Hi, guys, Welcome to our very first episode of Legally Brunette. I will be your host today, Emily Simpson, and I felt like the best co host for kind of like a pop culture slash legal podcast would be with my husband, Shane Simpson. And so, are you excited to be here?
I am, because I know you have a lot of knowledge on this, so I'm ready to hear it.
Yeah. So we're very excited for our first episode to be about the Menindas brothers, the murders where we're at currently, and I think what we're trying to do is kind of pack as much information about Menindaz as we can into one episode. As you all know, it's been a cultural phenomena. I remember back in nineteen eighty nine when this murder happened. I was a young girl in Middletown, Ohio, and I used to watch this trial on court TV. Now, clearly back at that time, I had a completely different
perspective on it than I do now. But I'm just wondering, did you know about the murders because you grew up in California.
I did. I did. I didn't know it as much. I didn't follow it like you did. The way I followed it was through David Letterman. He did a lot of top ten lests that would include the Menendez brothers. Jay Leno did a lot of jokes about it. So for that reason, I always saw it, but I had no opinion of it other than they killed their parents for money. That's what's my knowledge, although I'm not saying that's correct, but that's what I knew of it back then.
And you know, when you think about that time period, back in the eighties and the nineties, I do believe that that was the story that the media perpetuated, that you had two wealthy, good looking young guys that grew up in Beverly Hills, that led a very privileged lifestyle and then decided that they wanted their parents' money and they murdered them, right and even me following it on court, TV and the media, that was my takeaway back then.
And so I really feel like it's so interesting that thirty five years later, here we are talking about this case and I was trying to understand what has made it come back up and be such a huge phenomenon that all these kids are making tiktoks about it. You know, there was the recent release of Monsters on Netflix, which, by the way, let's just be clear that Monsters is a dramatization, it's not a documentary. And then there was the recent documentary on Netflix where it's actually Eric and
Lyle speaking from prison. And I read something the other day that I thought was really interesting because I did not realize this, but this surge of TikTokers, who is a completely different generation than you and I when we were growing up. Their fascination with this case comes from during the pandemic when we were all in quarantine. Court TV was running reruns of the trial.
Oh is that what? I wondered? What started it?
Yeah? And I didn't understand that either, because I knew that there were all these TikTokers that were making tiktoks about the Meninda's brothers and it was all basically the same theme that they should go free.
Well, wait a minute, that's interesting. That means TikTokers are watching court TV.
Yes, that was the part with that. I was like, why are TikTokers watching court TV? But apparently they were running reruns of Court TV. They ran the Meninda's trial during the pandemic and it caught on and this new generation watched a lot of the trial and then probably saw snippets of the trial on social media.
Sure, and the.
Consensus now it's a completely different phenomena is that they should be released because they were abused by their parents. And I was thinking about this, and this is what I do, this is what keeps me up at nights. I was thinking about how during our generation, we're kids, we're gen X, right, Okay, were born in the seventies, we were kids in the eighties, and we were in
high school and college in the nineties. And our generation, I think made fun of the Menindez brothers, like you said, because there was not the recognizing that sexual abuse could occur.
With no no always. Then you have someone like me who's not really paying attention, but yet it's thrown in my face all the time and all the you know, shows that I'm watching and news flashes or whatever. And you know, you know, certainly, I as an eighteen year old kid, I'm not paying attention, but I'm it's thrown at me that they're guilty, that they killed their parents, that they wanted to be you know, rich, and so you just assume that that's the.
Case, right, And I even remember seeing Saturday Night Live snippets where they would make fun of them with the sweaters with the with the blue and the pink sweaters, because that's you know, remember in their first trial show.
Well then they'd always have the bad hairstyles, right because.
Lyle had the two pays, so they would always have the bad hair. And then again you're.
Down playing showing that these when you're making fun of them, even down to their hairstyles, what you're saying, you're discrediting them as valid people, as kids that might have issues and problems and there might be more depth to the crime other than just privileged kids or immature kids or something exactly.
