Anonymous wrote:I watched it. I do believe their father molested them as punishment when they were young but not when they got to pre teen age. No way their mother did anything sexual. As for them saying she knew and condoned the abuse ? I don't think she did.

It was shocking to hear Dad was a serial cheater/hooker buyer. I doubt Kitty was an alcoholic. She had no friends and was so alone. I do believe she was treated bad by the father. I also believe them saying they put her out of her misery.

They HATED their father. They looked at their mother as weak. Money was a factor but not the factor. It was a bonus.

Prison gave them a hard look. I have no sympathy though. They were out of control.

I also think Erik is gay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been reading the recent news outlets discuss the case.
Any new ideas on this, ladies?
I was a teen when this all went down and I remember the years of Menendez Brothers in our vernacular.

Here's what I don't get: their second trial, the one that resulted in a conviction; that judge did not allow in evidence the many neighbors teatimony about possible abuse. Why?

b/c they weren't abused. They were spoiled sociopaths who wanted their inheritance. I think they enjoy the attention b/c they are probably bored in jail. I don't really care enough to watch or go in depth in any re-hashings of the case. Let them rot.

And you know this how? Why not allow all the evidence to be presented (including the neighbors' testimony) & let the jury decide on the validity (or lack thereof) of the abuse theory?

Abuse allegations are only admissible during the trial if the abuse was the reason for the crime AT THAT MOMENT. If, as a result of the boys being molested, they shot their dad during the act of sex, then abuse allegations are allowed to show self defense. That wasn't what happened in this case.

This isn't true. Self defense isn't the only affirmative defense involving abuse. A history of abuse can also be used as an affirmative defensive (though it is less common).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been reading the recent news outlets discuss the case.
Any new ideas on this, ladies?
I was a teen when this all went down and I remember the years of Menendez Brothers in our vernacular.

Here's what I don't get: their second trial, the one that resulted in a conviction; that judge did not allow in evidence the many neighbors teatimony about possible abuse. Why?

b/c they weren't abused. They were spoiled sociopaths who wanted their inheritance. I think they enjoy the attention b/c they are probably bored in jail. I don't really care enough to watch or go in depth in any re-hashings of the case. Let them rot.

And you know this how? Why not allow all the evidence to be presented (including the neighbors' testimony) & let the jury decide on the validity (or lack thereof) of the abuse theory?

Abuse allegations are only admissible during the trial if the abuse was the reason for the crime AT THAT MOMENT. If, as a result of the boys being molested, they shot their dad during the act of sex, then abuse allegations are allowed to show self defense. That wasn't what happened in this case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been reading the recent news outlets discuss the case.
Any new ideas on this, ladies?
I was a teen when this all went down and I remember the years of Menendez Brothers in our vernacular.

Here's what I don't get: their second trial, the one that resulted in a conviction; that judge did not allow in evidence the many neighbors teatimony about possible abuse. Why?

b/c they weren't abused. They were spoiled sociopaths who wanted their inheritance. I think they enjoy the attention b/c they are probably bored in jail. I don't really care enough to watch or go in depth in any re-hashings of the case. Let them rot.

And you know this how? Why not allow all the evidence to be presented (including the neighbors' testimony) & let the jury decide on the validity (or lack thereof) of the abuse theory?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been reading the recent news outlets discuss the case.
Any new ideas on this, ladies?
I was a teen when this all went down and I remember the years of Menendez Brothers in our vernacular.

Here's what I don't get: their second trial, the one that resulted in a conviction; that judge did not allow in evidence the many neighbors teatimony about possible abuse. Why?

b/c they weren't abused. They were spoiled sociopaths who wanted their inheritance. I think they enjoy the attention b/c they are probably bored in jail. I don't really care enough to watch or go in depth in any re-hashings of the case. Let them rot.

Anonymous wrote:I watched it. I do believe their father molested them as punishment when they were young but not when they got to pre teen age. No way their mother did anything sexual. As for them saying she knew and condoned the abuse ? I don't think she did.

It was shocking to hear Dad was a serial cheater/hooker buyer. I doubt Kitty was an alcoholic. She had no friends and was so alone. I do believe she was treated bad by the father. I also believe them saying they put her out of her misery.

They HATED their father. They looked at their mother as weak. Money was a factor but not the factor. It was a bonus.

Prison gave them a hard look. I have no sympathy though. They were out of control.

I also think Erik is gay.

Anonymous wrote:I've been reading the recent news outlets discuss the case.
Any new ideas on this, ladies?
I was a teen when this all went down and I remember the years of Menendez Brothers in our vernacular.

Here's what I don't get: their second trial, the one that resulted in a conviction; that judge did not allow in evidence the many neighbors teatimony about possible abuse. Why?

Anonymous wrote:Side note - the house they lived in and murdered their parents in is still standing in Beverly Hills. Who would buy that house?!