Speaker 1: Hi, guys, Welcome to our very first episode of Legally Brunette.
Speaker 1: I will be your host today, Emily Simpson, and I
Speaker 1: felt like the best co host for kind of like
Speaker 1: a pop culture slash legal podcast would be with my husband,
Speaker 1: Shane Simpson. And so, are you excited to be here?
Speaker 2: I am, because I know you have a lot of
Speaker 2: knowledge on this, so I'm ready to hear it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So we're very excited for our first episode to
Speaker 1: be about the Menindas brothers, the murders where we're at currently,
Speaker 1: and I think what we're trying to do is kind
Speaker 1: of pack as much information about Menindaz as we can
Speaker 1: into one episode. As you all know, it's been a
Speaker 1: cultural phenomena. I remember back in nineteen eighty nine when
Speaker 1: this murder happened. I was a young girl in Middletown, Ohio,
Speaker 1: and I used to watch this trial on court TV. Now,
Speaker 1: clearly back at that time, I had a completely different
Speaker 1: perspective on it than I do now. But I'm just wondering,
Speaker 1: did you know about the murders because you grew up
Speaker 1: in California.
Speaker 2: I did. I did. I didn't know it as much.
Speaker 2: I didn't follow it like you did. The way I
Speaker 2: followed it was through David Letterman. He did a lot
Speaker 2: of top ten lests that would include the Menendez brothers.
Speaker 2: Jay Leno did a lot of jokes about it. So
Speaker 2: for that reason, I always saw it, but I had
Speaker 2: no opinion of it other than they killed their parents
Speaker 2: for money. That's what's my knowledge, although I'm not saying
Speaker 2: that's correct, but that's what I knew of it back then.
Speaker 1: And you know, when you think about that time period,
Speaker 1: back in the eighties and the nineties, I do believe
Speaker 1: that that was the story that the media perpetuated, that
Speaker 1: you had two wealthy, good looking young guys that grew
Speaker 1: up in Beverly Hills, that led a very privileged lifestyle
Speaker 1: and then decided that they wanted their parents' money and
Speaker 1: they murdered them, right and even me following it on court,
Speaker 1: TV and the media, that was my takeaway back then.
Speaker 1: And so I really feel like it's so interesting that
Speaker 1: thirty five years later, here we are talking about this
Speaker 1: case and I was trying to understand what has made
Speaker 1: it come back up and be such a huge phenomenon
Speaker 1: that all these kids are making tiktoks about it. You know,
Speaker 1: there was the recent release of Monsters on Netflix, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, let's just be clear that Monsters is
Speaker 1: a dramatization, it's not a documentary. And then there was
Speaker 1: the recent documentary on Netflix where it's actually Eric and
Speaker 1: Lyle speaking from prison. And I read something the other
Speaker 1: day that I thought was really interesting because I did
Speaker 1: not realize this, but this surge of TikTokers, who is
Speaker 1: a completely different generation than you and I when we
Speaker 1: were growing up. Their fascination with this case comes from
Speaker 1: during the pandemic when we were all in quarantine. Court
Speaker 1: TV was running reruns of the trial.
Speaker 2: Oh is that what? I wondered? What started it?
Speaker 1: Yeah? And I didn't understand that either, because I knew
Speaker 1: that there were all these TikTokers that were making tiktoks
Speaker 1: about the Meninda's brothers and it was all basically the
Speaker 1: same theme that they should go free.
Speaker 2: Well, wait a minute, that's interesting. That means TikTokers are
Speaker 2: watching court TV.
Speaker 1: Yes, that was the part with that. I was like,
Speaker 1: why are TikTokers watching court TV? But apparently they were
Speaker 1: running reruns of Court TV. They ran the Meninda's trial
Speaker 1: during the pandemic and it caught on and this new
Speaker 1: generation watched a lot of the trial and then probably
Speaker 1: saw snippets of the trial on social media.
Speaker 2: Sure, and the.
Speaker 1: Consensus now it's a completely different phenomena is that they
Speaker 1: should be released because they were abused by their parents.
Speaker 1: And I was thinking about this, and this is what
Speaker 1: I do, this is what keeps me up at nights.
Speaker 1: I was thinking about how during our generation, we're kids,
Speaker 1: we're gen X, right, Okay, were born in the seventies,
Speaker 1: we were kids in the eighties, and we were in
Speaker 1: high school and college in the nineties. And our generation,
Speaker 1: I think made fun of the Menindez brothers, like you said,
Speaker 1: because there was not the recognizing that sexual abuse could occur.
Speaker 2: With no no always. Then you have someone like me
Speaker 2: who's not really paying attention, but yet it's thrown in
Speaker 2: my face all the time and all the you know,
Speaker 2: shows that I'm watching and news flashes or whatever. And
Speaker 2: you know, you know, certainly, I as an eighteen year
Speaker 2: old kid, I'm not paying attention, but I'm it's thrown
Speaker 2: at me that they're guilty, that they killed their parents,
Speaker 2: that they wanted to be you know, rich, and so
Speaker 2: you just assume that that's the.
Speaker 1: Case, right, And I even remember seeing Saturday Night Live
Speaker 1: snippets where they would make fun of them with the
Speaker 1: sweaters with the with the blue and the pink sweaters,
Speaker 1: because that's you know, remember in their first trial show.
Speaker 2: Well then they'd always have the bad hairstyles, right because.
Speaker 1: Lyle had the two pays, so they would always have
Speaker 1: the bad hair. And then again you're.
Speaker 2: Down playing showing that these when you're making fun of them,
Speaker 2: even down to their hairstyles, what you're saying, you're discrediting
Speaker 2: them as valid people, as kids that might have issues
Speaker 2: and problems and there might be more depth to the
Speaker 2: crime other than just privileged kids or immature kids or
Speaker 2: something exactly.
Speaker 1: And that's why I find this case so interesting. Now
Speaker 1: Here we are in twenty twenty four and a different
Speaker 1: generation has latched onto this case, and these kids are
Speaker 1: more accepting. You know, we were Gen X, there was
Speaker 1: you know, it was you were lucky if you got
Speaker 1: a sandwich from your parents. So I think this new
Speaker 1: generation of kids have been coddled more. There's more therapy,
Speaker 1: there's gluten free, there's more acceptance of a lot of
Speaker 1: things that go into your psyche and understanding psychological factors
Speaker 1: and so that's where we are with Menendez. But let's
Speaker 1: just go through because I know you don't know a
Speaker 1: lot about the case, and I know so much about
Speaker 1: this case. I could spend an entire probably nine hours
Speaker 1: just talking about the facts of this case. But I'm
Speaker 1: not going to do that, Please don't. I'm just going
Speaker 1: to do a brief synopsis of some of the facts
Speaker 1: of the night that it happened, and then we'll just
Speaker 1: go from there. So Lyle and Eric Menindez were convicted
Speaker 1: of the nineteen eighty nine murders of their parents, jose
Speaker 1: and Mary Louise Mendez, who goes by the name Kitty,
Speaker 1: and they're Beverly Hills home, which, by the way, the
Speaker 1: address is seven twenty two North Elm Drive. And I
Speaker 1: actually drove there. You know that I made a video.
