Missing Robert Rand today on the Menendez Brothers anniversary. The movement has lost its original leader. He was so kind and passionate in his research.
Carefully reading Norma's controversial, but extremely interesting, book, she cuts off contacts with Lyle abruptly in the summer of 1994 (she says she tried to contact and call him but he no longer answered her calls, obviously this is her version which I don't believe).
In the last paragraph of the book, regarding the latest news about the brothers, in the 1994 fall- early 1995, she tells that Lyle had only one friend left, ( Harry, I don't know if she meant cousin his Harry Llanio) who goes to visit him in the company of a woman with" exceedingly long blond hair " (and who always chewed gum). The reference to her long blonde hair immediately makes me think of Anna, famous not only for her beauty but also for her long hair like Rapunzel. Could this be a sly reference to the one who ruined Norma's desire for a relationship with the handsome Lyle?
I’ve been studying the prosecution’s methods in trial 1 and how they go about trying to convince the jury of the defendants’ guilt. My conclusion is I can totally understand how Pam made it to DA (she’s snooty and I don’t like her but I will explain why) but Kuriyama???
It’s clear that Pam is the better lawyer, she’s much sharper, she is better with words, lays better foundations for her arguments and is therefore more effective at intimidating witnesses. I think she did her absolute best and was probably the best person for the job but just couldn’t prove guilt of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt because there wasn’t enough evidence against the brothers. It seems to me that she knew this deep down which is why she focused instead on dismantling the credibility of defence witnesses, especially the expert witnesses and the methods of their research fields. With non experts she’d just try to discredit their experiences and perceptions, e.g. trying to convince Marta that because she saw and stayed with Jose and Kitty so infrequently that what she actually did see re how they mistreated their kids was not the full story. Or she would try to discredit their intentions, e.g. asking witnesses if they’d lie to protect the defendants because they cared about them. She was clearly scrambling because there wasn’t enough evidence to prove guilt so she was trying to disprove the reliability of evidence proving innocence… in a nutshell trying to create a stalemate (which she succeeded in doing, hence the hung jury).
Also, there’s a massive case of cognitive dissonance in Pam because I can see that she is extremely efficient, has a solid grasp of the law and knows how to verbally spar with witnesses (Lyle and Marta rebuffed her extremely well though) but her bias against male survivors of abuse seems to have clouded her judgement despite her skills. I also wonder that as someone who used to prosecute sex crimes whether these involved exclusively female victims, especially because she seemed to sympathise with Kitty very deeply. One could say it was a strategy to successfully convict the brothers but that scene in ‘Erik tells All’ where she reveals that she carries a photograph of Kitty’s maimed body in her wallet makes me wonder if there was a pathological obsession there linked to her own personal experiences that we don’t know about. I do wonder if Erik and Lyle were women if she’d even want to prosecute them. It’s possible she might’ve even so but I am here to analyse her methods rather than speculate on her integrity.
Kuriyama, on the other hand, seems to maintain a firm belief that kitty and Jose were just two imperfect parents who tried their best but made mistakes along the way. It’s almost like he lived on a different planet, trying to paint them as good people to the coaches, family and friends who told him before the whole the court that they were helicopter parents who wanted to use and live through their kids. His foundations were so unfounded it’s a wonder the DA’s office appointed him for such a high profile case. I don’t understand his strategies there, nor will I try to. He struck me as very ineffective while I could see Pam was actively trying to work with the more believable notions that Jose at least was a bad father but that he didn’t deserve to die for it, and that kitty was a battered wife and was collateral damage in Jose’s abuse of the boys. I understand that both lawyers were just trying to work the cases assigned to them and that Pam was recalculating and hitting witnesses with tough questions (sometimes) wherever possible but Kuriyama was barely doing that but still maintained an arrogant tone. Does anyone know of cases he’s actually won??? Cos I’d find that hard to believe.
Overall I found the roster of prosecution witnesses to be a little thin. Witnesses were on the stand like a revolving door, each being directly examined for a very short period of time compared to the defence, making me wonder if Pam and K could’ve done a better job squeezing info out of them or if there really wasn’t much more to glean. At the end of the day, I can see how much personal biases factored into their arguments and that is likely true of Jill and Leslie too who clearly loved the boys like mothers but were much more effective at building a case for their innocence, probably because they had more evidence to prove it.
