Speaker 1: Hi, guys, welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I
Speaker 1: will be your host today Emily Simpson with my co
Speaker 1: host Shane Shane. Okay, today we thought it was really
Speaker 1: important to do, first of all and update in the
Speaker 1: Menendez case. It is proceeding along actually very swiftly, and
Speaker 1: it's been interesting because Gavin Newsom has now really gotten
Speaker 1: involved in this case. First of all, you all know
Speaker 1: that DA Nathan Hawkman is involved in the Menendez case
Speaker 1: and in the resentencing, he reversed the course of his predecessor,
Speaker 1: who was Gascon. He was a more progressive DA. He
Speaker 1: was the one that was really pushing for the resentencing
Speaker 1: of the Menendez brothers. But Hawkman came out and said
Speaker 1: that he will only reconsider if the brothers apologize for
Speaker 1: what he calls a litany of lies. So he was
Speaker 1: interviewed and he told NBC News quote, if they go
Speaker 1: ahead and sincerely and unequivocally for the first time in
Speaker 1: thirty years layout that they have now lied on their
Speaker 1: entire defense and finally admit that they killed their parents
Speaker 1: in cold blood, then that will be a new insight
Speaker 1: that the court should then reconsider what he is doing,
Speaker 1: what Hawkman is doing is withdrawing the DA's support for
Speaker 1: their recenencing, and he featured a list of sixteen unacknowledged
Speaker 1: lies by the brothers. Now we'll get into some of
Speaker 1: these sixteen lies that he's saying that they need to
Speaker 1: basically come clean and fess up to before he would
Speaker 1: even consider giving a recommendation that the judge should resentence them. Basically,
Speaker 1: he's saying, I'm not supporting the resentencing at this point.
Speaker 1: That was on Monday, March tenth.
Speaker 2: So all so far. The only condition that he's adding
Speaker 2: is that they confess to a cold blooded murder.
Speaker 1: No, they did murder their passion.
Speaker 2: She may not confess, but he wants them to apologize.
Speaker 1: No, he said that. Basically, what he's done is he's
Speaker 1: gone back and he's basically retrying them, which is not
Speaker 1: what resentencing is about. This is where I think he's
Speaker 1: completely off base and he's not understanding resentencing. Resentencing is
Speaker 1: based on rehabilitation and where they are now and have
Speaker 1: they learned their lessons and are they different.
Speaker 2: People revisit them revisiting.
Speaker 1: He's gone back and I feel like he's retrying them,
Speaker 1: and he's saying, look in this first trial, there's these
Speaker 1: sixteen lies. And before I'll even consider giving a recommendation
Speaker 1: that you should be resentence, you need to go back
Speaker 1: and admit that you know, lied about all these things.
Speaker 2: And literally the first trial or the second trial, it.
Speaker 1: Was the first trial. But here's the thing. When they
Speaker 1: were tried in the first trial, all of these lies
Speaker 1: were testified to, they were cross examined on, the jury
Speaker 1: heard them, and then the jury ended up being a
Speaker 1: hung jury. So I don't think to me, those are
Speaker 1: moot issues at this point. We've already tried these They
Speaker 1: were also eighteen and twenty one at the time, so
Speaker 1: we do have to consider that we're talking about thirty
Speaker 1: five years prior. So next, this is on Monday, March tenth,
Speaker 1: when Hawkman withdrew any type of support for their resentencing.
Speaker 1: I think Newsom is playing chess with Hawkman, because then
Speaker 1: the next day, on Tuesday, March eleventh, California Governor Gavin
Speaker 1: Newsom dropped a breaking news on his new podcast, announcing
Speaker 1: that Lyle and Eric will go in front of the
Speaker 1: Parole Board on June thirteenth for a hearing. So what
Speaker 1: he's ordered is a public risk assessment report to be
Speaker 1: done and then they're going to have a parole Board
Speaker 1: hearing on June thirteenth. So I feel like his pushing
Speaker 1: for them to have a hearing in front of the
Speaker 1: Parole board was a direct response to Hawkman saying we
Speaker 1: withdraw any support for the resentencing. I mean, you can
Speaker 1: tell that to me. It's like like Gavin Newsom's playing
Speaker 1: chess with Hawkman. Hawkman makes a move and then the
Speaker 1: next day on his podcast, Gavin Newsom's like, well, I'm
Speaker 1: going to give him a parole board hearing and we're
Speaker 1: going to do this risk assessment.
Speaker 2: You know. It's kind of like the publicity with the
Speaker 2: Netflix special and whatnot afforded them the opportunity the voice
Speaker 2: where people wanted a resentencing or whatever and it kind
Speaker 2: of resurfaced, right, So it gave him kind of that spotlight,
Speaker 2: and it's also giving them the spotlight where now Gavin
Speaker 2: Newsom and other people are like stepping in and everyone
Speaker 2: wants to be in the kitchen, you know, cooking on
Speaker 2: this thing.
Speaker 1: And well, yeah, I mean, let's be honest, we're talking
Speaker 1: about To me, it's a pr stot on both sides.
Speaker 1: Because Hawkman likes to give news conferences all the time.
Speaker 1: He clearly enjoys being in front of the camera, and
Speaker 1: the way for him to get publicity in front of
Speaker 1: the camera is to talk about Menendez because everyone's obsessed
Speaker 1: with this case. Then Gavin Newsom has a new podcast.
