Law & Order: True Crime - General Discussion

[toodles]

4 hours ago, RedheadZombie said:

I'm having a hard time with Edie Falco's portrayal of Leslie Abramson.  I didn't watch The Sopranos or Nurse Jackie, so I'm not overly familiar with her work.  The pursed lips and the way she talks absolutely drive me crazy.  It's so unnatural and forced.  I'm sure she's the fabulous actor that everyone claims, but when you're playing a real life person, it's more about capturing the essence of the person.  Edie is going for the full on caricature, a la SNL.  

I also don't care for how she's always pawing Eric.  I saw it IRL, and it creeped me out then.  What if this were a male attorney constantly petting a female client, who says she's traumatized by chronic rape?  Her Mary Poppins routine is irritating, too.  Skipping around, delivering food to the downtrodden, singing happy birthday to Eric (who she treats like a five year old), waxing on about bringing their child into this corrupt, evil world (that she certainly contributes to by getting off murderers she knows are guilty).  It just feels so OTT to me.  I'm half expecting one of these episodes to end with Leslie at a leper colony in full nun regalia.  I feel like the show expects me to root for him, and I can't.  The portrayal is just too one sided, and lacks depth.

The OJ series had many problems (inclusion of the K clan children), and I was very critical of it.  But it had Sarah Paulson and Sterling K. Brown, playing flawed and rootable characters.  With the defense attorneys and OJ, it was full camp, and the show embraced that fact.  

I agree with you 100%.  I like Edie Falco, but she is way too much in this. I know Leslie Abramson is over top in real life too.  But this is so one-sided to me. 

The menendez brothers lied, cheated and stole all their lives.  I can't remember if they mentioned that Lyle stole a considerable amount of jewelry from his neighbors and Jose made Eric the take the fall for because he was a juvenile.  Or that Lyle was kicked out of Princeton for plagiarism.  Or that Eric wrote a screenplay about committing the perfect murder.  The brothers didn't even wait for the funeral to start spending money hand over fist.

I'm not an Atty and I don't play one on TV.  But I think the Menendez brothers are stone cold killers.  Maybe they were abused,  but IMHO it doesn't excuse what they did.  They got the sentence they deserved.

FYI- I posted a VF article by Dominic Dunne in the spoiler thread.  It has a lot of info that hasn't been mentioned on the show.  It's worth a read if you're interested.

[jrlr]

And I agree with you and OP.  I watched the trial gavel to gavel and it was not only creepy the way Abramson petted and patted the "boys" (who weren't boys but young men), but how incredibly, glaringly manipulative it was when - after being in dark suits and Rolexes - they showed up at the trial in pastel argyle sweaters to make them look more like schoolboys.  I don't know if they were abused, but they are stone cold killers either way, and they belong behind bars.  I even remember Dunne's piece (and God, I miss him!).   I like Falco, but this portrayal is a caricature, not a character.

[CelticBlackCat]

There was crime scene tape around the house, the investigators were still there after the bodies were found, and the boys want to go inside to get their tennis racquets to play tennis right then?  At that point in the show (I think it was the first episode) I thought no wonder they were convicted.

[shapeshifter]

4 hours ago, CelticBlackCat said:

There was crime scene tape around the house, the investigators were still there after the bodies were found, and the boys want to go inside to get their tennis racquets to play tennis right then?  At that point in the show (I think it was the first episode) I thought no wonder they were convicted.

Yes. But this and the spending spree and all the other non-grieving activities that the brothers engaged in shortly after their parents' murder could be explained by psychological disorders (e.g. detachment of some sort) caused by sexual abuse. Even if they were just "cold blooded killers" or "bad seeds," these kinds of post-parenticide activities don't really make much sense. I mean, if the goal was to inherit the money and not get sent to prison, wouldn't the brothers make an effort to appear to be grieving?

[punkypower]

Can't speak on the abuse, but I think the spending spree could be explained by their knowledge of being cut out of the will. They did delete the will, but maybe they knew Jose had told his family about it.

[roughing it]

On 10/27/2017 at 3:00 PM, biakbiak said:

The trial scenes take place in 1993 so cordless phones were common and my dad had that same phone in his office.

I realize that.  Somehow I was thinking this was more 80s.

[meowmommy]

[In 1992, I was on my wired phone with my dad when I saw my little daughter getting near the Christmas tree across the room.  She didn't listen when I called to her to get away, and there I am on a long distance call (remember those?), tied to the phone, when I suddenly saw red on her face and had to get off the phone quickly (turned out it was from an ornament, no blood!).  Shortly thereafter, a Christmas gift came in the mail, and I burst out laughing when I opened it.  My dad had sent me a cordless phone.]