N.B. I don’t take notes when I watch the trials so I apologise if I am regurgitating widely-held opinions. I do wonder what other redditors think about the strengths and weaknesses of each of the prosecution lawyers. I know most people here are pro-defence and Pam is unpopular but I still found her to be quite skilled despite her staunch biases.
Lyle, Erik, Jose, and Kitty were the only people to witness the events inside the Menendez house on August 20, 1989. By the next day, Lyle and Erik were the only two still alive who could give an account of what happened. And yet, they present a story that is far from likely to get them acquitted of murder and get them either convicted of manslaughter or acquitted on grounds of self-defense. They do this despite the fact that there is no one alive who can contradict them about what was said the night they killed their parents, and despite the fact that the shotguns were never found. They have years to come up with a better story with more details in their favor, and they never do.
Here are five pretty simple ways they could have done it.
Have Jose or Kitty find the shotguns, and call Lyle and Erik into the room
Trial lawyers like to talk about "bad facts" - facts that are not helpful to their side of the case and are helpful to the other side instead. One of the "bad facts" in the Menendez case is that Lyle and Erik entered the family room carrying shotguns. If you're Lyle and Erik and you're making up a story to save yourself from the gas chamber, why keep that "bad fact" at all? Why not say something like...
"We bought the shotguns for protection, and then when we brought them back home, we hid them in [place]. On the night of the twentieth, our dad yelled for us to come to the family room, so we did. He was sitting on the couch with our mom, and the shotguns were on the table. 'Boys,' our dad said. He sounded angrier than we'd ever heard him. 'Where did these come from, and why the fuck were they in [place]?'"
You've made Jose the person who got the guns out in the first place, and made him the reason why Lyle and Erik are in the room. The bad fact is no longer part of your version of events. Plus, you've made Jose be angry as hell, giving Lyle and Erik a reason to be afraid.
Say you picked up the guns only to keep them away from your parents - or, alternatively, say one or both parents reached for the guns
"I was afraid he might try to shoot us, so I grabbed both shotguns and handed one to Erik."
Alternatively:
"My dad/my mom lunged at the shotguns, and I yelled. I grabbed both of them and handed one to Erik."
Continue.
"'Dad,' I said, 'I love you. I don't want to hurt you. But what you're doing to Erik has to stop. We're going to go upstairs and pack, and then we're leaving here and we're not coming back.'"
Extra "points" for adding an attempt to leave the house.
Have Jose and Kitty say things that one, are enraging, and two, emphasize that Lyle and Erik have no chance of escape
Present Jose and Kitty as really escalating the volatility of the situation. "My mom looked at Lyle, and then suddenly she laughed this weird, choked-out sort of laugh. 'You think you're leaving here and not coming back?' she said. 'No, Lyle, you're not. You two are staying right here until your father and I say you can leave.'
"My dad started shouting, 'Leave and do what? Live on your own? You two won't last a week in the real world. You'll turn up on our doorstep begging to move back in.' Then all of a sudden he stopped shouting and looked at us. 'Lyle,' he said quietly, 'this is the last time I'll say this. It's none of your business what I do with my son.'" Maybe have him get really explicit - 'it's none of your business if I want to' X, Y, or Z, with X, Y, and Z being various sex acts or ways to hurt Erik. "'There is nowhere you two can go where I can't find you.'"
Emphasize an imminent threat of sexual violence, and portray Kitty as having explicitly condoned it
"My dad looked away from me and looked right at Erik. 'Now,' he said, 'you two are going to put those guns down. And then Erik is coming upstairs with me.' And my mom said, 'Do as your father says.'"
Have Kitty grab a shotgun after the first shot is fired
Example. "[Lyle or Erik] shot our dad, and our mom screamed. She grabbed [Lyle or Erik's] shotgun and tried to pull it away from him, and [Erik or Lyle] shot her." Detract from the prosecution's portrayal of Kitty as this meek battered woman, and turn her into someone who's trying to seize a shotgun that will make her an active physical threat to her sons. Remember, the shotguns have never been recovered, so as far as anyone knows, Kitty's fingerprints are all over one.