Speaker 1: So what's a better way for him to get views
Speaker 1: on his podcasts and to get his podcasts out there
Speaker 1: than to announce that he that he's asked, you know,
Speaker 1: the parole board to give them a hearing and so
Speaker 1: but you know, what's also interesting is that they independently
Speaker 1: have hearings on June thirteenth in front of the parole board,
Speaker 1: which means that they're not being lumped together into like
Speaker 1: one decision. It is normal, but I think for me,
Speaker 1: even though that you've.
Speaker 2: Seen them together all the time, so then it's like
Speaker 2: you just assume that it's right. One of them is
Speaker 2: a couple committing the crime, and so they should be
Speaker 2: tried the same, and they're the same, and here they
Speaker 2: are being separated, and then it runs the risk of
Speaker 2: one being you know, getting a different result than the.
Speaker 1: Other exactly well that that there's a potential for that
Speaker 1: because they have independent parole hearings. Even though I do
Speaker 1: know that they've had amazing prison records over the past
Speaker 1: thirty five years. They've been heavily involved in lots of
Speaker 1: things like green space where they're putting you know, they're
Speaker 1: painting murals and creating green space in the prisons. They've
Speaker 1: been involved in the hospice, and they've both academically excelled
Speaker 1: and gotten degrees, and they've worked with, you know, other
Speaker 1: victims of abuse. And they also claimed on a recent
Speaker 1: podcast that they did with Garagos you know how Garaghos
Speaker 1: and what's the guy's name from TMZ, Harvey Harvey Harvey Harvey,
Speaker 1: because you know, because you watch TMZ all the time.
Speaker 2: No, yes, you do.
Speaker 1: You're the one that told me that TMZ stood for
Speaker 1: a thirty mile zone.
Speaker 2: What do I mean? I know? I wat?
Speaker 1: Well, okay, you get TMZ, you get TMC alerts on
Speaker 1: your phone.
Speaker 2: I know this annoying.
Speaker 1: Well that's what I'm saying, all right. Anyway, anyway, so
Speaker 1: the brothers actually did an interview on their podcast recently
Speaker 1: I think this was last week, and they were talking
Speaker 1: about all these things that they've done in prison. Anyway,
Speaker 1: my whole point is the recencing comes down to rehabilitation.
Speaker 1: And are they a different person than they were thirty
Speaker 1: five years ago? Have they grown, have they rehabilitated themselves?
Speaker 1: Are they a risk to society? How does their family feel?
Speaker 1: And we all know that their entire family supports them
Speaker 1: being released and being recent So anyway, that's where we at.
Speaker 1: So they still have also which is interesting because I'm
Speaker 1: not really sure how this works, but they still have
Speaker 1: their resentencing hearing scheduled for March twentieth and the twenty first.
Speaker 1: So I was actually chatting about it with Alex who
Speaker 1: represents them, she's on their team, on their legal team,
Speaker 1: and she was saying, well, it hasn't been continued or
Speaker 1: rescheduled or anything at this point. So basically what they
Speaker 1: could do is proceed forward and present evidence of their rehabilitation,
Speaker 1: their prison record, the family and all of that stuff,
Speaker 1: and then we'll see what happens on June thirteenth when
Speaker 1: they go before the parole board.
Speaker 2: So basically, Menendez update is another stay tuned.
Speaker 1: It is another stay tuned. But I think what's really
Speaker 1: interesting is that Hawkman comes out and basically kills the
Speaker 1: resentencing like it, you know what I mean, Like he
Speaker 1: it's doomsday for him and then Gavin Newsom comes out
Speaker 1: the next day and he's like, no, it's not Kevin
Speaker 1: news Some just Granthum plenacy Commune. Yes he could, and
Speaker 1: that's that's another option. So we still have two options
Speaker 1: at this point.
Speaker 2: And then he should have him on his podcast. Exactly
Speaker 2: wants the ratings there you go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's going to have to pay a lot for that, though,
Speaker 1: I think they're not just going to go on a
Speaker 1: podcast for he's got money. Let's talk about just a
Speaker 1: little bit of the sixteen. Hawkman calls them the unacknowledged
Speaker 1: lies that they have not admitted to, So let's just well,
Speaker 1: we won't go through all of them, but let's just
Speaker 1: go through some Eric and Lyle Liby.
Speaker 2: Next question, so these lies are in the first trial,
Speaker 2: not in the second. If in the first trial there
Speaker 2: are lies and then the second trial just for arguments
Speaker 2: there were no lies, then why is he going back
Speaker 2: to that like the first trial that got thrown out?
Speaker 1: Anyway, Well, I think that's the whole point of he's
Speaker 1: not really understanding or wanting to understand.
Speaker 2: Or allows them to be released. He won't be able
Speaker 2: to do any public speaking anymore.
Speaker 1: No, he needs another famous case, cam up the.
Speaker 2: Murders out.
Speaker 1: They are staying in so that I can give weekly
Speaker 1: press conferences. All right, he said, some of these lies
Speaker 1: are Eric and Lyle lied when they claim that their
Speaker 1: parents were going to kill them and that they had
Speaker 1: to act in self defense by murdering them. First, first
Speaker 1: of all, their defense in their first trial was not
Speaker 1: self defense. It was actually imperfect self defense. So that's
Speaker 1: not exactly accurate. And imperfect self defense is a partial
Speaker 1: defense that doesn't meant all legal requirements, but may reduce
Speaker 1: the severity of a criminal charge. So, for example, a
Speaker 1: defendant may claim imperfect self defense, which the brothers did,
Speaker 1: if they reasonably but mistakenly believe that they were in
Speaker 1: danger of death or serious injury.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so, which is like, okay, you genuinely were in
Speaker 2: fear for your safety. However, a reasonably prudent person would
Speaker 2: not be in fear.
