I believe this is the young woman Anamaria posted on insta story over a year ago. Or, it could be the person who was standing in the back at the rally.
Both of the girls are shown at the end.
Mr. Conn: You testified earlier about some photographs shown to you by your attorney. Do you recall those? Mr. Levin: Objection, Your Honor. It is unclear which photographs counsel is referring to. The Court: Sustained. It’s ambiguous.
Mr. Conn: Let me show you what has been marked as 352-A. Is that one of the photographs you identified here in court? Erik Menendez: Yes.
Mr. Conn: You stated your father would take photographs of you in the nude? Erik Menendez: He would.
Mr. Conn: Are there any eyewitnesses to your father taking these photographs? Erik Menendez: Certainly there would never be a witness when he had me pose in a specific position for him. That would never occur. Regarding a photograph like this—where I don't know if he had Lyle pose or what was happening—it’s difficult to imagine there would be more than one witness, and I don’t know if there are any.
Mr. Conn: So, there is not a single witness to your father taking a photograph of you in the nude; is that correct? Erik Menendez: I can't say whether there are or not. I'm not aware of them.
Mr. Conn: And you cannot provide the name of any witness? Erik Menendez: No, I cannot.
Mr. Conn: Regarding the photograph I just showed you, you testified that it is your brother, Lyle Menendez? Erik Menendez: Yes.
Mr. Conn: How do you know that? Erik Menendez: Because it’s not me. Unless my father was taking pictures of other naked children, it’s my brother.
Mr. Conn: You don't actually know who took that particular photograph, do you? Erik Menendez: I didn't take it. It never occurred to me that it could be my mother.
Mr. Conn: You have no personal knowledge of where these photographs were recovered from, do you? Erik Menendez: I know they were recovered from the boxes at my home.
Mr. Conn: By "personal knowledge," I mean did you see them being recovered? Erik Menendez: No. I wasn't there. I trust my attorneys would tell me if they got them from my home.
Mr. Conn: Exhibit 356 is a group of negatives. Have you looked at these? Erik Menendez: Yes.
Mr. Conn: This strip contains four negatives. Do you recognize the first image as being the same as photograph 222? Erik Menendez: Yes, it is.
Mr. Conn: And the second photograph in that strip—which you say is perhaps Lyle—is that correct? Erik Menendez: I believe it is Lyle. I think he identified it at the last trial because of his hand and the imprint of his hand across his body.
Mr. Conn: Do you see a scar that you recognize? Erik Menendez: I’m not talking about a scar. If you look at the hand and match it to the photograph, it’s pretty obvious it’s Lyle. Even though he was 12 or 18 years younger, I personally believe it is him.
Mr. Conn: Showing you 371, which was previously 224. Is this a print of the third image in that group of negatives? Erik Menendez: Yes.
Mr. Conn: And directed at the first photograph in this strip: do you see your father in that photograph? Erik Menendez: (Looking closer) Yes, I do.
Mr. Conn: So you know your father didn't take that specific photograph, correct? Erik Menendez: Clearly.
Mr. Conn: Can you tell us what this is a photograph of? Erik Menendez: I have no idea.
Mr. Conn: Does it look like the bottom of a door touching a carpet? Erik Menendez: It looks like a post to me, or maybe a door because of the shadow.
Mr. Conn: You saw your father hold a camera on occasion? Erik Menendez: When he was taking photographs of me, he was holding a camera.
Mr. Conn: Did he operate it properly? Erik Menendez: He wasn’t great with electronics, but a camera is simple. I imagine he used it properly.
Mr. Conn: Do you specifically recall your father taking that photograph of you? Erik Menendez: I was six years old; I can’t say I recall that particular one. But I don’t remember anyone else doing that type of thing. He would wake me up with ice water and take pictures to see my reaction.
Mr. Conn: Did you or Lyle ever have access to cameras or receive one as a gift? Erik Menendez: I don't remember where they were kept. I don't remember Lyle taking photographs. And no, we never received a camera as a present.
The Court: We will recess for lunch until 1:30 PM.
In the ending of the monsters show. The jury seems to show doubt that the brothers did it out of a desire for money. Is this accurate to real life? One of the jurors thought they were abused, if they were abused then why convict them? Another juror thought that they snapped and he said it was understandable. Why did the jury show doubt if they convicted them?
Please feel free to skip my super long and incoherent rant ✌🏻
I was just in a really bad mood anyway and then I watched this and these two got on my damn nerves even more, so I was being a Petty Betty and typed out everything they said that annoyed me lol
I’m not really making any points or anything, I just don’t know anyone IRL that follows this case, so I'm using these subs to vent because Reddit is free and therapy is not 😄
The opening with Chris Cuomo saying "Daddy was a bad man, Daddy did bad things to us and Mommy knew and Mommy was enabling him and it was never gonna stop and he had just said that he was about to hurt one of the brother's again and the other brother said "not this time, not anymore"....and so they killed them"
The way he said this really irritated me. The repeated use of Daddy and Mommy in his semi mocking tone just comes across as him trivialising their testimonies right off the bat.
He makes it sound like their testimonies was "Daddy" was a big ol' meanie and "Mommy" was cold, so we just had to kill them.