And that's why I find this case so interesting. Now Here we are in twenty twenty four and a different generation has latched onto this case, and these kids are more accepting. You know, we were Gen X, there was you know, it was you were lucky if you got a sandwich from your parents. So I think this new generation of kids have been coddled more. There's more therapy, there's gluten free, there's more acceptance of a lot of things that go into your psyche and understanding psychological factors
and so that's where we are with Menendez. But let's just go through because I know you don't know a lot about the case, and I know so much about this case. I could spend an entire probably nine hours just talking about the facts of this case. But I'm not going to do that, Please don't. I'm just going to do a brief synopsis of some of the facts of the night that it happened, and then we'll just
go from there. So Lyle and Eric Menindez were convicted of the nineteen eighty nine murders of their parents, jose and Mary Louise Mendez, who goes by the name Kitty, and they're Beverly Hills home, which, by the way, the address is seven twenty two North Elm Drive. And I actually drove there. You know that I made a video. I was in LA and I was really close to the house, and so I could not miss the opportunity. So I actually drove over to the home and parked
in front of it. And I will tell you it is such a beautiful, calm, serene, magnificent Beverly Hills neighborhood that when I was standing there, I'm trying to visualize cords well, I mean a brutal, brutal murder taking place right there in the home. Some of the forensics who worked on the Menindaz murder scene describe it as the
most brutal murder scene that they had ever witnessed. The brothers claim the killings were in self defense after years of sexual and physical abuse by their father, Jose Menindez, but prosecutors argued that the brothers killed their parents in a bid to inherit their wealth, which at the time was supposedly around fourteen million dollars, which is what they would inherit. And again, this is back in nineteen eighty nine seen mony. You're talking about a lot of money.
Money to day, certainly a lot back then.
After a highly publicized trial, the first jury was unable to reach a verdict. Actually, there were two juries in the first trial. I don't know if you knew that each boy, so Lyle and Eric, they each had their own jury during the first trial. And there were actually times when if there were specific witnesses that were speaking to something that had specifically to do with Eric or had to do with Lyle, the other jurors would have to leave the courtroom. So can you imagine.
That legitly that's a lot, right.
Also, I believe the defense had fifty five. I might not be right about that, but it was an exorbitant amount of character witnesses who testified on behalf of Lyle and Eric. So can you imagine just how long this trial took, the depths of it, the character witnesses, the two different juries. I don't know exactly. I think it was maybe eight months. Don't quote me on that, but it was a long It was a long trial. They were sentenced after their second trial, which was in nineteen
ninety six. It resulted in both brothers being convicted of first degree murder. They were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility at the role. Also, there are you know, I'll just go into a little bit, just a brief overlay, but there a lot of people question the second trial because the judge precluded a lot of the sexual abuse evidence that was disclosed in the first trial. There were a lot of emotions filed by the prosecution in the second trial, which a lot of that evidence.
That brings up a lot of questions for me because it's like, why wouldn't you present the same evidence, you know, was it and I don't know the answers, But was it the judge thinking, well, let's shake it up because the jury couldn't convict or find or affirm, you know, not guilty, so let's shake it up to try to get an outcome. Why wouldn't you present the same evidence.
And if you present the same evidence and you get the same outcome, which is a hung jury, well then that goes to show there's not enough evidence to convict.
I don't disagree with what you're saying. I'll give you a little bit of a timeline. When the Menindas brothers went to trial for their second for the second trial, it was I believe eight days after the OJ Simpson verdict of not guilty, and the DA's office was looking like an incompetent office.
Well, they were an incompetent office after the OJ trial exactly.
And so I think that a lot of that went into the judge's decisions. Now here's where I have questions. I am not a judge, but I don't know exactly what authority a judge acted on that he precluded a lot of the sexual abuse evidence in the second trial. Also, I don't think there was a manslaughter option there were there was either not guilty.
Wa Wait, In the first trial, what was what were the charges?
Well, it was premeditated manslaughter or not guilty.
Okay, well always not guilty, right, What were the charges In the second trial.
It was either they could either be convicted of premeditated murder or not guilty. I don't think there was a manslaughter option because there wasn't. There wasn't the allowance of any mitigating factors of the abuse. Also, Lyle did not take the stand and the second trial because he had made a mistake and had spoken to a woman named
Norma Novelli. I believe that she was having phone conversations with him over a long period of time from prison, and I believe he made some incriminating statements that had to do with his acting ability. You could have brought that in and exactly so, he did not testify on the stand because he could have been impeached with that. So, you know, the second trial was completely different than the first trial. They ended up getting convicted of premeditated murder
life without parole. So that's where we're at today and now here we are, thirty five years.
Later, convicted of the same or both with the same sentencing life without parole.
Yes, both, and life.
Without parole is different than life. A lot of people think, you hear life, but life is I think twenty years
in California not necessarily life. But then life without parole is truly what we think of as life in prison, which is you are not being released, which means, regardless of your behavior in prison, you will not be released, right, which can lead someone to think, well, then when you go to prison and you got nothing to lose, you try to escape, you don't follow the rules, you're not incentivized for good behavior, and I think that will come up later, So I decided to mention.
That, right. So thirty five here we are, thirty five years later, and this case has just been huge, mostly because of the Monsters that came out on Netflix, which you did not watch.
No, but I've heard you watching it every night for the last few months.
I've watched it.
I think falls.
I think I've watched it maybe three times at this point, And people go, why is.
The family so angry all the time, Well, she falls asleep to true crime and Monsters.