Speaker 1: Right and exactly, and this is what their defense was
Speaker 1: in the first trial was imperfect self defense because there
Speaker 1: was no immediate harm when they killed their parents. Their
Speaker 1: parents were sitting and you know, in the in the
Speaker 1: den watching a movie, eating ice cream and blueberries when
Speaker 1: they came in and shot them. So the imperfect self
Speaker 1: defense was a reasonable person would not feel that their
Speaker 1: life was in imminent danger at that time. However, their
Speaker 1: defense was they had been abused for so long that
Speaker 1: they weren't thinking like a reasonable, rational person, and that
Speaker 1: they felt that they were that their parents were going
Speaker 1: to kill them.
Speaker 2: And I feel that children always apply it a self defense,
Speaker 2: and it's really an imperfect self defense. It's like, yeah, Okay,
Speaker 2: you're scared, I get it, but you shouldn't be scared, right,
Speaker 2: I get it. He hurt your feelings, so you hit him,
Speaker 2: but you shouldn't have been hurt.
Speaker 1: So you're just saying kids in general, their excuses are
Speaker 1: always imperfect self defense. But they're eighteen and twenty one.
Speaker 1: Are they still considered kids at this point?
Speaker 2: I was just talking about our kids.
Speaker 1: You were just talking about our children. Now, Okay, So
Speaker 1: from now on, when Annabel argues with me, I'm going
Speaker 1: to be like, that's an imperfect self is.
Speaker 2: Going to mitigate your punishment. It's not going to alleviate
Speaker 2: you from any We're just.
Speaker 1: Raising little lawyers over here or defendants or that. So
Speaker 1: is Annabel a defendant or a future lawyer, She's a
Speaker 1: person of interest.
Speaker 2: Ally Day always a.
Speaker 1: Person of interest, all right. Another one is to support
Speaker 1: their self defense claims. Eric and Lyle tried to suborn
Speaker 1: perjury by asking Eric's friend Brian to testify that they
Speaker 1: borrowed one of his handguns the night before the murder
Speaker 1: to defend themselves against their parents. So there are there
Speaker 1: were several instances of them trying to get people to
Speaker 1: testify to their defense. Another one was, I believe Lyle
Speaker 1: asked a girl friend to testify that, you know, his
Speaker 1: dad had made sexual advances at her or raped her
Speaker 1: or something like that. They also testified the purpose of
Speaker 1: their one hundred and twenty mile drive to San Diego
Speaker 1: was not to buy shotguns, when in fact, that was
Speaker 1: the reason that they made the trip.
Speaker 2: These two kids, we'll just go off the you know,
Speaker 2: we'll just be in agreement that they killed their parents
Speaker 2: for their own safety, so I can make my argument.
Speaker 2: So if they're doing that, most people, if not all,
Speaker 2: don't like you kill your parents cold blooded? Right because
Speaker 2: you did it without being provoked. You did it, And
Speaker 2: now let me think, so do you do it? You
Speaker 2: kill your parents? They didn't attack you. You just walked in.
Speaker 2: They're on the couch. You shoot them they're dead, you
Speaker 2: feel better. You're not going to think, hey, I have
Speaker 2: a self defense because I was in fear of my safety.
Speaker 2: They're gonna worry, holy crap, we just killed our parents.
Speaker 2: We have to hide this. If someone advised them in
Speaker 2: the beginning, look this, you can have a defense where
Speaker 2: there's a time where you're you know, in fear of
Speaker 2: your safety and this and that, and so you kill
Speaker 2: them because it's your only way out and blah blah
Speaker 2: blah blah. Then they might have been truthful. But it's
Speaker 2: normal for people to think, holy crapit has killed someone.
Speaker 2: I better hide this, even if they did it for
Speaker 2: their safety. So if a female kills the boyfriend because
Speaker 2: he's a jerk and he keeps beating her, not all
Speaker 2: of them are like, well, had I had a good
Speaker 2: legal defense, They're going to think I just killed someone.
Speaker 2: I better cover this up, right.
Speaker 1: So you're saying a reasonable person is going to hide
Speaker 1: the fact that they murdered someone because that's just the
Speaker 1: natural instinct of what to do.
Speaker 2: But reasonable people don't even kill, so I arguably in
Speaker 2: a reasonable state of mind. I mean, I hate it
Speaker 2: when they say a reasonable person would have called the
Speaker 2: police No, I don't know. I'd probably be scared to death,
Speaker 2: and I would have attacked the person that was coming
Speaker 2: in my house or reacted in a way. It's like, no,
Speaker 2: one's like someone comes and points a gun at me,
Speaker 2: and then the law is telling me to act like
Speaker 2: a reasonably prudent person.
Speaker 1: What about the now we know with sexual abuse, we
Speaker 1: know that they lie about the abuse, and they lie
Speaker 1: to cover up the abuse. So is that a factor
Speaker 1: that should be taken into consideration considering that they might
Speaker 1: have lied about a litany of things, as Hawkman says,
Speaker 1: but maybe their first instinct is to lie about things
Speaker 1: because they're still trying to cover up the abuse that
Speaker 1: they enter.
Speaker 2: So you're saying, it's like, oh, I I didn't kill them.
Speaker 2: Oh it wasn't me, Oh it was my friend. Oh
Speaker 2: it was because he attacked me. Oh it was I
Speaker 2: thought he was going to kill me. Okay, you know what,
Speaker 2: he just made my life miserable growing up, and I
Speaker 2: hated it and I had no way out and I
Speaker 2: was fearful of him, so I killed him. Okay. Sorry.
Speaker 2: Then it's like, well, then why do you say all
Speaker 2: that in the first.