There is no physical evidence that contradicts anything in this story. It makes Jose and Kitty into clear and imminent threats to their sons' safety, and has them say things that are so incendiary that a reasonable person might shoot them without taking time to think about it. (One of the classic manslaughter scenarios is of a person who witnesses something enraging, "sees red," and kills another person without having time to think about it. Law professors like to teach this with the example of a man who comes home early from work, finds his best friend in bed with his wife, immediately grabs the gun on top of the dresser, and shoots them both dead before he's had time to premeditate the act.) It's not a perfect story. It can't be a perfect story, because you can't erase the evidence that someone reloaded one of the guns to shoot Kitty further times.
But it's a hell of a lot better than, "After Lyle confronted our dad, we kept getting these weird vibes from our parents. When they shut a door, we figured they were going to kill us, so we grabbed shotguns, entered the room, and shot them to death." If Lyle and Erik's account of the night of the murders is a made-up story designed to save them from execution, it's a feeble effort. (And definitely not what you'd expect from an aspiring screenwriter like Erik.)
The prosecution maintained that Lyle and Erik crafted highly detailed false stories of years of sexual abuse. All that time creating a sexual abuse narrative, and not even a few hours to come up with a better story about the night of the murders? Nope. They're telling the truth about what happened the night of the murders, because anyone with an average IQ and a will to live could invent a better story more likely to keep them out of the gas chamber.
So it was said that automatic administrative reviews would occur around the end of July to determine whether Lyle and Erik's parole hearings could be advanced to next year. I'm curious if they've found out the results of this or not. Also this says that a board will review it 11 months after the parole hearing, so I'm thinking they've either made their decision or started the process? https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b5f9d4be7494070b92d76f3/t/6514ac72381c2836e933ca3d/1695853685995/23.09.20+Comprehensive+Parole+Packet+%28LARGE+PRINT%29.pdf
It actually gets on my nerves when people compare the two and say it’s unfair that she is out and they aren’t.
I mean for one Gypsy took a plea bargain and pleaded guilty to second degree murder which meant she got 10 years in prison while the brothers choose to go to trial. If gypsy got convicted at trial she would probably already be in prison. Then Gypsy became eligible for parole and it was approved while the brothers were denied parole because of their behaviour in prison. They could have been out of their behaviour was better.
Then the actual cases and abuse being compared is what tends to bother me the most. Everyone likes to pretend Gypsy wasn’t abused and her mum wasn’t a risk or whatever but she was drugged, went through unnecessary surgeries and was physically restrained while her mum would with hold food as punishment for attempting to run away. Unlike the brothers she had very little contact outside didn’t get an education and was constantly controlled by her mother who did everything in her power to make sure gypsy couldn’t leave.
Victims of Munchausen syndrome by proxy often die from the abuse so minimising the abuse to me is absurd. On the other hand, the brothers did have evidence of some abuse but there was also evidence suggesting financial motives. They could have believed their dad may have killed them (although their is no evidence that he would have definitely done it or had attempted too in the past which complicates it) but killing the mother just because she knew about the abuse is a weak excuse. Considering they went on an extensive shopping trip using their parents money and inheritance plus the fact that not killing the mother meant they wouldn’t have inherited anything it provided a strong case for the financial theory over the abuse and self defence theory.
It can be true that they were abused and they came from an extremely dysfunctional household but at the same time they were also motivated by money to kill their parents. I just think people often loose nuance when discussing these cases but the two cases aren’t the same at all.
Of course they are 2 different cases but even Susan Smith who drove her two kinds in to a pond was given I think 30 years with parole, something like that and the brothers have stayed longer than 30 years.
Of course whether its parents killing their kids or kids killing their parents , both are terrible but the Clancy kids were innocent , the same cannot be said about Kitty and Jose. Of course Lindsey was not in her might mind when she committed the crime and the brother' defense didn't opt for that line of defense. I think the imperfect defense, that they were scared and not thinking straight was not a bad defense also because it is kind of the truth.
Its also so sad when a parent is killed and they were innocent, i ve seen a few cases like that . The brothers case never read like that , there was enough evidence that pointed to an abusive, incest family. And yeah the ideal is always to report to the police than kill someone but I do believe they felt isolated and did not think they d be believed. They couldn't even tell relatives. For sure if they had a more competent judge/jury they d have gotten a different ruling. Does anyone think they could even have been acquitted ?