All Episodes Discussion

[Irlandesa]

On 10/26/2024 at 10:49 AM, iMonrey said:

I was also surprised to hear so many of these women describe John as attractive when he was average looking at best. I guess it goes to show how much personality can influence perception in that way. 

He's not Hollywood attractive but I absolutely think he's "real world/attainable" attractive, especially as a middle-aged man.  He had a full head of hair.  It looked like he had good skin.  He looked tall.  He wasn't overweight.  He was decent looking in pictures which likely means he's better looking in person. 

He had an important sounding job.  Plus, the woman who was his next potential wife said he threw a party early on in their relationship where he did all the cooking and cleaning.  All she had to do was invite her friends.  That increases a man's sexiness. 

But yeah, I do not understand the difficulty the women had in letting him go.  Especially the victim. 

 

[12catcrazy]

I guess that it still amazes me how easily women fall for the "perfect man" crap.  It's like we've been fed all of this stuff about "romance" from such a young age that these "romantic" gestures (flowers just because, notes, gushy cards for no special reason) become the stock in trade for psychopaths looking to marry and murder women for their money and/or life insurance.  

If some guy came onto me with that kind of stuff, I'd run for the hills because (I hate to break it to you ladies) normal guys don't do that!    Lisa was really lucky - she dodged what was probably a very real bullet.   

On 10/26/2024 at 12:20 PM, Mondrianyone said:

I agree with everything above. I'd just add that it's completely understandable John forgot that his first wife was murdered and he was the suspect. I forget things all the time.

So, to visit the shallow end . . . Andrea had some real competition in the jewelry arena last night.

Dateline is trending on X/Twitter. Some of the comments are hilarious.

If I was listening to one of the detectives in the first case correctly, John actually had TWO prior wives before the first one that he murdered.  

[pdlinda]

6 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I've known so many women who just could not be without a man. They'd get a divorce, maybe a second or third divorce, and the first thing out of their mouths was "Who should I date next?" 

I'm so glad I did A LOT of "work" on myself leading up to my divorce 20 years ago.  I was "married" for 25 yrs.  I was educated, spoke to a therapist and started a very successful career on the cusp of getting my divorce so I was IRONCLAD that I wanted to remain "single" because as I was taught:  Happy marriages occur when a woman marries someone who is emotionally, spiritually and intellectually compatible with her.  Otherwise you're not marrying a "man"...you're marrying a PROJECT!

 

[Mondrianyone]

1 hour ago, 12catcrazy said:

If I was listening to one of the detectives in the first case correctly, John actually had TWO prior wives before the first one that he murdered. 

I don't believe that's accurate. He killed two women prior to Kasi, one of whom was his common-law wife and the other was just a witness he had to get rid of, but I'm not aware of any other wife he murdered before those two and then Kasi. I'm prepared to be wrong, but I don't think I am--unless there are others we don't know about.

[ButterQueen]

This case said new, but I saw it previously….I guess on another show.

WHERE IS KEITH?

[JudyObscure]

14 hours ago, 12catcrazy said:

I guess that it still amazes me how easily women fall for the "perfect man" crap.  It's like we've been fed all of this stuff about "romance" from such a young age that these "romantic" gestures (flowers just because, notes, gushy cards for no special reason) become the stock in trade for psychopaths looking to marry and murder women for their money and/or life insurance.  

If some guy came onto me with that kind of stuff, I'd run for the hills because (I hate to break it to you ladies) normal guys don't do that!    Lisa was really lucky - she dodged what was probably a very real bullet.   

 

The poor girl Scott Peterson was dating while still married to Laci, said that on their first date he brought strawberries and chocolate for dipping them. I would have had a hard time not laughing.

[12catcrazy]

14 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

I don't believe that's accurate. He killed two women prior to Kasi, one of whom was his common-law wife and the other was just a witness he had to get rid of, but I'm not aware of any other wife he murdered before those two and then Kasi. I'm prepared to be wrong, but I don't think I am--unless there are others we don't know about.

I don't think that the guy killed anybody prior to killing the common law wife and her friend (at least from what the police know), but I'm pretty sure that the detective mentioned that prior to the murdered common law wife, the guy had already been married twice. So that would make Kasi wife number 4.

[Mondrianyone]

You may be right. If that was said, I missed it.

[TVbitch]

FYI, Keith was on Inside Edition yesterday with his family, talking about Matthew Perry. They all seem quite devestated, so maybe he is taking some leave. 