Speaker 1: Place, right, But my point is based upon what you
Speaker 1: just said, that sexual abuse victims lie initially to cover
Speaker 1: it up, like they're not forthcoming about sexual abuse. So
Speaker 1: I'm saying that.
Speaker 2: Oh, they cover up the abuse, right because maybe embarrassment
Speaker 2: they feel their right.
Speaker 1: Well, like we know that as a fact based upon
Speaker 1: psychological research, that sexual abuse victims lie about the abuse.
Speaker 2: It's just a tough call for in all scenarios.
Speaker 1: They also tried to get someone to lie and say
Speaker 1: that they were present when their mother tried to poison.
Speaker 2: Their family, but they had a legal defense or they didn't.
Speaker 2: They thought that that was a better thing than saying, oh,
Speaker 2: I was scared of my daddy. So they're probably trying
Speaker 2: to come up with scenarios to get out of this thing.
Speaker 1: But this is when they're testifying, I believe. Yeah, when
Speaker 1: they did shoot their parents, they staged it in a
Speaker 1: way to look like a mafia style hit. So they
Speaker 1: shot the dad in the back of the head, they
Speaker 1: shot the mother in the face, they shot him in
Speaker 1: the knee caps it was supposed to and then they said,
Speaker 1: oh it was mafia. He was my dad was evolved
Speaker 1: in you know, dirty business practices. So they use that
Speaker 1: as as a way to rewrap the police and the
Speaker 1: investigation get it. Eric and lyle lied when they testified
Speaker 1: that doctor Ozell, who remember, was the psychologist that Eric
Speaker 1: confessed to. They lied when they claimed that he blackmailed
Speaker 1: them into confessing on tape. Parents.
Speaker 2: That's the psychiatrist that talks in his sleep.
Speaker 1: Oh, I don't know, what do you mean, Well, he
Speaker 1: had a mistress that he would tell things to.
Speaker 2: It wasn't in his sleep. I don't think claimed that
Speaker 2: it was in his sleep.
Speaker 1: Oh, she might have originally because he.
Speaker 3: Was I would never go to that psychiatrist that he
Speaker 3: should have a warning on the door, Like a psychiatrist
Speaker 3: is known to talk in his sleep to mistresses.
Speaker 1: And he sleeps with other women besides his wife. Right,
Speaker 1: let me just give one thing. Lylman Does posted on
Speaker 1: Facebook after Hawkman did his after Hawkman did his press
Speaker 1: conference and basically said he wasn't he was withdrawing the
Speaker 1: DA's support of them being recent and so, Lyleman Does
Speaker 1: posted on his Facebook page that quote. Of all those
Speaker 1: lies Hawkman talked about, several of them were admitted stipulated
Speaker 1: to in the first trial, and several of the other
Speaker 1: lies were absolutely disproven or reasonably disputed. So he responds
Speaker 1: to Hawkman's accusation. Also, the jury was a hung jury
Speaker 1: in the first one, so you have to remember that.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, okay, you wanted to talk about the lies
Speaker 2: in the first draw. Why don't we talk about the
Speaker 2: fact that a handful of jury members found them not guilty? Right?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Consider it? Consider everything.
Speaker 1: Oh, also, Mark Garrigos, who is there? Who is the
Speaker 1: menindaz brothers attorney. He responded to Hawkman, and he said,
Speaker 1: there were twenty two family members who signed on and
Speaker 1: told the DA's office stop retraumatizing us. We could tell
Speaker 1: at the meeting that Hawkman had no interest in that,
Speaker 1: and I think that means that he had no interest in,
Speaker 1: you know, the resentencing. This really kind of points out
Speaker 1: one of the fallacies, if you will, of the DA
Speaker 1: office here. They're not interested in victims. There isn't a
Speaker 1: single living victim who endorses this. In fact, every single
Speaker 1: victim wants them out. He continued, this, gentleman, this DA
Speaker 1: retraumatizes the family repeatedly. He's almost serially abusing them with
Speaker 1: his lies and his litany of lies. Family members who
Speaker 1: support the Brothers say the DA has quote blinders onto
Speaker 1: the fact that Eric and Lyle were repeatedly abused, feared
Speaker 1: for their lives, and had atoned to their actions. When
Speaker 1: asked about the sixteen lies the DA would like the
Speaker 1: brothers to admit to, Gargo said, quote, he's obviously show voting.
Speaker 1: He knows for a fact both brothers were cross examined
Speaker 1: for weeks in the first trial on all of these things.
Speaker 1: Every single one of these things that he mentioned was
Speaker 1: either abandoned or cross examined in the first trial. And
Speaker 1: guess what happened. Two juries not one, one for Eric
Speaker 1: and one for Lyle. Both juries voted against murder over
Speaker 1: the majority. Gargo said, Also, this is interesting. The family
Speaker 1: sent a letter to the US Attorney's office asking that
Speaker 1: Hawkman be removed from this case because they claim that
Speaker 1: he's hostile, dismissive, and patronizing towards them. These are victims,
Speaker 1: and apparently he's not very kind to them, according to
Speaker 1: this letter that they've written, and they've asked that he
Speaker 1: that it be looked into, or that he'd be even
Speaker 1: removed from the case. So yeah, okay, now I'm officially
Speaker 1: done with min indest.
Speaker 2: Time will tell. We shall see, We.
Speaker 1: Shall see what happens on March twentieth and twenty first,
Speaker 1: if they continue to go forward with that or if
Speaker 1: it gets continued. And if they do go forward with it,
Speaker 1: then we will continue to see what happens on June
Speaker 1: thirteenth when they go before the parole board, when they
Speaker 1: get this risk assessment done, and then we will see
Speaker 1: what Governor Gavin Newsom does. So we'll have to follow
Speaker 1: his podcast to find out.