I do want to make clear though, that I know a lot of people have watched monsters, and we just have to clarify that Monsters is a dramatization. I do think that there are a lot of factual things and monsters, but there are also a lot of scenes that are the creator's imagination. There are scenes between Jose and Kitty that no one could have known what they said or what happened. They're obviously a creation. I also think that the characters of Lyle and Eric and Monsters were very,
very one dimensional. They made Eric out to be kind of a depressed, sad, weak person, and they clearly made Lyle the aggressor. I think every scene that Lyle's in, he's arguing, fighting, or yelling at someone.
Which I think the viewers or listeners will have which one of the brothers is the one with no hair, Which is the one with hair? That'll help me identify that.
Okay. Eric is the younger brother. He was eighteen when they committed the murders, and he has a full head of hair, okay. And then Lyle is the older brother. He was twenty one when the murders were committed, and he has a to pay. Well, I don't in prison now. If you see photos of them now, he just shaved his Heady's balt but when he was younger, in his twenties, he wore a to pay. And Eric even says that he did not know his brother wore a to pay.
And there's a scene in Monsters where it shows Kitty ripping off Lyle's to pay, and apparently, according to interviews with Lyle and Eric, that was true, that really did happen. She got angry, she ripped his two pay off, and Eric had no idea that he had worn a to pay.
It's a little insight into their the way their dinners are taking place.
Right all right. So here's something I just want to do. There are lots of lots of documentaries, TV series, There's films that have to do with the Menendez you know. I think for me, the one that I would suggest someone watching if you're trying to get into the Menindez for the first time and you want some background information. I do like the most recent documentary that is on Netflix. It's Lyle and Eric their Interview from Prison. I think
that it gives a lot of background information. It interviews the prosecutor, it interviews Lyle and Eric, it gives a lot of insight. It interviews cops, police involved detectives. It's very interesting and I think it's a good synopsis of what happened. There's a lot of things out there that are TV movies and things like that. I don't know. I find them to be highly dramatized. But anyway, let's get into here's something I want to do because I want to hear your thoughts on this, because you never
agree with anything I say. But the biggest question right now is should they be released? Because where we're at now is there's two options. There's the Habeas petition and there's also a recent and sing request.
Okay, well, explain the Habeas petition.
The Habeas petition was filed back in May of twenty twenty three. And actually we'll have Alexandra on in a little bit. Who is the current she represents them Meninda's brothers currently, so we'll get some more insight into that. But the Habeas petition was basically based on some new evidence that came forward that corroborates the abuse. And those two pieces of new evidence is one there is the man named Roy Roussello. There was a new documentary. It's
not on Netflix. I'm not sure where it's at. But it's the Menudo Menindez documentary.
Okay, So the Habeast petition is just new evidence that they want to introduce, right, Okay, in late terms.
Right.
And then the second one was a resentencing hearing.
The second one is a recencing hearing, and it's basically a request to re sentence, and it's based on a lot of factors. I'm not sure exactly what all those factors are, but it's basically like the family supports them. They've been model prisoners during their time. There has been some corroboration of abuse. They've been in prison long enough, their family supports them. They're not, you know, a menace
to society. No one suspects that they would, you know, commit crimes if they were really back to.
The life without parole. So they're not incentivized for good behavior and hopes of getting out. But yet they're maintaining good behavior and I think they're working on their education, yes, and they were supporting other prisoners in probably reforming it and abuse.
They work with hospice patients, they work with abuse suffers, abuse, they've been model prisoners and like you said, it's very significant that they were doing those things, never thinking that there was a chance for them to be paroled. All Right, I just want to go into a little bit of an analysis because you're an attorney, and let's just talk about some of the things that make this a premeditated brutal murder that would suggest that they should stay in prison.
So Eric wrote a screenplay about a team killing his parents for their inheritance. Before the murders, they also supposedly watched a movie called The Billionaire Boys Club, which was about murdering their parents for money.
Which start Judd Nelson.
By the way, have you seen that movie? You are a big jo when I watched it, Well, you might have watched it the same night the Meninda's brothers watched it.
Possibly they bought that of a.
Parent, right, but was it for for money? For an inheritance? They bought the shotguns and the ammunition two days prior to the murders. They use a fake ID to buy the guns. And let's just talk a minute, because I think this is just to be fair, we have to talk about the brutality of the murders before.
You get to the brutality. Yeah, those facts that you stated two days before bought ammunition or whatever you said, that would have that would take place regardless of the intent behind the murders. If they were going to kill and eliminate their parents because of abuse, they'd still have to go get a gun, they'd still have to do all those things. So it doesn't That doesn't sway someone. That shouldn't sway someone as to the motive for reasoning behind the murders.
I think though, but when you buy the guns two days.