[Vivigirl10]

Sex & The City posed the question best:  "Why are there so many incredible single women and no incredible single men"??  

It seems to grow even truer as women get older.  I can't really begrudge these women for thinking he was a catch.  What scared me the most was how Kasi's friends approved of him, liked having him around, and how he just kind of fit in nicely.  They weren't blinded by love.  I don't think women should not be open to it.  So it's so frightening to think you can be fooled and conned and before you know it it's too late. 

The overly romantic stuff?  Yuck.  That would have totally the opposite affect on me but again, some women eat that up.

Completely agree once John showed his true colors everyone should have run for the hills. 

Desperate needy women who can't survive without a man?  That's on them.  Desperate needy women who can't survive without a man and expose their children to these monster?  Unforgiveable.

Andrea's tennis skirt had me dying 😆 

[GiandujaPie]

Deadly Omission 

John Peek was definitely not a catch, but like most of the men who do what he has done, he knows how to target women who are the most susceptible to the sleazy charm of love bombing. I think it was Kasi Peek's sister who said that Kasi had never had a real relationship so this was her first boyfriend. Women of a certain age who have never had a boyfriend or relationship are especially vulnerable. I couldn't believe his disgusting "condition" of renewing their relationship vows. 

[Andyourlittledog2]

On 10/28/2024 at 8:02 PM, ButterQueen said:

WHERE IS KEITH?

It seems like everytime I tune in to a Dateline lately -new or old - it's Andrea Freaking Cannon.  I can't stand her. Where is Keith? Or just about anyone else?

 

[Annber03]

Keith did tonight's episode! Strange little case, too. Main takeaways:

-Ashley could be right in her assumption that Karen carried her to bed the night she was murdered and yet stil have it be true that David was the murderer. People have been bludgeoned in their sleep before, sure, but the way this murder was described, it sounds more like the sort that would happen during a heated argument. I could totally see David and Karen getting in a fight about the affairs/accusations of affairs and whatnot, and so Karen moves their daughter into another bedroom so their fight doesn't wake her up. Afterwrad, the fight continues, and David grabs the barbell and hits her with it. I could see it playing out that way. 

I can understand her wanting to defend her dad, 'cause, well, it's her dad, of course. But I can also easily see a scenario where David is the murderer. The fact he was so controlling towards his second wife, to the point of stalking her, certainly doesn't help his case. Honestly, I just feel sorry for Ashley because holy shit, imagine the ugly and salacious rumors she's had to hear about her mom and dad all these years, since she was nine years old. And then her mom's murder being made into a political battle as well. Poor girl. 

-On the one hand, I'm surprised by the verdict playing out as it did, but on the other hand, I'm also not. I don't think this was a premeditated murder, more a heat of the moment thing, so I understand finding him not guilty of first degree murder. But the verdict on the other charges is interesting. 

And yet, at the same time, it does seem like the investigation wasn't really well done and the evidence they had was circumstantial. The electoral pressure around the case hurt the trial far more than it helped - yeah, it lit a fire to bring it to trial, but it went to trial before they had a strong enough case. 

-I do think that PI is on to something with the suspicions about Darell's connections in town. I'm not as convinced as she is that he's the murderer, but I have zero problem believing he knows people in high places, and knows just the right kind of financial pressure to use to make any problems "go away". He seems like he can be...a lot in his own right. 

-All of that being said, good lord, does EVERYONE have to have a true crime podcast nowadays? At least in this case she's got a PI license to back her up, but still. 

[badgerwoman]

10 hours ago, Annber03 said:

 

 

 

I can understand her wanting to defend her dad, 'cause, well, it's her dad, of course. But I can also easily see a scenario where David is the murderer. The fact he was so controlling towards his second wife, to the point of stalking her, certainly doesn't help his case. Honestly, I just feel sorry for Ashley because holy shit, imagine the ugly and salacious rumors she's had to hear about her mom and dad all these years, since she was nine years old. And then her mom's murder being made into a political battle as well. Poor girl. 

 

that stalking of his ex made me believe he could be the murderer.  The other big thing was the mention they were pretty sure one of his sons reported the old man metal detecting.  but the evidence was pretty sparse.  Who ever did it , covered up things really well.