Speaker 1: I was in LA and I was really close to
Speaker 1: the house, and so I could not miss the opportunity.
Speaker 1: So I actually drove over to the home and parked
Speaker 1: in front of it. And I will tell you it
Speaker 1: is such a beautiful, calm, serene, magnificent Beverly Hills neighborhood
Speaker 1: that when I was standing there, I'm trying to visualize
Speaker 1: cords well, I mean a brutal, brutal murder taking place
Speaker 1: right there in the home. Some of the forensics who
Speaker 1: worked on the Menindaz murder scene describe it as the
Speaker 1: most brutal murder scene that they had ever witnessed. The
Speaker 1: brothers claim the killings were in self defense after years
Speaker 1: of sexual and physical abuse by their father, Jose Menindez,
Speaker 1: but prosecutors argued that the brothers killed their parents in
Speaker 1: a bid to inherit their wealth, which at the time
Speaker 1: was supposedly around fourteen million dollars, which is what they
Speaker 1: would inherit. And again, this is back in nineteen eighty
Speaker 1: nine seen mony. You're talking about a lot of money.
Speaker 2: Money to day, certainly a lot back then.
Speaker 1: After a highly publicized trial, the first jury was unable
Speaker 1: to reach a verdict. Actually, there were two juries in
Speaker 1: the first trial. I don't know if you knew that
Speaker 1: each boy, so Lyle and Eric, they each had their
Speaker 1: own jury during the first trial. And there were actually
Speaker 1: times when if there were specific witnesses that were speaking
Speaker 1: to something that had specifically to do with Eric or
Speaker 1: had to do with Lyle, the other jurors would have
Speaker 1: to leave the courtroom. So can you imagine.
Speaker 2: That legitly that's a lot, right.
Speaker 1: Also, I believe the defense had fifty five. I might
Speaker 1: not be right about that, but it was an exorbitant
Speaker 1: amount of character witnesses who testified on behalf of Lyle
Speaker 1: and Eric. So can you imagine just how long this
Speaker 1: trial took, the depths of it, the character witnesses, the
Speaker 1: two different juries. I don't know exactly. I think it
Speaker 1: was maybe eight months. Don't quote me on that, but
Speaker 1: it was a long It was a long trial. They
Speaker 1: were sentenced after their second trial, which was in nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety six. It resulted in both brothers being convicted of
Speaker 1: first degree murder. They were sentenced to life in prison
Speaker 1: without the possibility at the role. Also, there are you know,
Speaker 1: I'll just go into a little bit, just a brief overlay,
Speaker 1: but there a lot of people question the second trial
Speaker 1: because the judge precluded a lot of the sexual abuse
Speaker 1: evidence that was disclosed in the first trial. There were
Speaker 1: a lot of emotions filed by the prosecution in the second trial,
Speaker 1: which a lot of that evidence.
Speaker 2: That brings up a lot of questions for me because
Speaker 2: it's like, why wouldn't you present the same evidence, you know,
Speaker 2: was it and I don't know the answers, But was
Speaker 2: it the judge thinking, well, let's shake it up because
Speaker 2: the jury couldn't convict or find or affirm, you know,
Speaker 2: not guilty, so let's shake it up to try to
Speaker 2: get an outcome. Why wouldn't you present the same evidence.
Speaker 2: And if you present the same evidence and you get
Speaker 2: the same outcome, which is a hung jury, well then
Speaker 2: that goes to show there's not enough evidence to convict.
Speaker 1: I don't disagree with what you're saying. I'll give you
Speaker 1: a little bit of a timeline. When the Menindas brothers
Speaker 1: went to trial for their second for the second trial,
Speaker 1: it was I believe eight days after the OJ Simpson
Speaker 1: verdict of not guilty, and the DA's office was looking
Speaker 1: like an incompetent office.
Speaker 2: Well, they were an incompetent office after the OJ trial exactly.
Speaker 1: And so I think that a lot of that went
Speaker 1: into the judge's decisions. Now here's where I have questions.
Speaker 1: I am not a judge, but I don't know exactly
Speaker 1: what authority a judge acted on that he precluded a
Speaker 1: lot of the sexual abuse evidence in the second trial. Also,
Speaker 1: I don't think there was a manslaughter option there were
Speaker 1: there was either not guilty.
Speaker 2: Wa Wait, In the first trial, what was what were
Speaker 2: the charges?
Speaker 1: Well, it was premeditated manslaughter or not guilty.
Speaker 2: Okay, well always not guilty, right, What were the charges
Speaker 2: In the second trial.
Speaker 1: It was either they could either be convicted of premeditated
Speaker 1: murder or not guilty. I don't think there was a
Speaker 1: manslaughter option because there wasn't. There wasn't the allowance of
Speaker 1: any mitigating factors of the abuse. Also, Lyle did not
Speaker 1: take the stand and the second trial because he had
Speaker 1: made a mistake and had spoken to a woman named
Speaker 1: Norma Novelli. I believe that she was having phone conversations
Speaker 1: with him over a long period of time from prison,
Speaker 1: and I believe he made some incriminating statements that had
Speaker 1: to do with his acting ability. You could have brought
Speaker 1: that in and exactly so, he did not testify on
Speaker 1: the stand because he could have been impeached with that. So,
Speaker 1: you know, the second trial was completely different than the
Speaker 1: first trial. They ended up getting convicted of premeditated murder
Speaker 1: life without parole. So that's where we're at today and
Speaker 1: now here we are, thirty five years.
Speaker 2: Later, convicted of the same or both with the same
Speaker 2: sentencing life without parole.
Speaker 1: Yes, both, and life.
Speaker 2: Without parole is different than life. A lot of people think,
Speaker 2: you hear life, but life is I think twenty years
Speaker 2: in California not necessarily life. But then life without parole
Speaker 2: is truly what we think of as life in prison,
Speaker 2: which is you are not being released, which means, regardless
Speaker 2: of your behavior in prison, you will not be released, right,
Speaker 2: which can lead someone to think, well, then when you
Speaker 2: go to prison and you got nothing to lose, you
Speaker 2: try to escape, you don't follow the rules, you're not
Speaker 2: incentivized for good behavior, and I think that will come
Speaker 2: up later, So I decided to mention.
Speaker 1: That, right. So thirty five here we are, thirty five
Speaker 1: years later, and this case has just been huge, mostly
Speaker 1: because of the Monsters that came out on Netflix, which
Speaker 1: you did not watch.
Speaker 2: No, but I've heard you watching it every night for
Speaker 2: the last few months.
Speaker 1: I've watched it.
Speaker 2: I think falls.
Speaker 1: I think I've watched it maybe three times at this point,
Speaker 1: And people go, why is.