Speaker 2: What's the name of this podcast.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 1: He doesn't have to have a creative name because he's
Speaker 1: the governor, so he can just call it his own name. Yeah,
Speaker 1: all right, let's get into this is interesting. Gene Hackman
Speaker 1: and his wife Betsy. We did a little last time
Speaker 1: we recorded. We did a little synopsis on what was
Speaker 1: known so far, which was little. At that time. We
Speaker 1: just knew that they were both found dead. Now there
Speaker 1: have been a lot of updates, so we want to
Speaker 1: do an update on this case and talk about it
Speaker 1: because I still find this case, even though there's there's
Speaker 1: answers now, I still feel like there's now more questions.
Speaker 1: So the new Mexico chief, let's.
Speaker 2: Be honest, Emily always thinks that they're bigger conspiracy. I
Speaker 2: have a bean. You would if they said we determine
Speaker 2: if the medical examiner determined that aliens came down and
Speaker 2: killed them, she would be satisfied.
Speaker 1: I would.
Speaker 2: But when it's like, oh, they have this rat disease
Speaker 2: and all the timers and he fell, then she doesn't
Speaker 2: believe it.
Speaker 1: I would believe it more if they said Bigfoot broke
Speaker 1: into their house and murdered them. I would believe that
Speaker 1: over what they claim. Actually, right, yes, I do believe
Speaker 1: on bigfoot though.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: The new Mexico Chief Medical Examiner, Heather Durrell, held a
Speaker 1: highly anticipated news conference This was back on Friday, March seventh,
Speaker 1: to reveal the cause of death for Gene Hackman and
Speaker 1: his wife. They claim, after an autopsy, that Betsy died
Speaker 1: of hantavirus, which, by the way, have you ever heard
Speaker 1: of that before?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Really, yeah last week when I was reading about
Speaker 2: this case.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, but before last week. No.
Speaker 2: It's like it's like mice or road in droppings and
Speaker 2: deer droppings. Okay, right, But it can't be contracted from
Speaker 2: human to human. That's why there's not many cases of
Speaker 2: it. It can only be contracted from the feces alone or
Speaker 2: whatever she came.
Speaker 1: So apparently it's a rare flu like disease linked to rats.
Speaker 1: So she likely died on February eleventh, So she had
Speaker 1: to have come into contact with rat poop somehow.
Speaker 2: What if it's bigfoot droppings, it might be they should
Speaker 2: look into that and would you be happy?
Speaker 1: It would make more sense to me. Yes, she probably
Speaker 1: picked up hantavirus, which can only pass from animals to
Speaker 1: humans after she after she was exposed to rodent excrement. Somehow,
Speaker 1: the wife would have been feeling six three to six
Speaker 1: days before dying and then succombaing pretty quickly to the virus.
Speaker 1: The medical examiner has said coming succumbing, it's not succumbing. Okay,
Speaker 1: thank you mister.
Speaker 2: Help.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The medical examiner also said there were signs of
Speaker 1: rodent entry around the property, but they assess the risk
Speaker 1: of exposure and the primary residence as low. It's similar
Speaker 1: to other well maintained houses in New Mexico. I would
Speaker 1: say everybody's house probably has some rat poop in it somewhere.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: No, no, well yeah there are there are No that's
Speaker 1: dog poop. No, I'm not, No in our backyard Togo
Speaker 1: catches big rats all the time into the yard. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but he catches it. They probably tunnel under the house,
Speaker 1: and they're probably in the ok.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So anyway, they were a little bit more remote
Speaker 2: and less developed areas. Right, They're kind of in the
Speaker 2: hillside or something like that. So I bet you she
Speaker 2: never saw any treatment or went to an urgent care
Speaker 2: doctor or anything.
Speaker 1: Hackman also had late stage Alzheimer's disease, and he likely
Speaker 1: died roughly a week after his wife from cardiovascular disease
Speaker 1: and from the Alzheimer's and he tested negative for hantavirus.
Speaker 1: But cardiovascular disease isn't a heart attack.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what is it then? Is it just a weakness
Speaker 2: in the heart or something?
Speaker 1: I guess so, But you know what, this is what
Speaker 1: I can't picture. So the wife dies nearly a week
Speaker 1: before him, and she dies in the bathroom, And I
Speaker 1: guess that would explain why the dog is in the
Speaker 1: crate and the bathroom.
Speaker 2: The dog was in a crate because I thought they
Speaker 2: had the dog had a procedure, so they were protecting
Speaker 2: the dog or securing it.
Speaker 1: They were probably keeping the dog away from the other
Speaker 1: two dogs.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Oh yeah, there you go right, So then.
Speaker 1: That makes sense why the dog died, because the dog
Speaker 1: probably died.
Speaker 2: Of starvation and unfortunately, right, So.
Speaker 1: Gene Hackman dies nearly a week after her. But he's
Speaker 1: ninety five and he has Alzheimer's, so he's just I
Speaker 1: just pictured this man. Is he just wandering around the house?
Speaker 2: Ye, sleeping maybe a lot. Maybe he has a route,
Speaker 2: I don't know how it works. Maybe he has a routine,
Speaker 2: so he was kind of just going through whatever his
Speaker 2: daily routine was.
Speaker 1: Did he not notice I'm guessing why from the bathroom.
Speaker 2: Well maybe he did, But what's he going to do?
Speaker 2: He can't lift her up, and if he's not capable
Speaker 2: of making phone calls or well, I don't know, I'm
Speaker 2: just speculating.
