, but the issue was why they did that.
Well, remember, in the first trial Leslie Abramson was able to hang both juries.
But this was already such a politicized case that DA Gil Garcetti announced right away that they would try it again.
In the second trial there were no cameras, and an Assistant DA David Conn, section supervisor, did it himself, and the defense was far more restricted.
These guys are serving Life Without Parole. The letter could possibly get them a new trial. Probably with what is known today, conviction on murder one would be unlikely. Maybe only manslaughter, and that would probably get them out on time served.
Depends on the specifics, but in more than half of juvenile or near juvenile parricides, something better comes out than Life or Death.
Often the DA will deal, simply because loosing such a case makes them look bad.
I got to meet Paul Mones, here working pro-bono for a man who beat up the Jesuit who had raped he and his younger brother at the ages of 7 and 4 respectively, 35 years ago.
And Mones consulted with Leslie Abramson in the Menendez case. And I brought Mones into the loop in a Santa Cruz County case, and that seemed to change the Defense strategy.
The testimony from the first Menendez trial was heart wrenching. Both juries hung, which made the DA look stupid. DA should have dealt. But the news had so fanned the flames over how much money was involved and they boys having their own refrigerator.
In the above it talks of a case where during Jury Selection a man in his 70's, retired high school principle, told of how his father used to beat him regularly with lumber.
So once he took the lumber and knocked his father unconscious with it. But he knew that that could have been fatal.
Jurors were totally freaked out.
The DA had been unwilling to deal, but seeing how hard it was to even get through jury selection, the DA now dealt. What DA's are most afraid of is being publicly humiliated. And these kinds of cases have that potential, impossible to predict how they will go.
In this county the felony jury trial conviction rate is 98%, and this is after all but 1 in 40 cases are settled by a plea deal. So it is only 6 acquittals for 12,000 cases annually.
As Mones writes, much of what we know about familial child abuse is due to the Cheyenne Wyoming case of Richard Jankhe, who shot his father dead in 1982.
He was sentenced to Life. But after getting mountains of mail, and especially an impassioned one from an elderly man who had almost killed his father, a tough Republican Governor, with great Law And Order credentials, former state AG, let young Richard get off.
The way the Menedez Bro's could get a new trial is by a Habeas Corpus motion, new evidence. If a judge vacates their conviction, with what is now known from MeToo and HeToo, I feel that the DA would just let Lyle and Erik get off with Time Served in exchange for a Manslaughter guilty plea.
It depends, even if they have a new trial. The fact that the brothers planned and conspired on the murders would make it unlikely they'd get first degree murder dropped. The DA would argue that the new evidence is inadmissible as it intends to vilify the victims and doesn't affect the case since they admitted to conspiring to commit murder.
Now if the crime occurred today, I think the trial would have been very different. They would have argued pre-emptive self defense.... PTSD
If they get a new trial, it will be because of the new evidence, and so it will be admissible. There is no reason it would not be admissible. Vilifying the victims is not a concern, as it shows why the killing occurred.
They admitted to planning and conspiring in the first trial. But yet both juries hung.
Usually the reason a prosecutor will deal is because they know they might lose if they go to trial. So if they think the jury could hang, they might deal.
And then with the passage of time, the outrage dies away.
I believe that if they can get the original conviction overturned, then the DA will want to deal, rather than risk humiliation in another trial. With what we know today, and with this new evidence, I am convinced that the DA will let the bothers get off with time served, in exchange for them pleading guilty to manslaughter.
Well probably if they were granted a new trial, that would be resolved by a plea deal, time served in exchange for a manslaughter plea.
But you're right, it is still a long shot. Usually it is not the county DA, but rather the State AG's Office which argues to uphold convictions in appeals actions. Not sure if they even get to argue in a habeas pettition. But the vast majority are denied.
Is if fair to keep people in prison when there is new evidence that the jury never got to see? And we know that probably today they would not have gotten murder one and life without parole.
And we know that the original trials were completely politicized. If it were not for the fact that the parents were rich, it probably would have been handled by a plea deal. At the first trial the prosecution was even asking for the death penalty for both of the boys. That is almost never done in parricides.
Well probably if they were granted a new trial, that would be resolved by a plea deal, time served in exchange for a manslaughter plea.