On 10/26/2017 at 1:54 PM, kilda said:

The thing that really bugs me about Abramson's question about what do we say about poor kids who kill their parents?  We don't say much, because they get sent to death row pronto, and Leslie Abramson, savior of her misunderstood boys, sure doesn't volunteer to represent them, because they have no money.  Anyone think she'd have cared so much about poor abused Lyle and Erik if they didn't have money to pay her?

I think it might cut both ways--without the money, the police might not have glommed onto the sons, and the abuse motive might have been more believable.

[smiley13]

The Judge in this case was way out of line as portrayed in this series.  He comes across as very prejudiced against the defense.

[Ailianna]

And yet, as a practicing criminal attorney (though not in California), most of his decisions have been exactly on point with the law.  He clearly doesn't like Leslie Abrams, but that's not saying he's ruling against her when he shouldn't.  She's being pretty aggressive, rude, extreme and obnoxious. It's nice to see a judge (despite the blatant and unprofessional personal dislike) rein in an attorney who is trying to dominate the court through bad behavior.

[walnutqueen]

On 10/26/2017 at 10:18 AM, roughing it said:

Also the telephones.  The office phone should be a heavy duty one with multiple push button lines that light up; the phone I saw being used looks like the office phone I have today.  The residential one, I thought we were still using the wired telephones in the late 80s, not yet wireless.  But I could be wrong.

I had a cordless phone in the early 1980s.  I remember taking calls in my backyard pool in 1983 and across the street on the beach in 1985.  

[walnutqueen]

The abuse testimony was very difficult to hear.  Those young men needed a skilled therapist, not the piece of shit they ended up with.

[Drogo]

With Lyle and Erik's juries both struggling to reach a unanimous decision, the possibility of a mistrial leaves Leslie hopeful for the opportunity to work out a deal with the District Attorney's office. Meanwhile, D.A. Gil Garcetti takes action to counteract the declining public perception of the justice system; and Judge Weisberg's performance in the trial comes under intense media scrutiny given his record of hung juries and controversial verdicts.

[Drogo]

In the finale, after the first trial ends with a hung jury and the district attorney refuses to offer the defense a deal, a second trial gets underway with Barry Levin joining the defense team. Political collusion between the D.A.'s office and Judge Weisberg reaches an apex as Garcetti fights to repair the office's reputation. When Judge Weisberg disallows Lyle and Erik's family members to testify, it's up to Erik to once again recount the stories of abuse before the jury determines a verdict.

[CelticBlackCat]

Lyle and Erik needed a therapist that wasn't in cahoots with their father.  Practically this whole episode was difficult to watch; it actually made me queasy.

[helenamonster]

Agreed on the queasiness. I literally cannot wrap my head around human beings treating one another like this, much less parents to their children.

[jrlr]

Queasiness aside, I'm put off by the show's point of view.  This is far less about the crime and the "boys" (not), whom we are being asked to believe about everything including that ridiculous "they're gonna kill us on the sailboat" defense than it is about Leslie Abramson.  Lesie's fight for justice, Leslie's maternal instincts with the boys, Leslie's new adopted baby, Leslie's mean dead mom, Leslie's husband's take as a reporter on how the trial is being perceived in the media.  Finding it tedious and repetitive, and completely unbalanced as a picture of this trial. 

[Ailianna]

The content of the testimony was awful, and the fact that there is that kind of abuse happening to children should make anyone with a soul or conscience queasy and worse.  But I wasn't impressed with the acting during the testimony scenes, and the way the flashbacks were done kept taking me out o fit, reminding me that for this presentation, this was all staged, not real.  Just something in how it was shot or written or something made it not particularly emotionally compelling for me.

I agree though, I thought this was about the Menendez murders, not the Leslie show.  I'm getting very sick to death of her, and how she's the greatest thing that ever happened in the history of everything. 

[WendyCR72]

Maybe the casting director should have went for an "average" name or unknown for Leslie Abramson since it seems like this is being padded for the benefit of having snagged Edie Falco? Not sure it would have made a difference. But maybe?

[tivofanatic]

I haven’t looked it up, but I’m assuming this was based on a Leslie Abramson book.  I was riveted by the acting on this.  It was like Judith Light on One Life to Life admitting to prostitution on the stand right in front of her husband and the whole town.  It was very close to the real life trial footage.  

It doesn’t excuse the brutality of the murders, but I understand the fear and anger behind it.