Speaker 2: The family so angry all the time, Well, she falls
Speaker 2: asleep to true crime and Monsters.
Speaker 1: I do want to make clear though, that I know
Speaker 1: a lot of people have watched monsters, and we just
Speaker 1: have to clarify that Monsters is a dramatization. I do
Speaker 1: think that there are a lot of factual things and monsters,
Speaker 1: but there are also a lot of scenes that are
Speaker 1: the creator's imagination. There are scenes between Jose and Kitty
Speaker 1: that no one could have known what they said or
Speaker 1: what happened. They're obviously a creation. I also think that
Speaker 1: the characters of Lyle and Eric and Monsters were very,
Speaker 1: very one dimensional. They made Eric out to be kind
Speaker 1: of a depressed, sad, weak person, and they clearly made
Speaker 1: Lyle the aggressor. I think every scene that Lyle's in,
Speaker 1: he's arguing, fighting, or yelling at someone.
Speaker 2: Which I think the viewers or listeners will have which
Speaker 2: one of the brothers is the one with no hair,
Speaker 2: Which is the one with hair? That'll help me identify that.
Speaker 1: Okay. Eric is the younger brother. He was eighteen when
Speaker 1: they committed the murders, and he has a full head
Speaker 1: of hair, okay. And then Lyle is the older brother.
Speaker 1: He was twenty one when the murders were committed, and
Speaker 1: he has a to pay. Well, I don't in prison now.
Speaker 1: If you see photos of them now, he just shaved
Speaker 1: his Heady's balt but when he was younger, in his twenties,
Speaker 1: he wore a to pay. And Eric even says that
Speaker 1: he did not know his brother wore a to pay.
Speaker 1: And there's a scene in Monsters where it shows Kitty
Speaker 1: ripping off Lyle's to pay, and apparently, according to interviews
Speaker 1: with Lyle and Eric, that was true, that really did happen.
Speaker 1: She got angry, she ripped his two pay off, and
Speaker 1: Eric had no idea that he had worn a to pay.
Speaker 2: It's a little insight into their the way their dinners
Speaker 2: are taking place.
Speaker 1: Right all right. So here's something I just want to do.
Speaker 1: There are lots of lots of documentaries, TV series, There's
Speaker 1: films that have to do with the Menendez you know.
Speaker 1: I think for me, the one that I would suggest
Speaker 1: someone watching if you're trying to get into the Menindez
Speaker 1: for the first time and you want some background information.
Speaker 1: I do like the most recent documentary that is on Netflix.
Speaker 1: It's Lyle and Eric their Interview from Prison. I think
Speaker 1: that it gives a lot of background information. It interviews
Speaker 1: the prosecutor, it interviews Lyle and Eric, it gives a
Speaker 1: lot of insight. It interviews cops, police involved detectives. It's
Speaker 1: very interesting and I think it's a good synopsis of
Speaker 1: what happened. There's a lot of things out there that
Speaker 1: are TV movies and things like that. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I find them to be highly dramatized. But anyway, let's
Speaker 1: get into here's something I want to do because I
Speaker 1: want to hear your thoughts on this, because you never
Speaker 1: agree with anything I say. But the biggest question right
Speaker 1: now is should they be released? Because where we're at
Speaker 1: now is there's two options. There's the Habeas petition and
Speaker 1: there's also a recent and sing request.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, explain the Habeas petition.
Speaker 1: The Habeas petition was filed back in May of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three. And actually we'll have Alexandra on in a
Speaker 1: little bit. Who is the current she represents them Meninda's
Speaker 1: brothers currently, so we'll get some more insight into that.
Speaker 1: But the Habeas petition was basically based on some new
Speaker 1: evidence that came forward that corroborates the abuse. And those
Speaker 1: two pieces of new evidence is one there is the
Speaker 1: man named Roy Roussello. There was a new documentary. It's
Speaker 1: not on Netflix. I'm not sure where it's at. But
Speaker 1: it's the Menudo Menindez documentary.
Speaker 2: Okay, So the Habeast petition is just new evidence that
Speaker 2: they want to introduce, right, Okay, in late terms.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: And then the second one was a resentencing hearing.
Speaker 1: The second one is a recencing hearing, and it's basically
Speaker 1: a request to re sentence, and it's based on a
Speaker 1: lot of factors. I'm not sure exactly what all those
Speaker 1: factors are, but it's basically like the family supports them.
Speaker 1: They've been model prisoners during their time. There has been
Speaker 1: some corroboration of abuse. They've been in prison long enough,
Speaker 1: their family supports them. They're not, you know, a menace
Speaker 1: to society. No one suspects that they would, you know,
Speaker 1: commit crimes if they were really back to.
Speaker 2: The life without parole. So they're not incentivized for good
Speaker 2: behavior and hopes of getting out. But yet they're maintaining
Speaker 2: good behavior and I think they're working on their education, yes,
Speaker 2: and they were supporting other prisoners in probably reforming it
Speaker 2: and abuse.
Speaker 1: They work with hospice patients, they work with abuse suffers, abuse,
Speaker 1: they've been model prisoners and like you said, it's very
Speaker 1: significant that they were doing those things, never thinking that
Speaker 1: there was a chance for them to be paroled. All Right,
Speaker 1: I just want to go into a little bit of
Speaker 1: an analysis because you're an attorney, and let's just talk
Speaker 1: about some of the things that make this a premeditated
Speaker 1: brutal murder that would suggest that they should stay in prison.
Speaker 1: So Eric wrote a screenplay about a team killing his
Speaker 1: parents for their inheritance. Before the murders, they also supposedly
Speaker 1: watched a movie called The Billionaire Boys Club, which was
Speaker 1: about murdering their parents for money.
Speaker 2: Which start Judd Nelson.
Speaker 1: By the way, have you seen that movie? You are
Speaker 1: a big jo when I watched it, Well, you might
Speaker 1: have watched it the same night the Meninda's brothers watched it.
Speaker 2: Possibly they bought that of a.
Speaker 1: Parent, right, but was it for for money? For an inheritance?
Speaker 1: They bought the shotguns and the ammunition two days prior
Speaker 1: to the murders. They use a fake ID to buy
Speaker 1: the guns. And let's just talk a minute, because I
Speaker 1: think this is just to be fair, we have to
Speaker 1: talk about the brutality of the murders before.
Speaker 2: You get to the brutality. Yeah, those facts that you
Speaker 2: stated two days before bought ammunition or whatever you said,
Speaker 2: that would have that would take place regardless of the
Speaker 2: intent behind the murders. If they were going to kill
Speaker 2: and eliminate their parents because of abuse, they'd still have
Speaker 2: to go get a gun, they'd still have to do
Speaker 2: all those things. So it doesn't That doesn't sway someone.
Speaker 2: That shouldn't sway someone as to the motive for reasoning
Speaker 2: behind the murders.
Speaker 1: I think though, but when you buy the guns two days.