 

[iMonrey]

"After the Halloween Party": This was strange. I thought it could have been cut down to one hour because it was so obviously the husband. I thought the entire subplot with the stupid podcaster was a pointless red herring and a waste of time. But then I was kind of shocked the jury found him not guilty on first and second degree murder and couldn't reach a decision even on involuntary manslaughter. It makes me wonder if there was some compelling evidence during the trial the show didn't highlight. Maybe the jury was persuaded it could have been Darrell Sells?

I have no problem believing the Sheriff's Department is corrupt/on the take, we've obviously seen that story before. I wonder if some of the jurors suspected they were trying to frame the husband.

Interesting we only heard from one of the four kids. I wonder if the other three think their father is guilty.

[LakeGal]

20/20 carried this same crime last night.  I watched both shows.  They did state a few different things.  On the 20/20 case they mentioned that the jury was split down the middle by sex.  The men wanted not guilty and the women thought he was guilty.  They had a hung jury and got sent back.  They finally came to a partial agreement.  I don't know what the men were thinking.  But they must have had a problem with reasonable doubt.  

I was just glad to have Keith on.  

[UsernameFatigue]

Whenever Dateline and 20/20 have covered the same story, I usually prefer 20/20's version as I find it more in depth. This is the first time though that I recall the same crime being covered by the two shows on the same night. It was so glaringly obvious what a superior job 20/20 did to Dateline.

I found Dateline's extensive coverage of and time given to the podcaster really annoying. WTF Dateline. It is like she was the star of the episode. There were so many things that could have been covered by Dateline that were ignored to give this woman airtime. 

20/20 had answers to several questions that I was asking while watching the Dateline version. I wondered why Karen had two phones. Hubby assumed she was having an affair but it was never explained. 20/20 explained that Karen did not have enough money to hire a lawyer to file for divorce so her friends (the ones interviewed on Dateline) gave her the money to file, and also bought her the phone so she could contact her lawyer, and he her. 

They also went into detail about the flat tire. It was deflated and the screw was put in to look like it caused the flat, but was never driven on. The car was also found within walking distance of Karen's house. 

They also showed the distance from Karen's house to the neighbour's, where the phones were found on the edge of his property. Dateline made it sound like the two properties were up against one another (at least from what I remember) but they were kitty corner and quite a distance from one another as the lots in that area were large. It is obvious that David planted the phones hoping to cast suspicion on the neighbour, who's name he  brought up to police in his first interview when he reported Karen missing.

The most chilling thing I heard though was what David said when the police went to his house to notify him that Karen's body had been found. His reply? "You found it". Not her, but it. He was also visiting dating sites on his computer in the 6 weeks before Karen was found. Because of course he knew he would not be getting back with her, she was dead. 

20/20 also interviewed David's second wife, who stalked her long after they were apart.  Poor woman. 

There were other things but I don't want to list them all in case some on here are planning to watch the 20/20 version. BTW, is there no longer a 20/20 forum on this site?  If there is, I can't find it. 

[Mannahatta]

31 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

BTW, is there no longer a 20/20 forum on this site?  If there is, I can't find it. 

20/20 is now a sub-forum under ABC/FX/Hulu/National Geographic - a category name that doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. lol

That podcaster seemed out of central casting and not in a good way. Maybe she should try her hand at writing fiction because she certainly seemed to have a vivid imagination.

[JudyObscure]

I'm just sorry they couldn't pin anything on Mr. Hogshooter, murderer of his neighbors' precious pets. 

[UsernameFatigue]

42 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

I'm just sorry they couldn't pin anything on Mr. Hogshooter, murderer of his neighbors' precious pets. 

David certainly tried. Doesn't say much about the neighbourhood though, a dog killer and wife killer on the same street. 

2 hours ago, Mannahatta said:

20/20 is now a sub-forum under ABC/FX/Hulu/National Geographic - a category name that doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. lol

That podcaster seemed out of central casting and not in a good way. Maybe she should try her hand at writing fiction because she certainly seemed to have a vivid imagination.

Thank you! Never would have found it. I wonder why it is in a sub-forum?

I agree about the podcaster, and was flabbergasted when at the end she said she was looking forward to David being acquitted so that they could go after the real killer. OMFG. I guess she needs him to be acquitted to have any credibility, but she doesn't have one iota with me. Or I suspect many others. 