No, they recounted in detail a lifetime of the physical, emotional and sexual abuse they endured at the hands of both of their parents which led to a heightened state of paranoia, fear, confusion and hypervigilance that ultimately ended in tragedy. They didn't excuse what they did, they tried to explain how the twisted family dynamics they had been born into culminated into a night that they deeply regretted.
Dusty Cohen just seemed very salty that Roy Rosello wouldn't give her an interview. There could be many reasons why Roy Rosello didn't want to waste his time speaking to this woman and after watching her attitude in this, I think he made the right choice.
Maybe he had built up a rapport with Rob Rand and felt the documentary allowed him to talk about it in safe way with people he trusted, maybe speaking to the press would have legal implications as his testimony formed part of the Habeas Corpus, maybe doing interviews would have negatively impacted Erik and Lyle as the media scrutiny was so intense at the time....or maybe, he just simply didn't fucking want to.
She is not entitled to his story and he does not owe her an interview nor an explanation.
She had the audacity to confidently say that Erik and Lyle were fighting for their lives and Roy Rosello was nowhere to be found. Just because he didn't give her the interview she clearly tried hard to get, doesn't mean that he didn't help them and if she bothered to look into the case before running her misinformed mouth she would know this.
He did help Erik and Lyle, he spoke about his abuse in a setting that he was comfortable in, making it public without subjecting himself to the clutches of the media and he gave his testimony as part of the Habeas Corpus and was willing to give his testimony in Court if needed.
Chris Cuomo thinks the most likely one of his theories on why Roy Rosello hasn't given any more interviews is because the family members said if he can't back it up then they would sue him.
Now why would they do that Chris?
All of their living relatives support their release and Roy’s testimony corroborates that their father was a sexual predator. So it would make absolutely no sense for their family to want to silence him. Do they not do any research before these shows?
He then goes on to say that family members were quiet at the time but then came out during the resentencing to say they knew about the abuse. Their Aunts Terri, Marta and Joan and Cousins Alan, Andy and Diane all testified at the trials and Diane testified at the resentencing as well. Why is he trying to make it sound like the family members have only just now spoke about what they saw or heard and what Erik and Lyle disclosed to them, when they testified to this at the trials over 30 years ago?
When she said they definitely put on the black suits, does she mean to the funeral? If so, then what else was she expecting them to where to a funeral?
Chris Cuomo says that Lyle has convinced himself that they had to kill their parents because Jose was about to molest Erik again and he referenced the interview Chris did with Lyle in 2017. He shows a little clip of the interview making it seem that this was going to back up what he just said, but the clip he shows is of Lyle answering Chris' question about where was his head in relation to what was happening between Erik and Jose which is why Lyle is talking about how he felt that Erik had given up.
Jose ordering Erik to his room, their mother not saying anything and aligning herself with Jose and Lyle saying no you're not going to touch my brother again or words to that effect happened in the lead up to and contributed to the growing tension and fear that had been building over the previous few days but it wasn't the catalyst for them going into the den.
Chris makes it sound like Lyle has convinced himself that he was actively stopping the rape of his brother by his father when they shot their parents, but Lyle didn't say that, he said when his parents went into the den and closed the doors after saying what he felt was ominous things such as Lyle had ruined the family, he went into panic mode and in that moment believed they were going to kill him and Erik.
They didn't kill their parents because Lyle thought Erik was imminently going to be raped by Jose, they killed their parents because they believed in that moment that their parents were imminently going to kill them.
I could be wrong about this, if so, feel free to tell me.
Dusty Cohen in this interview is insufferable, to actually sit there and say that she's tired of the excuse that victims of sexual abuse are scared to come forward because they might get sued was disgusting, especially to say it about the Epstein victims, who she knows damn well were threatened with being sued to keep them silent by people with far more money and power than they had.
So between these two, they shame Roy Rosello for not giving an interview to talk about his sexual abuse, wrongly say that he didn't help Erik and Lyle, theorised that Roy Rosello didn't give interviews because Erik and Lyle's family members might sue him, said that the family members came forward during resentencing when family members actually also testified over 30 years ago, misled the audience as to what Lyle answered in response as to why they killed their parents, completely ignored the abuse their mother inflicted (this happens all the time) and shamed sexual abuse victims for being scared of coming forward because they may get sued.
They managed to be this ignorant and irritating in just under 20 minutes.
Dusty and Chris, Roy Rosello doesn't owe you an interview, however, you do owe your audience the consideration of doing some research into the topics you discuss on your show, if only so you don't shame another sexual abuse victim in future, like you have done here with Roy and the Epstein victims.
Personally, I think Roy did well to ignore her requests for an interview, instead she should try to book Dr Anne Burgess who can explain to Chris why even a “grown ass man” can feel trapped after a lifetime of grooming and mental breakdown from his abuser and Dusty can learn that sexual abuse victims can struggle all of their lives to come forward for fear of societal shame, not being believed and yes, even of being sued.
She might find that her newfound understanding of the lasting effects that sexual abuse has on victims might actually land her some more interviews in future.
Until then, I hope Roy continues to ignore her calls.