But you're right, it is still a long shot. Usually it is not the county DA, but rather the State AG's Office which argues to uphold convictions in appeals actions. Not sure if they even get to argue in a habeas pettition. But the vast majority are denied.
Is if fair to keep people in prison when there is new evidence that the jury never got to see? And we know that probably today they would not have gotten murder one and life without parole.
And we know that the original trials were completely politicized. If it were not for the fact that the parents were rich, it probably would have been handled by a plea deal. At the first trial the prosecution was even asking for the death penalty for both of the boys. That is almost never done in parricides.
Again, first trial, both juries hung. So if Gil Garcetti hadn't made it into a huge political issue, the boys would have walked.
Often now in these extreme sexual abuse cases, to avoid the humiliation of a hung jury, the DA will deal. They only go to trial when the DA won't deal.
I know a guy who beat someone to death. He got charged with murder one, and then got it down to manslaughter and served 3 years.
Almost always the people who commit parricides are visibly extremely immature. As one lawyer wrote about a case, it was either kill the parent or get used in the juvenile sex biz.
Many are starting to have some sympathy for those who commit parricide. Paul Mones consulted with Leslie Abramson before the Menedez trial. His view is basically that if a parent gets killed by their child, they must have deserved it. I read the cases in his book, and I am inclined to agree.
He explains that sometimes a child will attempt to kill a parent, but fail. In those cases the parent can take the witness stand. In those cases it is very easy to get the jury to go very light on the child, because just listening to such a parent enrages them.
15 comments
Menendez Brothers say why they killed their parents:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3PA37er…
Leslie Abramson
https://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newswee…
So the new evidence is in a book, it is a 1988 letter, one year before the killings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5OH4He7…
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/194688…
Juror's had said, "No father would do that to his sons."
But now this letter would seem to substantiate it. And now with the MeToo movement, we know so much more. These boys went into prison about 1990. If they could have gotten it down to manslaughter, they would be out by now.
If the Menendez Brothers could get their conviction overturned, that would really be something. As it is today, survivors get sent to Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Recovery, and to Get Saved. They are not taken seriously. Maybe this can change?
SJG
D-day Broadcast 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxBO-Ynx…
NBC broadcast, first London confirmation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj2pXLZd…
SJG
And to think they probably could have gotten away with it if the younger brother wouldn't have blabbed to his therapist (at least that's my understanding).
Stories of abuse are often times inadmissible in cases where there the killers admit to planning the murders, coz they're basically designed to get juries to hate the victims and thus legitimate the acts of the murderers...
I don't believe they could argue against the premeditation of the murders. Which makes the case for pre-emptive self defense difficult.
The problem is that they admitted to conspiring and planning the murders. And then came up with the abuse angle after admitting to premeditated murders.
Well, remember, in the first trial Leslie Abramson was able to hang both juries.
But this was already such a politicized case that DA Gil Garcetti announced right away that they would try it again.
In the second trial there were no cameras, and an Assistant DA David Conn, section supervisor, did it himself, and the defense was far more restricted.
These guys are serving Life Without Parole. The letter could possibly get them a new trial. Probably with what is known today, conviction on murder one would be unlikely. Maybe only manslaughter, and that would probably get them out on time served.
Depends on the specifics, but in more than half of juvenile or near juvenile parricides, something better comes out than Life or Death.
Often the DA will deal, simply because loosing such a case makes them look bad.
I got to meet Paul Mones, here working pro-bono for a man who beat up the Jesuit who had raped he and his younger brother at the ages of 7 and 4 respectively, 35 years ago.
And Mones consulted with Leslie Abramson in the Menendez case. And I brought Mones into the loop in a Santa Cruz County case, and that seemed to change the Defense strategy.
The testimony from the first Menendez trial was heart wrenching. Both juries hung, which made the DA look stupid. DA should have dealt. But the news had so fanned the flames over how much money was involved and they boys having their own refrigerator.
https://www.amazon.com/When-Child-Kills-…
In the above it talks of a case where during Jury Selection a man in his 70's, retired high school principle, told of how his father used to beat him regularly with lumber.
So once he took the lumber and knocked his father unconscious with it. But he knew that that could have been fatal.