Although the high school script is a little questionable because I didn't write high school script.
On I think though that the fact that they bought the guns two days prior and there's a cooling off period and there wasn't anything that happened, well, I mean, they do claim that they were scared for their life. Their first defense was at an imperfect self defense. That's where you have to really put yourself in the mind of someone that's been sexually and physically abused. And I've never been through that, so it's hard for me to put myself in someone's shoes.
And I'm guessing an imperfect self defense is when they they're under the reasonable belief that they have a defense, but legally they do not, or factually, perhaps they're incorrect exactly.
That is where us, from a reasonable standard looking into it, we would say your life wasn't in jeopardy. But from them, given their own circumstances, the.
Equivalent would be if someone comes at me with a fake gun and I defend myself, and then after the fact we learned that the fake that the gun was fake, and I never was really under any death threat of death, right, Okay.
All right, So let's get a little bit into the brutality of the murders. Just on that evening. They use Mossberg shotguns. They were pump action shotguns. They went into the foyer where their parents were sitting watching TV. They were watching a movie. They were seated on the couch. I believe they were eating ice cream, and they shot them at close range. There were ten shots that hit Jose, and I believe no ten hit Kitty. Five hit Jose.
You're talking about brutal, in your face up front murders, right, which to me, if I think about it as an adult, there's a lot of rage. That's a rage killing.
Oh yeah, that's not one shot to the head. They're dead, Okay, mission accomplished, right, that's the I want you freaking dead, right, and also I have a question whether any words exchanged prior to that that we know of, whether it's accurate or not.
No, not that I not that I've ever read or heard in testimony. Basically, what happened was they got the shotguns out of the car. They entered into the foyer of their home. Each son had a shotgun. They busted through the double doors that were closed of the den TV room. It was a wood paneled room, and they just began firing at close range. And actually Kitty fell to the ground. She jumped up from the couch. She put her hand up in front of her face, a
defensive hand to stop the shot. She screamed, no, something to that effect. She fell to the ground. She was not dead. She tried to crawl away. They went back to the car, reloaded, and entered the house and Lyle shot her in the.
Face after Kitty was already dead.
No, she was not dead, she was okay, she was still she was shot. She was still alive, she was crawling.
Where was she shot? Why did they shoot one in the head and not the other.
Lyle walked around to the back of the couch and shot Jose in the back of the head. So basically eviscerated his brain.
Okay, okay, so that was without any warning, right, But then then the mud probably had some reaction.
Well, she jumped up and apparently she put her arms up, so she had shots through you know, her hand and her arm. She I think she had a shot in the face. She fell to the ground. She was not dead. Jose was killed instantly. He was shot in the back of the head. Kitty did not die instantly. She was on the ground. She was crawling to get away. They went back to the car, reloaded the shotguns, came.
Back to the car, reload the shotguns, came and shot their mother in the face. Lyle how many times?
One time to the face.
Okay, it's pretty bad. Yeah.
Then after the murders, they left the house. They got rid of This is interesting to me. They got rid of the shotguns and apparently they dumped them somewhere along Mall Hall and Drive. What is so incredible to me is that thirty five years later, those shotguns have never been found.
Well, you've said that before, and I don't know if I agree with that. I mean, I'm sure there's lots of weapons that get tossed, and it's in LA and some people probably found it and no one knew what it was at the time when they found it, and they repurposed it for some other crime, and then that was the end of it.
Yeah, I mean the only thing I can think is, I mean they were found, no one knew the significance of them, and then is there in some.
Side of the road. I mean, anything could happen. If you said that they were in the house and it was never found, then I'd questioned it. But it's on the public road. I don't think that's as big of a deal as you make it out to be. Secondly, if they found the guns even today, if they found them today and they were preserved, what value would that they've confessed to the crime.
No, they did confess, and I know there's no value to finding the weapons. I'm sure that's why the police didn't bother searching, because it's not like they needed that to you know, I mean, they.
Didn't need a smoking gun. But then I go back, I go back and forth lot. I go back to why did they throw away the guns? Why are they hiding the evidence?
Well, that was this is part of the analysis. So it's after they shot their parents, they they got rid of the bloody clothes. I read. I think it was in a book by Robert rand I read that they got rid of the bloody clothes, like behind a gas station somewhere they changed their clothes into I guess they had some tennis clothes in their car. They tried to buy movie tickets for an earlier movie time. They tried to see Batman in an earlier time because they wanted
a timestamp on the movie to prove an alibi. They also tried to meet up with a friend at the Taste of La and then later tried to meet up with him at Cheesecake, again trying to establish some type of alibi. They were turned back.
To that after the fact they tried to establish alibis.
Yeah, after the fact they were trying to establish They were trying to buy a movie ticket for earlier in the night, you know, like the nine to ten showing.