Speaker 2: Although the high school script is a little questionable because
Speaker 2: I didn't write high school script.
Speaker 1: On I think though that the fact that they bought
Speaker 1: the guns two days prior and there's a cooling off
Speaker 1: period and there wasn't anything that happened, well, I mean,
Speaker 1: they do claim that they were scared for their life.
Speaker 1: Their first defense was at an imperfect self defense. That's
Speaker 1: where you have to really put yourself in the mind
Speaker 1: of someone that's been sexually and physically abused. And I've
Speaker 1: never been through that, so it's hard for me to
Speaker 1: put myself in someone's shoes.
Speaker 2: And I'm guessing an imperfect self defense is when they
Speaker 2: they're under the reasonable belief that they have a defense,
Speaker 2: but legally they do not, or factually, perhaps they're incorrect exactly.
Speaker 1: That is where us, from a reasonable standard looking into it,
Speaker 1: we would say your life wasn't in jeopardy. But from them,
Speaker 1: given their own circumstances, the.
Speaker 2: Equivalent would be if someone comes at me with a
Speaker 2: fake gun and I defend myself, and then after the
Speaker 2: fact we learned that the fake that the gun was fake,
Speaker 2: and I never was really under any death threat of death, right, Okay.
Speaker 1: All right, So let's get a little bit into the
Speaker 1: brutality of the murders. Just on that evening. They use
Speaker 1: Mossberg shotguns. They were pump action shotguns. They went into
Speaker 1: the foyer where their parents were sitting watching TV. They
Speaker 1: were watching a movie. They were seated on the couch.
Speaker 1: I believe they were eating ice cream, and they shot
Speaker 1: them at close range. There were ten shots that hit Jose,
Speaker 1: and I believe no ten hit Kitty. Five hit Jose.
Speaker 1: You're talking about brutal, in your face up front murders, right,
Speaker 1: which to me, if I think about it as an adult,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of rage. That's a rage killing.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, that's not one shot to the head. They're dead, Okay,
Speaker 2: mission accomplished, right, that's the I want you freaking dead, right,
Speaker 2: and also I have a question whether any words exchanged
Speaker 2: prior to that that we know of, whether it's accurate
Speaker 2: or not.
Speaker 1: No, not that I not that I've ever read or
Speaker 1: heard in testimony. Basically, what happened was they got the
Speaker 1: shotguns out of the car. They entered into the foyer
Speaker 1: of their home. Each son had a shotgun. They busted
Speaker 1: through the double doors that were closed of the den
Speaker 1: TV room. It was a wood paneled room, and they
Speaker 1: just began firing at close range. And actually Kitty fell
Speaker 1: to the ground. She jumped up from the couch. She
Speaker 1: put her hand up in front of her face, a
Speaker 1: defensive hand to stop the shot. She screamed, no, something
Speaker 1: to that effect. She fell to the ground. She was
Speaker 1: not dead. She tried to crawl away. They went back
Speaker 1: to the car, reloaded, and entered the house and Lyle
Speaker 1: shot her in the.
Speaker 2: Face after Kitty was already dead.
Speaker 1: No, she was not dead, she was okay, she was
Speaker 1: still she was shot. She was still alive, she was crawling.
Speaker 2: Where was she shot? Why did they shoot one in
Speaker 2: the head and not the other.
Speaker 1: Lyle walked around to the back of the couch and
Speaker 1: shot Jose in the back of the head. So basically
Speaker 1: eviscerated his brain.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, so that was without any warning, right, But
Speaker 2: then then the mud probably had some reaction.
Speaker 1: Well, she jumped up and apparently she put her arms up,
Speaker 1: so she had shots through you know, her hand and
Speaker 1: her arm. She I think she had a shot in
Speaker 1: the face. She fell to the ground. She was not dead.
Speaker 1: Jose was killed instantly. He was shot in the back
Speaker 1: of the head. Kitty did not die instantly. She was
Speaker 1: on the ground. She was crawling to get away. They
Speaker 1: went back to the car, reloaded the shotguns, came.
Speaker 2: Back to the car, reload the shotguns, came and shot
Speaker 2: their mother in the face. Lyle how many times?
Speaker 1: One time to the face.
Speaker 2: Okay, it's pretty bad. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Then after the murders, they left the house. They got
Speaker 1: rid of This is interesting to me. They got rid
Speaker 1: of the shotguns and apparently they dumped them somewhere along
Speaker 1: Mall Hall and Drive. What is so incredible to me
Speaker 1: is that thirty five years later, those shotguns have never
Speaker 1: been found.
Speaker 2: Well, you've said that before, and I don't know if
Speaker 2: I agree with that. I mean, I'm sure there's lots
Speaker 2: of weapons that get tossed, and it's in LA and
Speaker 2: some people probably found it and no one knew what
Speaker 2: it was at the time when they found it, and
Speaker 2: they repurposed it for some other crime, and then that
Speaker 2: was the end of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the only thing I can think is,
Speaker 1: I mean they were found, no one knew the significance
Speaker 1: of them, and then is there in some.
Speaker 2: Side of the road. I mean, anything could happen. If
Speaker 2: you said that they were in the house and it
Speaker 2: was never found, then I'd questioned it. But it's on
Speaker 2: the public road. I don't think that's as big of
Speaker 2: a deal as you make it out to be. Secondly,
Speaker 2: if they found the guns even today, if they found
Speaker 2: them today and they were preserved, what value would that
Speaker 2: they've confessed to the crime.
Speaker 1: No, they did confess, and I know there's no value
Speaker 1: to finding the weapons. I'm sure that's why the police
Speaker 1: didn't bother searching, because it's not like they needed that
Speaker 1: to you know, I mean, they.
Speaker 2: Didn't need a smoking gun. But then I go back,
Speaker 2: I go back and forth lot. I go back to
Speaker 2: why did they throw away the guns? Why are they
Speaker 2: hiding the evidence?
Speaker 1: Well, that was this is part of the analysis. So
Speaker 1: it's after they shot their parents, they they got rid
Speaker 1: of the bloody clothes. I read. I think it was
Speaker 1: in a book by Robert rand I read that they
Speaker 1: got rid of the bloody clothes, like behind a gas
Speaker 1: station somewhere they changed their clothes into I guess they
Speaker 1: had some tennis clothes in their car. They tried to
Speaker 1: buy movie tickets for an earlier movie time. They tried
Speaker 1: to see Batman in an earlier time because they wanted
Speaker 1: a timestamp on the movie to prove an alibi. They
Speaker 1: also tried to meet up with a friend at the
Speaker 1: Taste of La and then later tried to meet up
Speaker 1: with him at Cheesecake, again trying to establish some type
Speaker 1: of alibi. They were turned back.
Speaker 2: To that after the fact they tried to establish alibis.
Speaker 1: Yeah, after the fact they were trying to establish They
Speaker 1: were trying to buy a movie ticket for earlier in
Speaker 1: the night, you know, like the nine to ten showing.