Speaker 1: Well that's another interesting thing. Was apparently he had no
Speaker 1: cell phone because she remember I called her the gatekeeper
Speaker 1: on an earlier episode that we did, because I apparently
Speaker 1: if you wanted to speak to him or get a
Speaker 1: hold of him, you had to call her cell phone.
Speaker 1: So I don't know, I don't know. I just picture
Speaker 1: this old It's sad. I think this old man wandering
Speaker 1: around this house.
Speaker 2: Right, it's not the way he goes, but his.
Speaker 1: Wife is dead. He has daughters, but I don't know
Speaker 1: it said something like, I think I read they were
Speaker 1: kind of a strange hadn't spoken to him a month.
Speaker 1: It ends up being a maintenance worker or something that
Speaker 1: ends up seeing them or coming to the house.
Speaker 2: I think that's the end of that case. I know
Speaker 2: you want more, well, I don't know.
Speaker 1: We'll see, let's keep going. He was in a very
Speaker 1: poor state of health, the medical examine said. He was
Speaker 1: in an advanced state of Alzheimer's disease, and it was
Speaker 1: quite possible that he did not know that she had
Speaker 1: been deceased. The medical examiner noted noted also that Hackman
Speaker 1: was not dehydrated at the time of his death, which
Speaker 1: was likely on February eighteenth.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, that means he was caring for himself.
Speaker 1: Well, yes, And February eighteenth was the day after his
Speaker 1: last recorded pacemaker activity. That's how they kind of put
Speaker 1: a timeline on what he did.
Speaker 2: He may not have had a very good concept of time.
Speaker 2: So if she fell and she's laying there, I don't
Speaker 2: know if she was ever conscious. Let's say she fell
Speaker 2: and she that was it, she was out, then maybe
Speaker 2: he would go and check on her and then think
Speaker 2: she was just dabbing or her and then and then
Speaker 2: he didn't have a concept of time that had been
Speaker 2: so long a week or whatever it was, you know
Speaker 2: what I mean, Like maybe to him it was just
Speaker 2: a flash of time.
Speaker 1: Well, it does say that the medical examiner said that
Speaker 1: he did not have any food in his stomach when
Speaker 1: when the performed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's too bad, all right.
Speaker 1: Let's talk a little bit about hantavirus. People get hand
Speaker 1: virus from contact with rodents like rats and mice, especially
Speaker 1: when exposed to their urine droppings and saliva. It can
Speaker 1: also spread through a bier scratched by a rodent, but
Speaker 1: this is very rare. Only eight hundred and sixty five
Speaker 1: cases of the disease have been reported in the US
Speaker 1: between nineteen ninety three and twenty twenty two, and apparently
Speaker 1: now there's one in twenty five.
Speaker 2: And I bet if I bet you that she wasn't
Speaker 2: quick to go get medical care because one she'd have
Speaker 2: to take him. Yeah, that's probably a lot. And she
Speaker 2: probably thought she'd just walk it off because she just
Speaker 2: what flew like symptoms, right, and she didn't want to
Speaker 2: go out in public, maybe with him but that's that's
Speaker 2: the reason someone like him, who has the financial means
Speaker 2: needs to have in home care, should have had in
Speaker 2: home care. It's too bad. It's too bad.
Speaker 1: Well it really is.
Speaker 2: I mean, granted, he was ninety five, but she could
Speaker 2: have She had a lot of life left to live.
Speaker 1: She did, and it makes me sad to think that
Speaker 1: if someone had been checking in on them, or someone
Speaker 1: was living with us, or they had an assistant or
Speaker 1: a caretaker or someone, that all they had to do
Speaker 1: was take her to the hospital, and I assumed she
Speaker 1: could have recovered from it pretty treatment, pretty easily. So
Speaker 1: the pills found near Betsy's body were thyroid medication that
Speaker 1: had been prescribed to her and were not related to
Speaker 1: her death. This is what the medical examiner said. All right,
Speaker 1: The investigation will remain open as authorities still need to
Speaker 1: tie up loose ends. The Santa Fe County Sheriff Aiden
Speaker 1: Mendoza said this includes obtaining more data from Hackman and
Speaker 1: Betsy's cell phones that could shed light on their locations
Speaker 1: or other communications they had before they died. I mean,
Speaker 1: this says cell phone, So does that mean that he
Speaker 1: does have a cell phone? I don't know, or if
Speaker 1: he does. Maybe he doesn't know how to really use it.
Speaker 1: Maybe he loses it, maybe he doesn't know where to
Speaker 1: find it. Maybe that's why she's the one that you
Speaker 1: always have to communicate with. I don't know. So investigators
Speaker 1: are also awaiting, and then a cropsy results from the
Speaker 1: couple's dog, Zenna, who was the dog that was found
Speaker 1: dead in the crate and the bathroom near Betsy's body.
Speaker 1: The couple's dog we talked about had undergone a medical
Speaker 1: procedure on February ninth, which may explain why the dog
Speaker 1: was in the crate, which we said the dog was
Speaker 1: probably there in the house. The other two dogs were
Speaker 1: found alive and had been able to go in and
Speaker 1: out through and open. I guess there was a doggy door,
Speaker 1: so those dogs.
Speaker 2: So they were all three would have been okay, it
Speaker 2: was really just because the dog was in the crazy Yeah.
Speaker 1: And the dog probably starved.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Okay.