How did they forget that part? They should have bought the ticket.
Before, Yeah, but they couldn't. I don't think you could buy a ticket that early for a nine pm showing. I don't know, I.
I don't know. Presumably it was the Tim Burton Batman with Chack Nicholson.
It was it was the nineteen eighty nine Batman that they were trying to buy tickets too. They returned back to the home. This is almost around midnight, and at a they realized they back home, and they realized that there's no police there. They thought for sure that someone would have heard the shots in this quiet, sleepy you know, Beverly Hills neighborhood.
As you described it earlier.
It was it is, and no one did. So they return home. They don't know what to do. There's no police there. They enter the home. Lyle calls nine one at eleven forty seven. They are yelling. They're emotional. They're saying, someone shot our parents. The police show up two minutes later. They come out of the house. They drop to their knees. They're crying, pounding the ground. Our parents have been shot. They blame it on the mafia because their dad was supposedly,
you know, it was a big wig at RCA. So they blame it on well, not at the time. He worked for RCA earlier, but then he worked for Live Entertainment after that. There's all the evidence of the spending spree. You know, they bought rolllexes they house.
Soon after, they spend money.
Okay, well, they bought new suits and rolllexes. I believe either one day or two days before the funeral, the memorial service in Hollywood for their parents, they spent sixteen thousand dollars on money clips and three new rolexes. That was a day or two before the memorial so that was within days of the murders.
Probably not related. But in Billionaire Boys Club they did the same thing. They spiffed themselves up with Mercedes and suits and Rolexes and try to really look like we got our a game on right. But of course they were also pursuing business ventures.
But anyway, go ahead, okay, so well then that's another Also, I believe Lyle bought a restaurant in New Jersey, so they spent. They spent a lot of money. They actually got I think seven hundred thousand dollars from an insurance policy pretty immediately after the murders, and they also were authorized to use their dad's AMX up to two hundred and fifty thousand. They also bought I think a Geep a Porsche.
But see if they had all this money, like the two hundred and fifty grand or whatever line of credit or whatever it was. Then they had access to money. It's not like, you know, Dad won't buy us this, and they're stingy and they're going to give away the money, and you know, we have to go to school. We don't want to go to school. We just want our money. Now, that leads me to think that they were living a
wonderful life financially, So why would they Where's the motive? No, I agree, I think that I have anyway, not conclusion.
No, I don't disagree with you. I think the prosecution and the media pushed very hard that the motive was for money. But if you analyze their lifestyle, you're not talking about two kids that were withheld anything. I think they lived. Yeah, they had to pay, they had They lived a very lavish lifestyle. I don't think their parents, you know, I think they gave them everything that they needed.
So sometimes when I think about the spending spree, if we're talking about the abuse being true, then maybe that was their way of exhibiting their freedom. Yeah, not so much. We just want all this money, but that was the way that they could outwardly exert that. They find out.
Now we have money. It's now we don't have our parents abusing us or controlling us and dictating our lives. Right yeah. So it's like you let a dog out in the yard, out of the yard, and all of sudd Now they're just roaming free, right yeah.
Okay, So let's talk about some things that I think were very fundamental for me when I was going through this case and reading things and watching things that really led me to believe that the abuse allegations were real. There was detailed testimony and a lot of emotion in the first trial when Eric and Lyle both testified. If you have the opportunity, I would say, either watch their testimony. You can find YouTube videos of it, or read the
trial transcripts. I don't think that you can act. To me, that's not acting. That's real, hardcore emotion. There are also two family witnesses that corroborated the abuse. I believe there were two cousins that testified that they had seen abuse within the home. There was a letter that Eric had written to his cousin Andy eight months prior to the murder,
kind of outlining that the abuse was happening. That's one of the pieces of evidence that was found later, there's the declaration of Roy Roussello from Minuto, who claims that Jose Mendez drugged him and raped him in his home. And then also in the most recent Netflix documentary, this was really an AHA moment for me. They're interviewing Pam who was the prosecutor in the first trial, and she openly admits that they could not find one character witness to testify on behalf of Jose to say he was
a good man. Not one, not a single character witness.
Would they testify the opposite?
I'm sure, But the prosecutor is not going to.
No, no, But have you heard anything or because not not witnessing or testifying that he was a good man doesn't mean he was a bad man. Was anyone Did anyone have bad thoughts and interactions with him?
Well, I'm sure they did. I think he was ruthless in business, we know that, Yeah, I mean, all the things I've read is he was ruthless, he had a bad reputation, he was difficult to deal with, like, he was not liked. I mean all those attributes also made him a very highly skilled executive. I mean he got pretty far. And then lastly, it's just their behavior in prison I think is very commendable. The fact that they are.