Speaker 2: How did they forget that part? They should have bought
Speaker 2: the ticket.
Speaker 1: Before, Yeah, but they couldn't. I don't think you could
Speaker 1: buy a ticket that early for a nine pm showing.
Speaker 1: I don't know, I.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Presumably it was the Tim Burton Batman
Speaker 2: with Chack Nicholson.
Speaker 1: It was it was the nineteen eighty nine Batman that
Speaker 1: they were trying to buy tickets too. They returned back
Speaker 1: to the home. This is almost around midnight, and at
Speaker 1: a they realized they back home, and they realized that
Speaker 1: there's no police there. They thought for sure that someone
Speaker 1: would have heard the shots in this quiet, sleepy you know,
Speaker 1: Beverly Hills neighborhood.
Speaker 2: As you described it earlier.
Speaker 1: It was it is, and no one did. So they
Speaker 1: return home. They don't know what to do. There's no
Speaker 1: police there. They enter the home. Lyle calls nine one
Speaker 1: at eleven forty seven. They are yelling. They're emotional. They're saying,
Speaker 1: someone shot our parents. The police show up two minutes later.
Speaker 1: They come out of the house. They drop to their knees.
Speaker 1: They're crying, pounding the ground. Our parents have been shot.
Speaker 1: They blame it on the mafia because their dad was supposedly,
Speaker 1: you know, it was a big wig at RCA. So
Speaker 1: they blame it on well, not at the time. He
Speaker 1: worked for RCA earlier, but then he worked for Live
Speaker 1: Entertainment after that. There's all the evidence of the spending spree.
Speaker 1: You know, they bought rolllexes they house.
Speaker 2: Soon after, they spend money.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, they bought new suits and rolllexes. I believe
Speaker 1: either one day or two days before the funeral, the
Speaker 1: memorial service in Hollywood for their parents, they spent sixteen
Speaker 1: thousand dollars on money clips and three new rolexes. That
Speaker 1: was a day or two before the memorial so that
Speaker 1: was within days of the murders.
Speaker 2: Probably not related. But in Billionaire Boys Club they did
Speaker 2: the same thing. They spiffed themselves up with Mercedes and
Speaker 2: suits and Rolexes and try to really look like we
Speaker 2: got our a game on right. But of course they
Speaker 2: were also pursuing business ventures.
Speaker 1: But anyway, go ahead, okay, so well then that's another Also,
Speaker 1: I believe Lyle bought a restaurant in New Jersey, so
Speaker 1: they spent. They spent a lot of money. They actually
Speaker 1: got I think seven hundred thousand dollars from an insurance
Speaker 1: policy pretty immediately after the murders, and they also were
Speaker 1: authorized to use their dad's AMX up to two hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty thousand. They also bought I think a Geep
Speaker 1: a Porsche.
Speaker 2: But see if they had all this money, like the
Speaker 2: two hundred and fifty grand or whatever line of credit
Speaker 2: or whatever it was. Then they had access to money.
Speaker 2: It's not like, you know, Dad won't buy us this,
Speaker 2: and they're stingy and they're going to give away the money,
Speaker 2: and you know, we have to go to school. We
Speaker 2: don't want to go to school. We just want our money. Now,
Speaker 2: that leads me to think that they were living a
Speaker 2: wonderful life financially, So why would they Where's the motive? No,
Speaker 2: I agree, I think that I have anyway, not conclusion.
Speaker 1: No, I don't disagree with you. I think the prosecution
Speaker 1: and the media pushed very hard that the motive was
Speaker 1: for money. But if you analyze their lifestyle, you're not
Speaker 1: talking about two kids that were withheld anything. I think
Speaker 1: they lived. Yeah, they had to pay, they had They
Speaker 1: lived a very lavish lifestyle. I don't think their parents,
Speaker 1: you know, I think they gave them everything that they needed.
Speaker 1: So sometimes when I think about the spending spree, if
Speaker 1: we're talking about the abuse being true, then maybe that
Speaker 1: was their way of exhibiting their freedom. Yeah, not so much.
Speaker 1: We just want all this money, but that was the
Speaker 1: way that they could outwardly exert that. They find out.
Speaker 2: Now we have money. It's now we don't have our
Speaker 2: parents abusing us or controlling us and dictating our lives.
Speaker 2: Right yeah. So it's like you let a dog out
Speaker 2: in the yard, out of the yard, and all of
Speaker 2: sudd Now they're just roaming free, right yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay, So let's talk about some things that I think
Speaker 1: were very fundamental for me when I was going through
Speaker 1: this case and reading things and watching things that really
Speaker 1: led me to believe that the abuse allegations were real.
Speaker 1: There was detailed testimony and a lot of emotion in
Speaker 1: the first trial when Eric and Lyle both testified. If
Speaker 1: you have the opportunity, I would say, either watch their testimony.
Speaker 1: You can find YouTube videos of it, or read the
Speaker 1: trial transcripts. I don't think that you can act. To me,
Speaker 1: that's not acting. That's real, hardcore emotion. There are also
Speaker 1: two family witnesses that corroborated the abuse. I believe there
Speaker 1: were two cousins that testified that they had seen abuse
Speaker 1: within the home. There was a letter that Eric had
Speaker 1: written to his cousin Andy eight months prior to the murder,
Speaker 1: kind of outlining that the abuse was happening. That's one
Speaker 1: of the pieces of evidence that was found later, there's
Speaker 1: the declaration of Roy Roussello from Minuto, who claims that
Speaker 1: Jose Mendez drugged him and raped him in his home.
Speaker 1: And then also in the most recent Netflix documentary, this
Speaker 1: was really an AHA moment for me. They're interviewing Pam
Speaker 1: who was the prosecutor in the first trial, and she
Speaker 1: openly admits that they could not find one character witness
Speaker 1: to testify on behalf of Jose to say he was
Speaker 1: a good man. Not one, not a single character witness.
Speaker 2: Would they testify the opposite?
Speaker 1: I'm sure, But the prosecutor is not going to.
Speaker 2: No, no, But have you heard anything or because not
Speaker 2: not witnessing or testifying that he was a good man
Speaker 2: doesn't mean he was a bad man. Was anyone Did
Speaker 2: anyone have bad thoughts and interactions with him?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm sure they did. I think he was ruthless
Speaker 1: in business, we know that, Yeah, I mean, all the
Speaker 1: things I've read is he was ruthless, he had a
Speaker 1: bad reputation, he was difficult to deal with, like, he
Speaker 1: was not liked. I mean all those attributes also made
Speaker 1: him a very highly skilled executive. I mean he got
Speaker 1: pretty far. And then lastly, it's just their behavior in
Speaker 1: prison I think is very commendable. The fact that they are.
Speaker 1: They were sentenced to life without parole, and yet they
Speaker 1: dedicated their lives to being educated, getting degrees and they're
Speaker 1: both married.