Speaker 1: So Gene Hackman has friends that are speaking out, and
Speaker 1: some of their friends are saying that Hackman had tried
Speaker 1: to stay active before his death decline. Friends of the
Speaker 1: Oscar winning actor spoke to Fox News about how he
Speaker 1: was focused on his health and was bothered by aging
Speaker 1: before he died at ninety five. Stephen Marshall, an FBI
Speaker 1: agent who trained the couple through a community outreach program,
Speaker 1: told Fox News that Hackman was concerned about the fact
Speaker 1: that he was getting older. He didn't like being old,
Speaker 1: and seeing himself on film bothered him because he knew
Speaker 1: he didn't look like that anymore. That does have to
Speaker 1: be sad. I was thinking about that myself when I
Speaker 1: was watching I remember we talked about before. I was
Speaker 1: watching The Poseidon Adventure with Luke. He looked so young
Speaker 1: and vib he was looking guy.
Speaker 2: He's tall, he's got a great like voice, like, he
Speaker 2: comes off very strong.
Speaker 1: And then when I saw the picture of him at
Speaker 1: ninety five, that didn't even look like I couldn't you.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't have even known that was Gene Hackman.
Speaker 2: No, No, no one would no.
Speaker 1: So it has to be sad. Like that's sad.
Speaker 2: That's what happens.
Speaker 1: I know. I don't want to age. I don't know
Speaker 1: how we figured it out. I don't know how we.
Speaker 2: You're gonna have to make a deal with the devil
Speaker 2: or something.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but it has to be hard when
Speaker 1: you're an actor like him. That has been in so
Speaker 1: many movies.
Speaker 2: He retired in six I know, but I'm just.
Speaker 1: Saying, when your image has been memorialized for everyone to
Speaker 1: look at, and you look so healthy and tan and
Speaker 1: vibrant and straight.
Speaker 2: Talking about yourself in thirty years from now.
Speaker 1: I am, I'm like, man, I have been memorialized into
Speaker 1: this show.
Speaker 2: He's a good thing.
Speaker 1: No, because I'm going to be like I'm going to
Speaker 1: be like Gene Hackman ninety five years old.
Speaker 2: You don't want me to playing in thirty years night.
Speaker 2: You don't want me playing episodes of houses?
Speaker 1: No, please don't. It's going to be very depressing for me.
Speaker 1: So apparently his friends were saying that he always tried
Speaker 1: to stay active and that he did plates like three
Speaker 1: times a week, and he would ride his bike, load
Speaker 1: up his bicycle in his suv and drive to Albuquerque
Speaker 1: and ride on trails. But I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: know exactly the timeline because I feel like his health
Speaker 1: has declined recently.
Speaker 2: So I sure Snowballs could have been exponential. Yeah, so
Speaker 2: maybe like these friends six months ago knew of his activity,
Speaker 2: but in the last six months he declined, they weren' updated, right,
Speaker 2: So I was making that up right.
Speaker 1: While speaking to The New York Times, Tom Allen, who
Speaker 1: had been friends with Hackman for around twenty years, insisted
Speaker 1: the star seemed happy to have his wife run things
Speaker 1: and take care of him. She was very protective of him,
Speaker 1: this friend told the Alet, adding that Hackman had said
Speaker 1: he probably would have tied long ago without the care
Speaker 1: of his beloved wife, who looked after him and made
Speaker 1: sure he had a healthy diet. Alan also said that
Speaker 1: Betsy would serve as something of a gatekeeper for her
Speaker 1: husband and would often set up golf games or meetings
Speaker 1: for the two friends. I don't know, See, I always
Speaker 1: wonder about that. Is she really all that one concerned
Speaker 1: about his health and his well being and that's why
Speaker 1: she controls everything? Or is she just controlling because she
Speaker 1: likes to control him and not And she only allows
Speaker 1: him to go golfing with his friends when she sets
Speaker 1: it up. She only allows him to talk to his
Speaker 1: kids when she lets him talk to his kids.
Speaker 2: The world will never know.
Speaker 1: The world will never know. But I, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know about Betsy. So who will inherit gene Hackman's
Speaker 1: multi million dollar fortune?
Speaker 2: Well, if he has a will that's what that will dictate. Otherwise,
Speaker 2: it'll probably go to his children.
Speaker 1: Geane and Betsy had no children together, so betsy'says state
Speaker 1: will likely go to her relatives. However, Jane was a
Speaker 1: father from his marriage to Faye Maltice and leaves behind
Speaker 1: Christopher who is sixty five, Elizabeth who is sixty three,
Speaker 1: and Leslie who is fifty eight.
Speaker 2: Do they have a pre nup?
Speaker 1: Okay? I would bet there's no prenup because Betsy does
Speaker 1: not seem like the type of woman that would have
Speaker 1: a prenup. She's running the show. You think Betsy signed
Speaker 1: a prenup? Absolutely not.
Speaker 2: She's like, I'm thirty years younger, babe, Yeah, if you
Speaker 2: want me, There's no prenup. No.
Speaker 1: The details of who will inherit Jean's estate have not
Speaker 1: been shared publicly, but according to the Wealth Advisor, it
Speaker 1: will likely go to his children. But here's the thing
Speaker 1: I thought was interesting, and this is just me being
Speaker 1: a conspiracy theorist again, is that his children would not
Speaker 1: have inherited his estate unless Betsy died too.
Speaker 2: Well, as couples die at the same time and they
Speaker 2: both have their own offspring right or their own wills.
Speaker 2: What do you do, because usually wills will say, if
Speaker 2: I die, everything to my wife. If I die, everything
Speaker 2: to my husband. So what happens when they both died
Speaker 2: at the same time, like a plane crash, Well.
Speaker 1: Revert, don't talk about plane crashes. It reverts to children.