Jurors were totally freaked out.
The DA had been unwilling to deal, but seeing how hard it was to even get through jury selection, the DA now dealt. What DA's are most afraid of is being publicly humiliated. And these kinds of cases have that potential, impossible to predict how they will go.
In this county the felony jury trial conviction rate is 98%, and this is after all but 1 in 40 cases are settled by a plea deal. So it is only 6 acquittals for 12,000 cases annually.
As Mones writes, much of what we know about familial child abuse is due to the Cheyenne Wyoming case of Richard Jankhe, who shot his father dead in 1982.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089920/
He was sentenced to Life. But after getting mountains of mail, and especially an impassioned one from an elderly man who had almost killed his father, a tough Republican Governor, with great Law And Order credentials, former state AG, let young Richard get off.
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/20/us/ju…
The way the Menedez Bro's could get a new trial is by a Habeas Corpus motion, new evidence. If a judge vacates their conviction, with what is now known from MeToo and HeToo, I feel that the DA would just let Lyle and Erik get off with Time Served in exchange for a Manslaughter guilty plea.
Charles Patrick Ewing
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/076190…
Ewing writes that parricides are always "victim assisted homicides".
SJG
Dave Matthews Band, Cortez the Killer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiO13jTs…
Layla, original recording
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSquiIVL…
Now if the crime occurred today, I think the trial would have been very different. They would have argued pre-emptive self defense.... PTSD
They admitted to planning and conspiring in the first trial. But yet both juries hung.
Usually the reason a prosecutor will deal is because they know they might lose if they go to trial. So if they think the jury could hang, they might deal.
And then with the passage of time, the outrage dies away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3PA37er…
I believe that if they can get the original conviction overturned, then the DA will want to deal, rather than risk humiliation in another trial. With what we know today, and with this new evidence, I am convinced that the DA will let the bothers get off with time served, in exchange for them pleading guilty to manslaughter.
SJG
But you're right, it is still a long shot. Usually it is not the county DA, but rather the State AG's Office which argues to uphold convictions in appeals actions. Not sure if they even get to argue in a habeas pettition. But the vast majority are denied.
Is if fair to keep people in prison when there is new evidence that the jury never got to see? And we know that probably today they would not have gotten murder one and life without parole.
And we know that the original trials were completely politicized. If it were not for the fact that the parents were rich, it probably would have been handled by a plea deal. At the first trial the prosecution was even asking for the death penalty for both of the boys. That is almost never done in parricides.
SJG
Grace Potter and Joe Satriani cover Cortez the Killer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paeNnR33…
But you're right, it is still a long shot. Usually it is not the county DA, but rather the State AG's Office which argues to uphold convictions in appeals actions. Not sure if they even get to argue in a habeas pettition. But the vast majority are denied.
Is if fair to keep people in prison when there is new evidence that the jury never got to see? And we know that probably today they would not have gotten murder one and life without parole.
And we know that the original trials were completely politicized. If it were not for the fact that the parents were rich, it probably would have been handled by a plea deal. At the first trial the prosecution was even asking for the death penalty for both of the boys. That is almost never done in parricides.
SJG
Grace Potter and Joe Satriani cover Cortez the Killer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paeNnR33…
But even in laymens terms they admitted to murder
Often now in these extreme sexual abuse cases, to avoid the humiliation of a hung jury, the DA will deal. They only go to trial when the DA won't deal.
I know a guy who beat someone to death. He got charged with murder one, and then got it down to manslaughter and served 3 years.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article…
Almost always the people who commit parricides are visibly extremely immature. As one lawyer wrote about a case, it was either kill the parent or get used in the juvenile sex biz.
Many are starting to have some sympathy for those who commit parricide. Paul Mones consulted with Leslie Abramson before the Menedez trial. His view is basically that if a parent gets killed by their child, they must have deserved it. I read the cases in his book, and I am inclined to agree.
He explains that sometimes a child will attempt to kill a parent, but fail. In those cases the parent can take the witness stand. In those cases it is very easy to get the jury to go very light on the child, because just listening to such a parent enrages them.
SJG
Pink Floyd - Shine On You Crazy Diamond
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyLY8YDW…