They were sentenced to life without parole, and yet they dedicated their lives to being educated, getting degrees and they're both married.
Well they are, maybe they are crazy. What are your thoughts on that? I don't know. All I know is there's no conjugal visits for people that are in prison for life without problem is very true. I was going to get to that how they did marry for love?
They did for love because it wasn't for sex, for sure, it was not supposedly though. So Eric is still married to the same woman. Her name is Tammy. They got married I believe, back in the nineties. She I think is close to sixty at this point, he's like fifty five or something.
That's fine, that's close in age.
My question is if they do get released, do you think that marriage will last?
Well, I don't know. I don't know anything about the marriage. I mean, I can't I can't comment on that. I just can say that they haven't lived together before along, they haven't even gone out to eat. I mean, I don't even know. Yeah, they're going to come across new, uh traits of their personalities. They go out together. Yeah, so we're hopeful.
So Lyle has been married a couple of times. He's currently married, but he's been married. Yeah, he's been married a couple of times. I think I believe he's married to his second wife right now. But she recently hosted on Facebook because she runs a Facebook page for him, that they are separated, but they remain best friends and she still supports him. But he currently as far as I know, I think the Daily Mail reported this, he
has a girlfriend that's twenty one and she's British. I believe she flew out to the prison and she has visited him and there were photos of them together.
Oh, this makes for a good episode of Life After lock Up, it does, right now. That's good reality TV.
Shane and I used to watch that a lot.
Yeah, the Menenda's edition.
All right, So, based upon what we've gone through, we did an analysis of why it was premeditated, the brutality of the murders. But then some of the things that convinced me that the abuse is true, that the abuse was corroborated by family members. There was the letter that was found from the cousin or that Eric had written to the cousin the Menudo, you know, member that came forward and said Jose had raped him.
Well, let's be clear then, so all this new evidence leans towards they were abused and that would be the motive, which doesn't mean it wasn't a murder, and it doesn't justify murder because my parents have annoyed me from time to time, and the world knows you've annoyed me for time to time.
I do, I do.
Murder is never an option. Now, I haven't been abused to the extent that they claim they have been, so I certainly can't judge them. But what I'm getting at is, so if if we find we being the court finds that they have been abused, and that indeed is the motive and it was not money, then are they supposed to be out of jail? Should they still be in jail because you know, murder is not.
Well, that's the argument that's to be made, And I'm asking you from your legal analysis your opinion based upon all the things we talked about that make it premeditated a brutal murder, and then some of the things that I put on the other side that have to do with the crop of abuse, what they endured, what they've gone through, do you think that they should be re sentenced to a lesser sentence which would allow them to be immediately eligible for pearl.
Okay, I have real strong opinions on this. Okay, Ready, I don't know. I know enough to know that I don't know what it's like to be abused, right, And I don't know what the situation would be to have a father as he's painted out to be. So far to say, you know, I mean, and how I would handle it if I would run away or leave or punch my dad in the face or whatever it is. I mean, I don't know how. I don't know how
I would handle it. So who am I to sit here and judge them for how they handled whatever abuse they encounter. I just don't know, and I'm not, Unfortunately, I'm not in a position where my opinion really matters to them. So I just can't go any further than that other than saying I don't know, and I have
sympathy for people in that situation. I know. There's the battered woman syndrome, right, which is I don't know where it stands today legally, but it was recognized at one point that in the battered woman syndrome, that she's in no position to be able to get up and leave, that her only way of survival for her and possibly her children is to kill the man and that's the only way out, and that was recognized before.
And I think that's a valid point that you make, because I've read and heard many people who have commentated on this case who are psychologists who are knowledgeable, who have said things such as, if these were the Menindez sisters, they would either have been it would have been a lesser charge of manslaughter because it.
Comes off less violent and less physically aggressive if it's a female.
I think you mean.
It's perceived if it's the Menendez sisters, as you said, just I think me watching it as a young child, and even now, it just naturally comes off as less aggressive. Wow, they really that was their only way out, you know. And you don't see daughters killing parents. You don't vision and vision daughters killing parents for money. So you're saying, and it's all prejudging and none of it's accurate. We shouldn't be like that, But I'm just saying that's how it comes off.
But I'm just saying if they were females, I think the abuse allegations that they made would have been believed.
Oh, yes, I'm sorry, I'll start listening to you now. O.
Yes, okay, I'm just saying if they were females when the abuse allegations came up, I think people would have probably wholeheartedly believed what they were saying. You know, the prosecutor paying it's.
More easy to accept that a man would be horrific towards young women, right versus the other way around, exactly.