[TVbitch]

I had a hard time getting through the 2 hours on this one. Certainly won't make it through another 2 for 20/20, but wished I would have watched that instead.  Hubby looked guilty as hell as the trial. Lot of weird folk in that town. The rich old guy who was accused reminded me of Murdaugh. 

[UsernameFatigue]

38 minutes ago, TVbitch said:

I had a hard time getting through the 2 hours on this one. Certainly won't make it through another 2 for 20/20, but wished I would have watched that instead.  Hubby looked guilty as hell as the trial. Lot of weird folk in that town. The rich old guy who was accused reminded me of Murdaugh. 

I thought that too with regards to being able to make it through two hours of 20/20 but it was well done and worth it. Dateline dragged on for what seemed like forever, especially with all the podcaster nonsense. 

20/20 had interviews with some of the same people, but also two of the jurors, David's second ex wife, and they showed the police interrogation of the dog killer neighbour. So enough material I found to differentiate it from the Dateline version. 

[ButterQueen]

I adore Keith, but that episode was b-o-r-i-n-g.

[iMonrey]

20 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

I wondered why Karen had two phones. Hubby assumed she was having an affair but it was never explained. 20/20 explained that Karen did not have enough money to hire a lawyer to file for divorce so her friends (the ones interviewed on Dateline) gave her the money to file, and also bought her the phone so she could contact her lawyer, and he her.

Dateline did explain about the two phones. You must have just missed it.

[iMonrey]

19 hours ago, Mannahatta said:

20/20 is now a sub-forum under ABC/FX/Hulu/National Geographic - a category name that doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. lol

 

Where is that? Link?

[UsernameFatigue]

10 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Where is that? Link?

To find it I had to put ABC in the search area, then it came up. I clicked to get notifications of 20/20 as I had before, but it hasn't shown up on my list of shows so I have to keep putting ABC in the search area to access the show and see if anyone has posted. 

[Mannahatta]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

Where is that? Link?

Here's the link: https://forums.primetimer.com/forum/8813-abcfxhulunational-geographic/  I noticed it's pretty quiet over there. So it seems a lot of people can't find it. 

[GiandujaPie]

I think 20/20 did this better. Dateline wasted all that time on the podcaster and the old guy who owned the Burger Land franchises. 

I do not think the prosecution proved their case, but I do think David did kill Karen. If she had been killed by a random person, I think there would be more forensics because that person wouldn't have been motivated to try to clean up the crime scene. David probably killed her outside somewhere and then buried the evidence which is why there was no forensics in the house or garage.  I can't remember now which show mentioned it, but a burn barrel was found near the body which contained a workout dumbbell and police had noticed that the set at the house was missing one. I think Dateline also mentioned that bleach bottles were found at the house but they never said if David was able to provide a plausible explanation for them but they also said there was no smell of bleach in the house. 

The fact that David stalked his second ex-wife does not prove that he murdered Karen, but it definitely shows he is controlling and is probably not above getting so angry at an intimate partner that he could kill them. 

[Peanut6711]

As soon as the prosecution presented to the jury that David faked his injury as part of a premeditated plan and killed her with his feet instead of the barbell, I knew the case was toast.  I think they might have had better luck to stick with a crime of passion in the heat of the moment with the barbell.  I know I personally couldn't come up with a logical reason for burning your exercise equipment and hiding it in the backyard.  For the most part, there's enough evidence there to make me believe David did it. The dude had some issues. Also stalking your ex-wife while you're on bail for murdering your first isn't exactly a good (read sane) look. Most normal people would be more concerned and preoccupied with proving their innocence. 

That all being said, obnoxious old rich white guy is up to something/is hiding something. Not sure what exactly, but I don't think he's as uninvolved in all this as he claims.  Interesting that the police have both of her cell phones; they should know if there was any indication of involvement between Karen and his son-in-law.  

Were the teenage sons not home the night of the murder?  Since they were older, their recollections would have been interesting to hear. 

[LakeGal]

The Menendez Brothers: Chance at Freedom
Season 33, Episode 7 • New

Latest developments and new interviews in the high-profile murder trial of Lyle and Erik Menendez; a scripted show reignites public interest in the case.

 

 

[iMonrey]

The Menendez brothers? Really? It's not as if there's anything new to learn about this. 

I've said all I have to say over in the "Monsters" thread. Lyle and Erik are exactly where they should be. And, frankly, so are their parents. Both things can be true.

