Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story - Netflix

[Rollergirl11]

Anyone watching? It’s really quite bizarre; it’s almost played for laughs.

Is that Milli Vanilli they’re playing?! 🤪😂

Have just watched this too and interesting as a follow on. It was very interesting that the male members of the first jury all voted for murder whereas the women did not resulting in the hung jury.

I have no knowledge of the intricacies of the US court system but it seems wrong that the same judge was allowed to preside and decide there was to be no reference made to the sexual abuse in the second trial.

I know from my watching of other crime documentaries about the difficulties of convictions with other celebrity cases in LA following on from the OJ Simpson case. I heard it referred to before this case. LA was seen as having a reputation that rich people got off with crimes that ordinary people wouldn't.

I keep thinking about these two men and I actually find it heartbreaking what they've been through. I saw a video this morning where a guy who was in a teen boyband said he was raped by Jose Menendez. (He was their manager) it's terrible that these factors weren't taken into account during the second trial, I really hope they get a chance at freedom soon.

This was such a long time ago now and things like sexual abuse especially with men was just not discussed.

Look on Reddit. There are subreddits discussing the case going back years.

The whole series is not necessary as it does so much injustice to the brothers already in prison for 35 years. They went through horrendous abuse. In today's world would have got 10-15 years according to the jurors and experts in the real case. The documentary on netflix is do much better than this weird show.

There is a documentary on netflix. Judge had a lot of pressure as he was the judge in OJ Simpson case and public was unhappy with the verdict. First trial of the case was mistral with 50 -50 with a month long deliberation. Second trial happened soon after OK Simpson verdict. Judge did not allow tgem to talk about abuse, witness testimonies by relative, teachers were not allowed. The options were first degree murder or no crime. Jurors have admitted they had no option but to go for first degree. It is shocking.

I was living in the States the summer the murders happened so was intrigued to watch the series. It was done very cleverly, with each episode making me change my mind about the veracity of the abuse defence. In particular Lyle’s behaviour with the letters and phone calls etc appeared quite damning. However having watched the documentary tonight with footage from the trial I’m convinced that they were abused. The body language, ashen faces etc just can’t be put on. Also, if it were all made up why bother continuing the lie after getting a life without parole sentence- they’ve got nothing to lose by changing the story now.

I’ve just read that they have made a Habeus Corpus application based on the discovery of a letter Erik sent in 1988 to a cousin referring to the abuse directly. I hope this means they will get a retrial at the very least. Modern attitudes to abuse will be very different.

The judge in the first trial looked very uncomfortable when the sexual abuse was being discussed.

I don't know why people can't accept that they were two spoiled kids who decided to kill their parents because they wanted their inheritance early and then were extremely stupid in the way they behaved afterwards (until they met a lawyer who had previously used the abuse excuse to get clients off murder charges - then they suddenly became victims of some exaggerated SA scenarios which don't sound remotely realistic). Some kids turn bad despite privileged upbringings. It happens.

Because being spoiled doesn’t mean you haven’t been abused, and who are you to decide what abuse is “realistic”?

Well the jury did 🤷‍♀️

Plus it's all true about Lyle writing letters to witnesses and the book that was written by an undercover journalist based on Lyle's recordings from prison. I don't believe them and I think the jury got it right.

The first trial ended with a hung jury, which had a split between the men and women.

In the second trial only limited evidence regarding the sexual abuse was allowed, and the jury were given limits on what charges they were allowed to vote for.

So no, the jury didn’t quite decide.

There have been several programmes about the theme that a jury is one of the least satisfactory ways of deciding a trial. The TV shows- the Twelve- both the Belgian and English versions show how people are affected by their own experiences in life and that it is often this that is brought to the forefront as opposed to the evidence.
There has been a touring production in the UK that you buy tickets to and you become part of a " jury" listening to evidence as per a court trial. You are reminded that your decision has to be only on the evidence you hear in court. It is obvious when you start debating with others that many fail to do so. This is why some European countries have different systems - no juries but a panel of judges well versed in law.

www.themurdertriallive.co.uk/event-details/bristol-2024-12-12-19-00

Between the first and second trial Lyle made several statements about how he managed to con the jury, which is why he couldn't testify in the second trial (so as not to be cross-examined on the various statements he made in prison). It was in the C4 documentary

In any event, abuse or not - they planned and killed their parents in their sleep. Premeditated murder however much people want to believe their stories. They didn't fear for their lives but planned and killed them in cold blood.

I think their parents had it coming. 🤷‍♀️

But how do you know they didn't fear for their lives? Have you been continuously raped by your father for years on end? I don't think we can make that judgement.

While I understand where you’re coming from, the Menendez case is far more complex than simply calling them ‘spoiled kids’ who killed for inheritance. There was extensive testimony and evidence suggesting a pattern of severe emotional and physical abuse in their household, which many argue contributed to their actions. Regardless of wealth or privilege, children who grow up in abusive environments can suffer lasting trauma that shapes their behaviour in tragic ways.

It’s true that the brothers’ actions afterward may seem out of line with typical responses, but trauma can lead people to cope in unconventional ways, including denial and detachment. Additionally, the use of abuse as a defense isn’t necessarily a ‘get-out-of-jail-free card’ but rather an attempt to explain the context of their actions, whether it sounds realistic to others or not. While some may find the abuse allegations difficult to believe, there were family members and witnesses who corroborated parts of their claims, which shouldn’t be ignored. In any case, it’s important to consider all evidence and psychological factors in such a tragic case before labeling it as simple greed.

Also, what are your thoughts on the Menudo band member who recently came forward, claiming that he, too, was sexually abused by José Menendez? Do you believe he’s lying as well? And what about the letter from Erik to their cousin, written eight months before the murders, which further supports these claims of abuse? These additional pieces of evidence seem to lend credibility to the brothers’ accounts, suggesting that there may be more to their story than initially believed.

Seemingly there may be an outcome in the next couple of days with new evidence.

https://deadline.com/2024/10/menendez-brothers-resentencing-murder-case-1236157755/

I'm still a little uneasy as to them getting resentenced.

Yes I believe that they were abused.

But I can't ignore the fact of the premeditated nature of the murder.
To leave the scene to go and reload before shooting again?

I have the upmost sympathy for the boys that they were and the fact they've lived exemplary lives within the prison system.

But the law of the state sentenced them both for first degree murder, the sentence for which was life.

I'd feel better if they'd have been successful in their claim to have had an unfair second trial but that was refused in the appeals process.

If they are to be resentenced because they are nice white guys who have shown remorse, I think it's going to shake up an awful lot of cases.

Are we saying that we should look at all current murder convictions and sentencing through a contemporary lens?

If so then I think we have to consider far more cases than this.

Or should we say that if you get 1000 likes on TikTok that you will have your case reassessed?

I'm not sure that the reproductions of this case has been considered

Agreed @drivinmecrazy - what about all those with far more unsafe convictions who didn’t get a Netflix documentary made about them?

@drivinmecrazy

“If they are to be resentenced because they are nice white guys who have shown remorse”

no, they should be re-sentenced because more evidence has emerged supporting their disclosures of abuse. They should be freed absolutely.