It was the understanding during that time period. In the early nineties, there were two hung juries. In the first trial, all of the men voted for premeditated murder. Men could not wrap their heads around the fact that boys could be sexually abused by their fathers. Right and the prosecution. I saw it in a video I believe was on YouTube somewhere where the prosecutor Pam says to the judge in open court, it is our position that boys cannot
be sexually abused. Yeah, that's that's why this case is so fundamental for today's society, and it's such an earmark of accepting the fact that boys can be abused by their parents. Right and that's where we're at, and hopefully we have a recensing hearing coming up on January thirtieth. There's a new DA in LA. His name's Nathan Hochman. He's taking office soon. They had to delay the resentencing to January thirtieth because he said he wanted time to
review everything. He wants to at the totality of the circumstances. I believe he wants to go back and read all the trials, transcripts, both trials.
I did see an interview with him where he said, I'm not going to, you know, just because they got popularity on Netflix and this, and that we're not going to just rush it. I think he was like, I'm going to treat this like any other case, which is I need to look at everything, not just watch a documentary exactly.
I saw a recent interview I respected that on TMZ and he said that he wanted to make two things crystal clear, One that there was no preferential treatment, that he was going to do a thorough review of all the facts in the Meninda's case. And two and I
thought this was really interesting. He said he loves the media attention that this case is getting because it allows so many people to get involved in the criminal justice system, and he really urged everyone to not just watch a dramatization like Monsters, but if you truly want to get involved and you truly want to understand it, read the trial transcripts, watch the trial, watch the cour TV.
Be so quick to judge exactly, Know that there's a lot more to a murder then just it's cold blooded exactly.
And with that, I think, thank you for giving me your opinion. Sure, what we're going to do now. I actually have a very good friend named Alexandra who is an attorney and she represents them and in those brothers. She works for Mark Geragos, and we're going to have her come on and we're going to ask her some questions about the case.
I'll be exciting.
Hi, guys, Hi alex thanks for being here of course. Okay, first of all, give me a little background. Alex and I are friends. I actually adore her. But besides that, give us a little background on how long you've been involved with the case. How long have you worked with Garagoes. Where are we at with that?
Oh, I've been with Mark probably, I mean probably about eight years now. I've known in my whole life when I was a public defender. He used to think I worked for him already, a really good family friend, and we've been partners probably for about eight years now, and we came on to the Menandez case. I think it's been a little bit more than a year now.
Right when the.
Habeas was filed, we came in because it was filed by Cliff Gardner, who's really behind the scenes, but he's a genius in a pellet work, and so he asked us if we would come in and do the footwork, and so we came in right about them.
Okay, Now, we were talking about this earlier because we were trying to distinguish the habeas petition from the resentencing, which are two different routes to grant them freedom. At this point, do you have a preference, like do you feel like the resentencing is a better route for your clients or the habeas.
Well, the resentencing is cleaner because if the resentsing is granted, if the judge reduces it to a misdemeanor, they're immediately released.
So that's the.
Cleanest way for them to get out. If the habeas is granted, it gives them the option of a new trial. So there's a potential there that we have an entirely new Menendez Brothers Jurney.
And that's a mess.
So for me, as a representative of my clients, I would love to have the door just be opened and let them be freed. So the resentencing is my preference obviously right now.
The hearing coming up on January thirtieth is that is the resentencing. Is that correct?
That's correct?
Okay, Now when we talk about resentencing, what are the factors that they taken into consideration, Like is the new evidence taken into consideration at that point as well, or is it more based upon kind of the family support, their behavior in prison, things like that.
So the resentsing is really just what have they done from the time that they've been in prison until now. That's really the only thing you're looking at and the only real consideration for the judges. Is there a potential that they're going to be released and re offend by committing a super strike? And there's very specific charges that are super strikes, you know, murder, rape, things like that.
So the question is is there anything in their history while they've been in prison that would make you think that they are potentially going to refund at a very very serious level.
And I assume there's nothing. Everything I've read is that they've been nothing about model prisoners. They've gotten degrees, they've helped other prisoners and abuse sand hospice and things like that. Is that correct, that's correct.
Not only have they been model citizens, but there are no other inmates that I have ever heard of that are like them. They had no potential for getting out, all of their appeals had been denied, and so they were resolved to the fact that they were going to be in prison for the rest of their lives. And at that point they started creating programs for other prisoners so that when they were released they had a better
chance of survival without recidivism. And they focused solely on people who needed to be comforted towards the end of their life, who were in prison. Everything for everyone else. So yeah, I cannot even imagine if somebody wanted to come in and actually focus on the resentencing shoes, anything that they would say about their time in prison, that shows that they have not been rehabilitated.
Right. And also, let me ask you, I know you know them personally because you speak to them often. How are they doing emotionally or mentally with everything that's going on, with all the support they're getting from social media, are they prepared if because there is the possibility that they remain in prison.