[TVbitch]

I aggressively FF'd this one due to the relentless coverage of this case. You can skip to the last ~20 minutes if you want to hear Keith interview Lyle. Couldn't tell how Keith was feeling about it, but they did give the last word to the guy that said no matter what the dad did, Kitty did not deserve to have her face blown off while trying to crawl away. 

Edited Sunday at 12:57 AM by TVbitch

[AZChristian]

I can't be objective in this case, having been the child of sexual abuse for years while my female birth vessel pretended she didn't know.  She later told me she hadn't done anything because she "didn't know how to make it stop."  Of course, the whole trade-off of sacrificing her daughter for a roof over her own head and food on the table may have played a part in letting it continue.  Feeling that level of rejection and lack of protection from the person who gave birth to you does bad things to your heart and psyche.

I think they should be out of prison.  They paid for the crime before it even happened.  

 

[JudyObscure]

So sorry AZChristian.  Women like your mother and the Menendez mother leave me baffled and angry.  Are they that afraid of being poor, or is it fear of facing the anger of the man? Mrs. Menendez probably told herself that the material benefits the boys had was worth it somehow or that he would kill her if she tried to leave. 

I think the damage done to them, by both parents, has made them unsafe for society.

Keith asked Kyle the question I always wanted to ask -- "If you were so afraid why didn't you just get in your car and drive away?"  I got the answer that made me think they should stay in prison.  A baffled "Where would we go?"  Clearly he thought it was better to kill people that to venture out with only an expensive car, lots of good clothes, and several thousand dollars.  Oh and the tennis rackets.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:

So sorry AZChristian.  Women like your mother and the Menendez mother leave me baffled and angry.  Are they that afraid of being poor, or is it fear of facing the anger of the man? Mrs. Menendez probably told herself that the material benefits the boys had was worth it somehow or that he would kill her if she tried to leave. 

I think the damage done to them, by both parents, has made them unsafe for society.

Keith asked Kyle the question I always wanted to ask -- "If you were so afraid why didn't you just get in your car and drive away?"  I got the answer that made me think they should stay in prison.  A baffled "Where would we go?"  Clearly he thought it was better to kill people that to venture out with only an expensive car, lots of good clothes, and several thousand dollars.  Oh and the tennis rackets.

Even though we are of differing opinions, I appreciate your ability to share your thoughts so clearly and non-confrontationally.  

When they talked about the young man from Menudo who said Jose told him, "I own you" as he abused him, I remembered how hearing things like that every day from my abusers broke me down to where I saw no way out.  Can't imagine what it must feel like when your abuser is a very powerful man like Jose.  I don't disagree that their spending sprees and other behaviors after the killings were offputting, but it appears they were never able to develop normal thought patterns as kids, and they just went wild after all the years of abuse.

[JudyObscure]

1 minute ago, AZChristian said:

it appears they were never able to develop normal thought patterns as kids

I totally agree with that, both their horrifically evil father and their materialistic mother made them grow up warped.

From what the relative said about the mother, she was determined to use her looks to catch the richest man she could find. From the first she was offering her body for material comforts and later on  she was using her children's bodies for the same thing.  What a nightmare.

[pdlinda]

5 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

From what the relative said about the mother, she was determined to use her looks to catch the richest man she could find.

HER LOOKS????  I'm sorry if I seem "superficial"; however,  I didn't see her looks, at the time of the marriage nor decades later when she was murdered, as being anything special.  Perhaps she had other "assets" that Jose found "attractive"; However, not sure what those would be...in any event, her state of "delusion and denial" regarding the sons being molested must go down in the annals of "parenting" as one of the most egregious.  

I worked on the defense side of the criminal justice system for many years (now retired) and handled many cases of criminal behavior from defendants who suffered incest for many years from family members.

Never, not even once, did I find that the defendant lied regarding the validity of his/her claim.  There were always records and/or witnesses who were told what was going on behind closed doors.

I think and hope that the brothers are released as, regardless of the basis of the release, they have served enough time behind bars AND have exemplary records in prison.  It's time for them to rejoin society (of course, with a period or parole supervision.

[Realitystarr]

For all the people who  think they've  heard enough of the Menendez brother's story,  I think they have missed that the first trial had family members and Lyle testifying about the abuse.  All that was discarded in the second trial and the media at the time ran with the 'rich spoiled rotten boys killing their parents out of greed.'