Speaker 2: Well they are, maybe they are crazy. What are your
Speaker 2: thoughts on that? I don't know. All I know is
Speaker 2: there's no conjugal visits for people that are in prison
Speaker 2: for life without problem is very true. I was going
Speaker 2: to get to that how they did marry for love?
Speaker 1: They did for love because it wasn't for sex, for sure,
Speaker 1: it was not supposedly though. So Eric is still married
Speaker 1: to the same woman. Her name is Tammy. They got
Speaker 1: married I believe, back in the nineties. She I think
Speaker 1: is close to sixty at this point, he's like fifty
Speaker 1: five or something.
Speaker 2: That's fine, that's close in age.
Speaker 1: My question is if they do get released, do you
Speaker 1: think that marriage will last?
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know. I don't know anything about the marriage.
Speaker 2: I mean, I can't I can't comment on that. I
Speaker 2: just can say that they haven't lived together before along,
Speaker 2: they haven't even gone out to eat. I mean, I
Speaker 2: don't even know. Yeah, they're going to come across new,
Speaker 2: uh traits of their personalities. They go out together. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so we're hopeful.
Speaker 1: So Lyle has been married a couple of times. He's
Speaker 1: currently married, but he's been married. Yeah, he's been married
Speaker 1: a couple of times. I think I believe he's married
Speaker 1: to his second wife right now. But she recently hosted
Speaker 1: on Facebook because she runs a Facebook page for him,
Speaker 1: that they are separated, but they remain best friends and
Speaker 1: she still supports him. But he currently as far as
Speaker 1: I know, I think the Daily Mail reported this, he
Speaker 1: has a girlfriend that's twenty one and she's British. I
Speaker 1: believe she flew out to the prison and she has
Speaker 1: visited him and there were photos of them together.
Speaker 2: Oh, this makes for a good episode of Life After
Speaker 2: lock Up, it does, right now. That's good reality TV.
Speaker 1: Shane and I used to watch that a lot.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Menenda's edition.
Speaker 1: All right, So, based upon what we've gone through, we
Speaker 1: did an analysis of why it was premeditated, the brutality
Speaker 1: of the murders. But then some of the things that
Speaker 1: convinced me that the abuse is true, that the abuse
Speaker 1: was corroborated by family members. There was the letter that
Speaker 1: was found from the cousin or that Eric had written
Speaker 1: to the cousin the Menudo, you know, member that came
Speaker 1: forward and said Jose had raped him.
Speaker 2: Well, let's be clear then, so all this new evidence
Speaker 2: leans towards they were abused and that would be the motive,
Speaker 2: which doesn't mean it wasn't a murder, and it doesn't
Speaker 2: justify murder because my parents have annoyed me from time
Speaker 2: to time, and the world knows you've annoyed me for
Speaker 2: time to time.
Speaker 1: I do, I do.
Speaker 2: Murder is never an option. Now, I haven't been abused
Speaker 2: to the extent that they claim they have been, so
Speaker 2: I certainly can't judge them. But what I'm getting at is,
Speaker 2: so if if we find we being the court finds
Speaker 2: that they have been abused, and that indeed is the
Speaker 2: motive and it was not money, then are they supposed
Speaker 2: to be out of jail? Should they still be in
Speaker 2: jail because you know, murder is not.
Speaker 1: Well, that's the argument that's to be made, And I'm
Speaker 1: asking you from your legal analysis your opinion based upon
Speaker 1: all the things we talked about that make it premeditated
Speaker 1: a brutal murder, and then some of the things that
Speaker 1: I put on the other side that have to do
Speaker 1: with the crop of abuse, what they endured, what they've
Speaker 1: gone through, do you think that they should be re
Speaker 1: sentenced to a lesser sentence which would allow them to
Speaker 1: be immediately eligible for pearl.
Speaker 2: Okay, I have real strong opinions on this. Okay, Ready,
Speaker 2: I don't know. I know enough to know that I
Speaker 2: don't know what it's like to be abused, right, And
Speaker 2: I don't know what the situation would be to have
Speaker 2: a father as he's painted out to be. So far
Speaker 2: to say, you know, I mean, and how I would
Speaker 2: handle it if I would run away or leave or
Speaker 2: punch my dad in the face or whatever it is.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know how. I don't know how
Speaker 2: I would handle it. So who am I to sit
Speaker 2: here and judge them for how they handled whatever abuse
Speaker 2: they encounter. I just don't know, and I'm not, Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: I'm not in a position where my opinion really matters
Speaker 2: to them. So I just can't go any further than
Speaker 2: that other than saying I don't know, and I have
Speaker 2: sympathy for people in that situation. I know. There's the
Speaker 2: battered woman syndrome, right, which is I don't know where
Speaker 2: it stands today legally, but it was recognized at one
Speaker 2: point that in the battered woman syndrome, that she's in
Speaker 2: no position to be able to get up and leave,
Speaker 2: that her only way of survival for her and possibly
Speaker 2: her children is to kill the man and that's the
Speaker 2: only way out, and that was recognized before.
Speaker 1: And I think that's a valid point that you make,
Speaker 1: because I've read and heard many people who have commentated
Speaker 1: on this case who are psychologists who are knowledgeable, who
Speaker 1: have said things such as, if these were the Menindez sisters,
Speaker 1: they would either have been it would have been a
Speaker 1: lesser charge of manslaughter because it.
Speaker 2: Comes off less violent and less physically aggressive if it's
Speaker 2: a female.
Speaker 1: I think you mean.
Speaker 2: It's perceived if it's the Menendez sisters, as you said,
Speaker 2: just I think me watching it as a young child,
Speaker 2: and even now, it just naturally comes off as less aggressive. Wow,
Speaker 2: they really that was their only way out, you know.
Speaker 2: And you don't see daughters killing parents. You don't vision
Speaker 2: and vision daughters killing parents for money. So you're saying,
Speaker 2: and it's all prejudging and none of it's accurate. We
Speaker 2: shouldn't be like that, But I'm just saying that's how
Speaker 2: it comes off.
Speaker 1: But I'm just saying if they were females, I think
Speaker 1: the abuse allegations that they made would have been believed.
Speaker 2: Oh, yes, I'm sorry, I'll start listening to you now. O.
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, I'm just saying if they were females when
Speaker 1: the abuse allegations came up, I think people would have
Speaker 1: probably wholeheartedly believed what they were saying. You know, the
Speaker 1: prosecutor paying it's.
Speaker 2: More easy to accept that a man would be horrific
Speaker 2: towards young women, right versus the other way around, exactly.
Speaker 1: It was the understanding during that time period. In the
Speaker 1: early nineties, there were two hung juries. In the first trial,
Speaker 1: all of the men voted for premeditated murder. Men could
Speaker 1: not wrap their heads around the fact that boys could
Speaker 1: be sexually abused by their fathers. Right and the prosecution.