[shapeshifter]

21 hours ago, Ailianna said:

And yet, as a practicing criminal attorney (though not in California), most of his decisions have been exactly on point with the law.  He clearly doesn't like Leslie Abrams, but that's not saying he's ruling against her when he shouldn't.  She's being pretty aggressive, rude, extreme and obnoxious. It's nice to see a judge (despite the blatant and unprofessional personal dislike) rein in an attorney who is trying to dominate the court through bad behavior.

Your observation makes it sound to me like Leslie A. may have sabotaged the case with her theatrical personality. I wonder if that's what we the viewers are now supposed to consider.

[Razzberry]

Child abuse of any kind is a very emotional and triggering topic to far too many people. Sexual abuse from a parent is particularly egregious and almost guarantees the victim will be brutally damaged for a long time. This much we know.

However, it's also important to remember that in this case it has NOT been substantiated to any degree. A couple cousins suddenly remember comments, but families tend to circle the wagons. Some photos were thrown out because there's no evidence of who took them or why, but based on the amateurish look of surrounding photos on the roll (like a picture of the door jamb?), it's equally likely the boys themselves took them while fooling around with the camera.

On the other hand, there's many compelling rea$on$ to question the motiveS behind the claims in this case. What I can't understand is why would parents pay for therapy sessions for their son if this kind of abuse was going on?  Wouldn't that be extremely risky for them?

[wallofsound]

I'm so conflicted about the abuse.   On one hand, I listen to someone in pain detailing abuse and feel horrible and believe what they are saying.   On the other hand, I remember reading things that seriously question the abuse.   None of which this show has covered.   I read something about the "boys" having in their possesion in jail a book (possibly written by a psychologist) about sexual abuse within the family and the book reportedly used the same vocabulary that Eric used on the stand - like when he mentioned he called certain encounters with his father 'the object sessions' or something like that.  It was really specific language and specific scenarios in the book that the "boys" basically repeated verbatim on the stand.   This is foggy to me - maybe someone else knows more and can explain it better?   

[sweetandsour]

I don't know anything about Leslie Abramson as a real person (fun fact: autocorrect changes her last name to Abrasion) - only Edie's portrayal of her. So I don't know the real person's motivations, but as a character on a tv program, her weird petting and treatment of the brothers comes off as the product of two things in her life intersecting, in the only setting they intersect.

She and her husband have an older daughter who apparently Leslie wasn't around for much growing up. They want to adopt a baby (and Leslie really does seem to want to; she's not just going along with her husband), but her husband has concerns about whether she'll be around for this second kid and sometimes bristles at her work schedule in relation to adoption activities. She has maternal desires of some kind, but she is so dedicated to her work that generally take her away from those desires.

So in the context of her work, she has clients she treats in a motherly fashion, and she's able to indulge this (seemingly in a way she does not in her own home), because these young men are in a setting she is already so dedicated to - where the venn diagram overlaps. (And not just the brothers - they clearly showed this with a previous client in the pilot episode.)

I don't find it appropriate at all, but that might be the motivation.

[CelticBlackCat]

There is also the theory by defense attorneys that if you show that you don't hate your own client that they are human and worthy of saving.  I believe Leslie thought she was acting motherly and nurturing to "her boys" and to Erik during the trials to convey the message that they were lost boys, not monsters.

[CelticBlackCat]

12 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Your observation makes it sound to me like Leslie A. may have sabotaged the case with her theatrical personality. I wonder if that's what we the viewers are now supposed to consider.

No.  Leslie would not try to sabotage her clients or the trial.  She naturally has a theatrical personality; many defense attorneys do.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, CelticBlackCat said:

No.  Leslie would not try to sabotage her clients or the trial.  She naturally has a theatrical personality; many defense attorneys do.

I didn't mean that she would sabotage the case on purpose, rather that her personality had an unintended off-putting effect on the judge (and probably on at least some of the jury). Was this talked about after the trial? It seems to me that the acting and directing might be suggesting that.