It's always an option, It's always on their minds. You know, there's been already through this process. Just in the last year, there's been these peaks in these valleys. I think that from the inside it's hard to know exactly what's happening on the outside. They don't get watched TMZ. They get reports that are you know, third, fourth, fifth parties sometimes and so they've had a lot of ups and downs.
But they're dealing with it with it better.
Than I ever would. They deal with everything better than I ever would.
Right, That was a question I was gonna ask. Are they aware of all the support that they're getting outside the gates, outside the prison?
Yeah, they are.
It means a lot time.
I mean, that's got to be somewhat humbling to finally have that support after you know, three decades.
Yeah, and it's funny that you say that it they are very thoughtful, very humble people.
You know, Shane and I were talking before you came on about how when the trial first occurred back in the nineties. It was a completely different time period, and I was saying, I think a lot of that. I've actually I text you at night. I'm like, I'm laying in bed and I think about these things. I was thinking about how that time period, the people within our peer group, we were gen X, and that was very you know, you just you put your big girl pants on.
There weren't participation trophies, there wasn't gluten free, there was nothing warm and fuzzy. It was basically like you just you took care of yourself. And now we have this whole new generation that watch court TV, that saw the trial, that listened to them testify, that knows about what they've been through. And it's a different generation and they accept them and they believe them, and they and they embrace them.
And that has to be so amazing for them to after all this time, to actually feel like what they've been through is being recognized, right.
I Mean, they were the butt of jokes. They were Saturday Night Live skits about them. They were just made fun of constantly. And for them to be this complete oneint eighty is I think great just for them. I mean, people don't like it. When I say it, a lot of times I get black for it. But you know,
they are victims. They are victims, and they were put in the position that they were in because they were abused, and so it's I think it's healing for them to see that they are being recognized as victims, not just as monsters.
Right.
Yeah, I think it's great. And one thing that hasn't really been spoken about a lot is that when they were in and when they were putting their story out there, when they got on the stand and they started talking about what was happening, people inside of the jails came to them and said, oh, my god, I would never have done that. I never would have told my story. But now that you have, can I talk to you about it? Because I've never had anybody to talk to.
So they've started support groups inside for victims of sexual violence and abuse that did not exist. And the idea that there are not support groups for things like that inside of the prisons boggled my mind. But they are the ones who started the creation of those support groups.
Or Yeah, that's really amazing work that they've done. Also, how do you see them if they were let go, if they become free. How do you see them giving back? Is that what they talk about? Have you had conversations with them about that? Like how they see themselves once they're free.
They want to keep continuing doing the work that they've been doing. Everything they talk about about their goals are to continue doing the work of reforming the prisons that they've been doing from the inside.
They might be even more motivated to do so if they were to be released in any terms, they would probably see the value in speaking up and recognizing prisoners as victims of abuse or whatever they've been through. That they might want to continue their work because they're seeing like the fruits, right, Yeah, that that that people can be released, people can be reformed, people can you know, continue to help others. So they might be in you know, they might feel it's more valuable for them to do
this and they'll want to just continue it. Yeah, that's that's that's yeah, it's probably it'd probably be hard for them to not want to continue it if they see the results that can come of it.
Thank you so much. I appreciate it, and I will talk to you soon. Okay, bye bye, okay, bye bye Okay.
So, if they do get released under under any terms, whether it be resentencing or a new trial. And they get out of jail, then you know, we wonder if they're going to stay married, and this's that. But can they there's so much popularity around this, so much Hollywood around this, so to speak, can they benefit from any of this because obviously Netflix drama, everyone's benefiting from it.
Yeah, you know what, they actually can. So in New York you're precluded from making money from a crime. However, in California that's not true. So they actually can profit from their stories.
As far as you know, there's no restrictions.
There's no restrictions, you know they As far as what I've read, there is no There's nothing left of this fourteen million dollar inheritance. It has all gone. It went. A lot of it paid for the defense the first couple of trials. Also, the house had a mortgage that had to be paid, there were taxes that had to be paid.
Everyone was probably, yeah, putting their hand in thee.
There's no money left. However, you're talking about two men that are on the popularity scale of like a Kardashian. So if they do happen by chance to come out of prison, I am sure that there will be some bidding wars over who gets the first interview with them, and you're talking millions.
Of because the worry would be they come out of jail or prison and then they don't like have something to you know, to grasp on to financially support themselves. And yet everyone else is profited. But you're saying that they can they carefully, they do it properly and not be taken advantage of. But they can use their stories.
Yes, interviews, social media, book deals. Yes, there there is the potential for.
The reality shows podcast, There is the potential for them to make a lot of money. Yes, okay, all right, thanks guys for listening to our very first podcast on the Menindez Brothers, and thanks so much for listening.
Thank you,