Speaker 1: I saw it in a video I believe was on
Speaker 1: YouTube somewhere where the prosecutor Pam says to the judge
Speaker 1: in open court, it is our position that boys cannot
Speaker 1: be sexually abused. Yeah, that's that's why this case is
Speaker 1: so fundamental for today's society, and it's such an earmark
Speaker 1: of accepting the fact that boys can be abused by
Speaker 1: their parents. Right and that's where we're at, and hopefully
Speaker 1: we have a recensing hearing coming up on January thirtieth.
Speaker 1: There's a new DA in LA. His name's Nathan Hochman.
Speaker 1: He's taking office soon. They had to delay the resentencing
Speaker 1: to January thirtieth because he said he wanted time to
Speaker 1: review everything. He wants to at the totality of the circumstances.
Speaker 1: I believe he wants to go back and read all
Speaker 1: the trials, transcripts, both trials.
Speaker 2: I did see an interview with him where he said,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to, you know, just because they got
Speaker 2: popularity on Netflix and this, and that we're not going
Speaker 2: to just rush it. I think he was like, I'm
Speaker 2: going to treat this like any other case, which is
Speaker 2: I need to look at everything, not just watch a
Speaker 2: documentary exactly.
Speaker 1: I saw a recent interview I respected that on TMZ
Speaker 1: and he said that he wanted to make two things
Speaker 1: crystal clear, One that there was no preferential treatment, that
Speaker 1: he was going to do a thorough review of all
Speaker 1: the facts in the Meninda's case. And two and I
Speaker 1: thought this was really interesting. He said he loves the
Speaker 1: media attention that this case is getting because it allows
Speaker 1: so many people to get involved in the criminal justice system,
Speaker 1: and he really urged everyone to not just watch a
Speaker 1: dramatization like Monsters, but if you truly want to get
Speaker 1: involved and you truly want to understand it, read the
Speaker 1: trial transcripts, watch the trial, watch the cour TV.
Speaker 2: Be so quick to judge exactly, Know that there's a
Speaker 2: lot more to a murder then just it's cold blooded exactly.
Speaker 1: And with that, I think, thank you for giving me
Speaker 1: your opinion. Sure, what we're going to do now. I
Speaker 1: actually have a very good friend named Alexandra who is
Speaker 1: an attorney and she represents them and in those brothers.
Speaker 1: She works for Mark Geragos, and we're going to have
Speaker 1: her come on and we're going to ask her some
Speaker 1: questions about the case.
Speaker 2: I'll be exciting.
Speaker 1: Hi, guys, Hi alex thanks for being here of course. Okay,
Speaker 1: first of all, give me a little background. Alex and
Speaker 1: I are friends. I actually adore her. But besides that,
Speaker 1: give us a little background on how long you've been
Speaker 1: involved with the case. How long have you worked with Garagoes.
Speaker 1: Where are we at with that?
Speaker 3: Oh, I've been with Mark probably, I mean probably about
Speaker 3: eight years now. I've known in my whole life when
Speaker 3: I was a public defender. He used to think I
Speaker 3: worked for him already, a really good family friend, and
Speaker 3: we've been partners probably for about eight years now, and
Speaker 3: we came on to the Menandez case. I think it's
Speaker 3: been a little bit more than a year now.
Speaker 1: Right when the.
Speaker 3: Habeas was filed, we came in because it was filed
Speaker 3: by Cliff Gardner, who's really behind the scenes, but he's
Speaker 3: a genius in a pellet work, and so he asked
Speaker 3: us if we would come in and do the footwork,
Speaker 3: and so we came in right about them.
Speaker 1: Okay, Now, we were talking about this earlier because we
Speaker 1: were trying to distinguish the habeas petition from the resentencing,
Speaker 1: which are two different routes to grant them freedom. At
Speaker 1: this point, do you have a preference, like do you
Speaker 1: feel like the resentencing is a better route for your
Speaker 1: clients or the habeas.
Speaker 3: Well, the resentencing is cleaner because if the resentsing is granted,
Speaker 3: if the judge reduces it to a misdemeanor, they're immediately released.
Speaker 1: So that's the.
Speaker 3: Cleanest way for them to get out. If the habeas
Speaker 3: is granted, it gives them the option of a new trial.
Speaker 3: So there's a potential there that we have an entirely
Speaker 3: new Menendez Brothers Jurney.
Speaker 1: And that's a mess.
Speaker 3: So for me, as a representative of my clients, I
Speaker 3: would love to have the door just be opened and
Speaker 3: let them be freed. So the resentencing is my preference
Speaker 3: obviously right now.
Speaker 1: The hearing coming up on January thirtieth is that is
Speaker 1: the resentencing. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: That's correct?
Speaker 1: Okay, Now when we talk about resentencing, what are the
Speaker 1: factors that they taken into consideration, Like is the new
Speaker 1: evidence taken into consideration at that point as well, or
Speaker 1: is it more based upon kind of the family support,
Speaker 1: their behavior in prison, things like that.
Speaker 3: So the resentsing is really just what have they done
Speaker 3: from the time that they've been in prison until now.
Speaker 3: That's really the only thing you're looking at and the
Speaker 3: only real consideration for the judges. Is there a potential
Speaker 3: that they're going to be released and re offend by
Speaker 3: committing a super strike? And there's very specific charges that
Speaker 3: are super strikes, you know, murder, rape, things like that.
Speaker 3: So the question is is there anything in their history
Speaker 3: while they've been in prison that would make you think
Speaker 3: that they are potentially going to refund at a very
Speaker 3: very serious level.
Speaker 1: And I assume there's nothing. Everything I've read is that
Speaker 1: they've been nothing about model prisoners. They've gotten degrees, they've
Speaker 1: helped other prisoners and abuse sand hospice and things like that.
Speaker 1: Is that correct, that's correct.
Speaker 3: Not only have they been model citizens, but there are
Speaker 3: no other inmates that I have ever heard of that
Speaker 3: are like them. They had no potential for getting out,
Speaker 3: all of their appeals had been denied, and so they
Speaker 3: were resolved to the fact that they were going to
Speaker 3: be in prison for the rest of their lives. And
Speaker 3: at that point they started creating programs for other prisoners
Speaker 3: so that when they were released they had a better
Speaker 3: chance of survival without recidivism. And they focused solely on
Speaker 3: people who needed to be comforted towards the end of
Speaker 3: their life, who were in prison. Everything for everyone else.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I cannot even imagine if somebody wanted to
Speaker 3: come in and actually focus on the resentencing shoes, anything
Speaker 3: that they would say about their time in prison, that
Speaker 3: shows that they have not been rehabilitated.
Speaker 1: Right. And also, let me ask you, I know you
Speaker 1: know them personally because you speak to them often. How
Speaker 1: are they doing emotionally or mentally with everything that's going on,
Speaker 1: with all the support they're getting from social media, are
Speaker 1: they prepared if because there is the possibility that they
Speaker 1: remain in prison.