Speaker 2: Okay, like a suicide bomber? Is that better? Yes? Thank you?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I just think it's interesting. Well, if Jean died, just
Speaker 1: Jane and not Betsy, then the estate would have gone
Speaker 1: to Betsy unless he had a will overriding that it
Speaker 1: went to Betsy, right, unless he left everything to his children.
Speaker 1: But there's no way that would happen. Betsy would not
Speaker 1: let that happen. But come in.
Speaker 2: Betsy's going to come in and say, no, Jeene Hackman
Speaker 2: died first, and everything should go to his wife. Assuming
Speaker 2: there's no other overwriting documents. Everything should go to his wife.
Speaker 2: And then therefore they should come to me, the son
Speaker 2: of Betsy.
Speaker 1: Betsy has no children.
Speaker 2: Oh, she doesn't have any children. Well should I be
Speaker 2: paying attention?
Speaker 1: Yes, you should be.
Speaker 2: Betsy has no children, yeah, but she has then you
Speaker 2: go up right to the parents or whoever.
Speaker 1: The estate would have gone to Betsy. But Betsy died too,
Speaker 1: So now the estate's going to go to his children,
Speaker 1: most likely, unless there's some will out there that he
Speaker 1: has written that we don't know about that somebody finds anyway. Supposedly,
Speaker 1: Gene Hackman has one of the biggest royalty streams of Hollywood.
Speaker 1: I was about to say, I don't think he was
Speaker 1: worth that much, causing people to speculate that perhaps it
Speaker 1: was a murder and cover up.
Speaker 2: Like Emily. This is Emily's notes.
Speaker 1: These are mine down.
Speaker 2: Here, Bigot, one of the royalties.
Speaker 1: It was the Aliens. How likely is it that both
Speaker 1: he and his wife died of natural causes? It is
Speaker 1: not likely. I'm sorry, there's more to the story. Jean's
Speaker 1: property was located just fifty miles away from Zoro Ranch,
Speaker 1: which is one of Epstein's residences. There is no evidence
Speaker 1: that he was linked to Jeffrey Epstein in anyway, so
Speaker 1: this could just be a coincidence. However, listen to this.
Speaker 1: Are you ready? This is Bill Gates. Private jets stopped
Speaker 1: in New Mexico the same day they found Ackman's body.
Speaker 2: I'm sure lots of jets landed on that same day.
Speaker 1: Not in New Mexico. Really, not the same day that
Speaker 1: they found Gene Hackman's body.
Speaker 2: I don't know, you didn't.
Speaker 1: This is this is the conspiracy theorist stuff that I
Speaker 1: always find that I like. Was Hakman going to spill
Speaker 1: all of Hollywood secrets at his old age to receive
Speaker 1: some sort of repentance?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: We shall see, stay tuned. I like the conspiracy theory,
Speaker 1: so we.
Speaker 2: Shall not see he's dead.
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying, maybe they find a will. There could
Speaker 1: be more information that comes out, or people could come
Speaker 1: forward and say that they were involved in this murder plot,
Speaker 1: alleged murder plot. Bruce Willis's wife urges support for caregivers
Speaker 1: amid Gene Hackman's death. That was a USA Today article.
Speaker 1: So basically, this is Bruce Willis's wife, and you know
Speaker 1: he has dementia, So she's saying all of the burden
Speaker 1: of taking care of Gene Hackman shouldn't have been put
Speaker 1: on Betsy, even though I still think Betsy wanted to
Speaker 1: be the only caretaker. But that's just my theory. But
Speaker 1: basically saying or advocating that Betsy needed someone looking in
Speaker 1: on them, that there should have been someone that came daily,
Speaker 1: that there should have been someone that lived with them,
Speaker 1: that you know. And I don't know about the children.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know that relationship. I don't
Speaker 1: know if they were strange. I don't know if it
Speaker 1: was normal for them to only talk to their dad
Speaker 1: or something.
Speaker 2: Their sixties. I mean they do have a different I
Speaker 2: mean their kids are checking on them, right, I don't know.
Speaker 1: All right, anyway, so the world will never no. I
Speaker 1: want the world should know. I want the world should know.
Speaker 2: The world would never know.
Speaker 1: All right. Well, anyway, we're apparently Shane and I are
Speaker 1: watching Crimson Tide tonight.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's good.
Speaker 1: So we'll give you a movie review on the next podcast,
Speaker 1: so it will be legal topics and movie reviews. Thank
Speaker 1: you everyone for listening to Legally Brunette. We appreciate it
Speaker 1: as always, and if there are any cases out there
Speaker 1: that you would like for us to discuss and talk about,
Speaker 1: please feel free to dm us and let us know. Also,
Speaker 1: next podcast, we plan on going through the Ruby Frankie case,
Speaker 1: which Shane is reluctant to talk about.
Speaker 2: It hurts me. Is it Netflix or Hulu?
Speaker 1: I believe it's on Hulu, So if you haven't watched it.
Speaker 1: You can watch it. The reason that I think it's
Speaker 1: interesting that Shane and I discuss it, even though he
Speaker 1: does not like to talk about anything that has to
Speaker 1: do with child abuse, is that there's other elements. There
Speaker 1: is the Mormon religion, there is parenting, and there is YouTube,
Speaker 1: there's the vlogging issue, and then there's also the legality
Speaker 1: of the child abuse and all of that. So I
Speaker 1: think there's a lot of really interesting topics that he
Speaker 1: and I can discuss. So anyway, thank you again for listening.
Speaker 1: Please tune in to our previous Legally Brunette episodes and
Speaker 1: our future ones.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all of them. Just listen to all of it.
Speaker 2: Yess