No doubt they were just that, arrogant and rich and entitled and spoiled yet they were also  horribly abused by Jose AND Kitty. He was a  cruel man which was spoken about by his own family members not just the boys.

Kitty was also not just turning the other way and ignoring the abuse, SHE WAS ALSO ABUSIVE to them sexually.

To this day and even on the most recent Dateline, this fact isn't mentioned oftne.  She was just as actively sexually abusing Lyle   and at the same time hated the boys for being her 'rivals' for Jose's sexual attention.

So yea the 'boys' should have done time for killing them  but  they have done far more then enough time given the circumstances.

 

14 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I totally agree with that, both their horrifically evil father and their materialistic mother made them grow up warped.

From what the relative said about the mother, she was determined to use her looks to catch the richest man she could find. From the first she was offering her body for material comforts and later on  she was using her children's bodies for the same thing.  What a nightmare.

I think Kitty’s abuse of Lyle is incredibly under-recognised and under-discussed. Why did the boys kill her too? Because not only was she an enabler of Jose’s verbal, mental, physical, sexual abuse, she was also an active perpetrator of verbal, mental, physical, sexual abuse against the boys too.

 

  https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-09-14-me-35149-story.html

Edited Monday at 05:06 AM by Realitystarr

[iMonrey]

11 hours ago, Realitystarr said:

For all the people who  think they've  heard enough of the Menendez brother's story,  I think they have missed that the first trial had family members and Lyle testifying about the abuse.  All that was discarded in the second trial and the media at the time ran with the 'rich spoiled rotten boys killing their parents out of greed.'

Oh, I totally believe the abuse. I've watched some very good documentaries about the case over the years. I'm just not sure that would justify letting them out of prison. Lots of people suffer from abuse and don't kill their parents. And I'm not saying their parents didn't get what they deserved, either. 

I don't know. I can see it either way and understand why people feel like they deserve to be in prison for life. No matter how you slice it they committed first degree murder.

[Irlandesa]

7 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Lots of people suffer from abuse and don't kill their parents. And I'm not saying their parents didn't get what they deserved, either. 

I don't know. I can see it either way and understand why people feel like they deserve to be in prison for life. No matter how you slice it they committed first degree murder.

But isn't that what's in question? They were convicted of first-degree murder, but many believe the mitigating circumstance of years-long abuse should only have made them guilty of manslaughter.  Letting them out isn't exonerating them.  It's saying that the state now believes they should have only been convicted of manslaughter and if that had been the case, they would have served their sentence by now.

 

[iMonrey]

16 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

But isn't that what's in question? They were convicted of first-degree murder, but many believe the mitigating circumstance of years-long abuse should only have made them guilty of manslaughter. 

To me, manslaughter implies accidental, or at most self defense. They are arguing self defense saying they believed their father would kill them. I don't know if I buy that. And what they did was definitely premeditated. 

I think the better argument is that what their parents did to them screwed them up so badly it broke their brains and they should have pled temporary insanity but that's not what they did or what they're doing now.

[partofme]

I have a question, I thought I remembered that Lyle was failing out of Princeton at the time of the murders?  Was this true or not?   Because if it is true then I question if that’s not the real reason he killed his parents because it seems that every time you hear of a son killing his parents it’s because he’s failing out of school and if the parents find out he’s going to be cut off financially and when a daughter kills her parents it’s because the parents don’t approve of her boyfriend.  Anyway Lyle and Eric were both over 18, I don’t understand why they couldn’t have just moved out.  

[pdlinda]

4 minutes ago, partofme said:

Anyway Lyle and Eric were both over 18, I don’t understand why they couldn’t have just moved out.  

I worked on the defense side of the criminal justice system for MANY years (now retired) and handled a few cases like theirs. 

There is a psychological condition that occurs after years of parental sexual abuse that's akin to "battered woman's syndrome"(where the woman stays in the relationship) that prevents the victims from fleeing and finding a completely new way of life.  

In the brothers case, they would need a LOT of $$ to flee to another locale, they would have to find some type of work and MOSTLY, deal with the anxiety and trepidation that their father would seek them out and cause them great bodily harm (I'll refrain from mentioning the obvious outcome the brothers mentioned because from my experience, the adult abusers often used psychological techniques to impact the victim's ability to survive outside of the home rather than physical violence).

IMO, the brothers have served enough time (35 years), they have an exemplary prison record and are very remorseful and take responsibility for their crimes.  I hope they're released.