Speaker 3: It's always an option, It's always on their minds. You know,
Speaker 3: there's been already through this process. Just in the last year,
Speaker 3: there's been these peaks in these valleys. I think that
Speaker 3: from the inside it's hard to know exactly what's happening
Speaker 3: on the outside. They don't get watched TMZ. They get
Speaker 3: reports that are you know, third, fourth, fifth parties sometimes
Speaker 3: and so they've had a lot of ups and downs.
Speaker 1: But they're dealing with it with it better.
Speaker 3: Than I ever would. They deal with everything better than
Speaker 3: I ever would.
Speaker 2: Right, That was a question I was gonna ask. Are
Speaker 2: they aware of all the support that they're getting outside
Speaker 2: the gates, outside the prison?
Speaker 1: Yeah, they are.
Speaker 3: It means a lot time.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's got to be somewhat humbling to finally
Speaker 2: have that support after you know, three decades.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it's funny that you say that it they
Speaker 3: are very thoughtful, very humble people.
Speaker 1: You know, Shane and I were talking before you came
Speaker 1: on about how when the trial first occurred back in
Speaker 1: the nineties. It was a completely different time period, and
Speaker 1: I was saying, I think a lot of that. I've
Speaker 1: actually I text you at night. I'm like, I'm laying
Speaker 1: in bed and I think about these things. I was
Speaker 1: thinking about how that time period, the people within our
Speaker 1: peer group, we were gen X, and that was very
Speaker 1: you know, you just you put your big girl pants on.
Speaker 1: There weren't participation trophies, there wasn't gluten free, there was
Speaker 1: nothing warm and fuzzy. It was basically like you just
Speaker 1: you took care of yourself. And now we have this
Speaker 1: whole new generation that watch court TV, that saw the trial,
Speaker 1: that listened to them testify, that knows about what they've
Speaker 1: been through. And it's a different generation and they accept
Speaker 1: them and they believe them, and they and they embrace them.
Speaker 1: And that has to be so amazing for them to
Speaker 1: after all this time, to actually feel like what they've
Speaker 1: been through is being recognized, right.
Speaker 3: I Mean, they were the butt of jokes. They were
Speaker 3: Saturday Night Live skits about them. They were just made
Speaker 3: fun of constantly. And for them to be this complete
Speaker 3: oneint eighty is I think great just for them. I mean,
Speaker 3: people don't like it. When I say it, a lot
Speaker 3: of times I get black for it. But you know,
Speaker 3: they are victims. They are victims, and they were put
Speaker 3: in the position that they were in because they were abused,
Speaker 3: and so it's I think it's healing for them to
Speaker 3: see that they are being recognized as victims, not just
Speaker 3: as monsters.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it's great. And one thing that hasn't
Speaker 3: really been spoken about a lot is that when they
Speaker 3: were in and when they were putting their story out there,
Speaker 3: when they got on the stand and they started talking
Speaker 3: about what was happening, people inside of the jails came
Speaker 3: to them and said, oh, my god, I would never
Speaker 3: have done that. I never would have told my story.
Speaker 3: But now that you have, can I talk to you
Speaker 3: about it? Because I've never had anybody to talk to.
Speaker 3: So they've started support groups inside for victims of sexual
Speaker 3: violence and abuse that did not exist. And the idea
Speaker 3: that there are not support groups for things like that
Speaker 3: inside of the prisons boggled my mind. But they are
Speaker 3: the ones who started the creation of those support groups.
Speaker 1: Or Yeah, that's really amazing work that they've done. Also,
Speaker 1: how do you see them if they were let go,
Speaker 1: if they become free. How do you see them giving back?
Speaker 1: Is that what they talk about? Have you had conversations
Speaker 1: with them about that? Like how they see themselves once
Speaker 1: they're free.
Speaker 3: They want to keep continuing doing the work that they've
Speaker 3: been doing. Everything they talk about about their goals are
Speaker 3: to continue doing the work of reforming the prisons that
Speaker 3: they've been doing from the inside.
Speaker 2: They might be even more motivated to do so if
Speaker 2: they were to be released in any terms, they would
Speaker 2: probably see the value in speaking up and recognizing prisoners
Speaker 2: as victims of abuse or whatever they've been through. That
Speaker 2: they might want to continue their work because they're seeing
Speaker 2: like the fruits, right, Yeah, that that that people can
Speaker 2: be released, people can be reformed, people can you know,
Speaker 2: continue to help others. So they might be in you know,
Speaker 2: they might feel it's more valuable for them to do
Speaker 2: this and they'll want to just continue it. Yeah, that's
Speaker 2: that's that's yeah, it's probably it'd probably be hard for
Speaker 2: them to not want to continue it if they see
Speaker 2: the results that can come of it.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. I appreciate it, and I will
Speaker 1: talk to you soon. Okay, bye bye, okay, bye bye Okay.
Speaker 2: So, if they do get released under under any terms,
Speaker 2: whether it be resentencing or a new trial. And they
Speaker 2: get out of jail, then you know, we wonder if
Speaker 2: they're going to stay married, and this's that. But can
Speaker 2: they there's so much popularity around this, so much Hollywood
Speaker 2: around this, so to speak, can they benefit from any
Speaker 2: of this because obviously Netflix drama, everyone's benefiting from it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know what, they actually can. So in New
Speaker 1: York you're precluded from making money from a crime. However,
Speaker 1: in California that's not true. So they actually can profit
Speaker 1: from their stories.
Speaker 2: As far as you know, there's no restrictions.
Speaker 1: There's no restrictions, you know they As far as what
Speaker 1: I've read, there is no There's nothing left of this
Speaker 1: fourteen million dollar inheritance. It has all gone. It went.
Speaker 1: A lot of it paid for the defense the first
Speaker 1: couple of trials. Also, the house had a mortgage that
Speaker 1: had to be paid, there were taxes that had to
Speaker 1: be paid.
Speaker 2: Everyone was probably, yeah, putting their hand in thee.
Speaker 1: There's no money left. However, you're talking about two men
Speaker 1: that are on the popularity scale of like a Kardashian.
Speaker 1: So if they do happen by chance to come out
Speaker 1: of prison, I am sure that there will be some
Speaker 1: bidding wars over who gets the first interview with them,
Speaker 1: and you're talking millions.
Speaker 2: Of because the worry would be they come out of
Speaker 2: jail or prison and then they don't like have something
Speaker 2: to you know, to grasp on to financially support themselves.
Speaker 2: And yet everyone else is profited. But you're saying that
Speaker 2: they can they carefully, they do it properly and not
Speaker 2: be taken advantage of. But they can use their stories.
Speaker 1: Yes, interviews, social media, book deals. Yes, there there is
Speaker 1: the potential for.
Speaker 4: The reality shows podcast, There is the potential for them
Speaker 4: to make a lot of money. Yes, okay, all right,
Speaker 4: thanks guys for listening to our very first podcast on
Speaker 4: the Menindez Brothers, and thanks so much for listening.
Speaker 2: Thank you,