[Mannahatta]

7 hours ago, wallofsound said:

I read something about the "boys" having in their possession in jail a book (possibly written by a psychologist) about sexual abuse within the family and the book reportedly used the same vocabulary that Eric used on the stand - like when he mentioned he called certain encounters with his father 'the object sessions' or something like that.  It was really specific language and specific scenarios in the book that the "boys" basically repeated verbatim on the stand.   This is foggy to me - maybe someone else knows more and can explain it better?   

https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1994/03/dunne199403

Quoting Dominick Dunne from the above link: "....I have heard straight from the mouth of a Menendez relative, with whom I met clandestinely during the trial, that the brothers’ account of the molestation was false, gleaned from books they read in jail, beginning with Paul Mones’s When a Child Kills: Abused Children Who Kill Their Parents, a study of true cases and how they were defended in court. Pamela Bozanich, the cool, no-nonsense prosecutor, made the point during the trial that much of the defense strategy was suggested by Mones’s book: “In one of the incidents related in the book, which dealt with sexual abuse as the basis of parricide, there was mention of Vaseline in the incident. There was mention of sex used to punish the child. There was talk about the defense attorneys’ need to collect all photos, diaries, letters, and everything in order to substantiate the abuse. There was indication that the defendant in this case was scared that he was homosexual. . . . There’s information on page 66 that the father’s sex was getting rougher, that the sex included being poked with pens and pencils … that the particular person was dressed up in sweaters in order to make him look younger for purpose of testifying.”...."

I for one would love to know what are the actual facts of the case. This series leaves out a lot of what Dunne covered, and Dunne left out or didn't believe a lot of what the series now presents as fact. I would really need to know more about those photos....

("Blood Brothers" was written in 1995 and got fairly good reviews. But apparently there's a lot of price gouging going on at Amazon due to this series. The current price for it ranges from $42.49 to $162.49. Last week the prices were even higher. Guess I'll have to wait a while for the prices to go back to normal.)

[Marsupial]

I can't recall any crime victims whose reputations were as thoroughly and disgustingly maligned as Jose' and Kitty Menendez. I think, in reality, Jose' was a class-A jerk with no idea how to control his kids, and Kitty was clearly a pitiful victim of his emotional abuse,. But I honestly can't think of any case where the defense went to such evil, horrific lengths to trash the victims. I never bought the abuse stuff, not then, not now, and I'm a little shocked at how blatantly one-sided this show has been. It's like Kitty and Jose' get to keep getting murdered over and over again. 

I also agree with other posters that said it's a little too much" all Leslie, all the time." Edie Falco is doing an amazing acting job, as always, so I don't fault her, but I'm just getting sick of seeing Leslie all the time, not to mention the smirking Menendez "boys" and their scenery-chewing testimony. 

Dunne's reporting on the case (which I remember avidly reading during the trial) was great, the story was right in his wheelhouse. RIP Dominick.

[rhys]

Was the judge reallocated such a one sided jerk during the original trial?

[roughing it]

13 hours ago, Marsupial said:

I never bought the abuse stuff, not then, not now

There's really no one to corroborate the boys' sexual abuse testimony.  A couple of cousins' vague recollections??  Very weak.

37 minutes ago, rhys said:

Was the judge reallocated such a one sided jerk during the original trial?

I think the way Leslie was over the top, all the time, got on his nerves.  Her type of personality can easily rub someone the wrong way.  Also, it seems he wasn't buying the abuse angle either.  JMO

[Sweet-tea]

I am also surprised that the show has obviously taken the side of the Memendez brothers. Some of the flashback scenes of the parents are so over the top they're ridiculous. I think it would have been more interesting to show two sides of the story, featuring the characters on the defense side instead of just showing Abramson. 

I read the whole Dominick Dunne excerpt and really enjoyed it. I want to read one of his books now. 

Edited November 3, 2017 by Sweet-tea

[wallofsound]

I thought that Dunne article was excellent too!   Thank you Mannahatta for posting it.   There really seems to be so much more to the story than what this show is presenting. It's like that ridiculous pro Scott Peterson show some other network aired recently.  

 

This episode showed Kitty ripping off Lyle's toupee in the middle of an argument    The article goes into greater depth about that & it was only a few short days before the murder.   Lyle had multiple expensive hair pieces and seemed pretty obsessed with them even in prison     The defense claimed that Erik didn't know Lyle wore a hair piece until Kitty ripped it off his head, at which point Erik saw the vulnerability in his brother and felt safe admitting the abuse to him at that point       Wouldn't you notice your balding brother suddenly with a thick head of hair??  Yeah, not buying it   

 

On a superficial note, Edie Falco has this way of over enunciating certain words that just takes me out of the scene and all I see is Edie Falco.    It happened in Sopranos and Nurse Jackie too. 

[punkypower]

On 11/2/2017 at 10:25 PM, Marsupial said:

I can't recall any crime victims whose reputations were as thoroughly and disgustingly maligned as Jose' and Kitty Menendez. I think, in reality, Jose' was a class-A jerk with no idea how to control his kids, and Kitty was clearly a pitiful victim of his emotional abuse,. But I honestly can't think of any case where the defense went to such evil, horrific lengths to trash the victims. 

I was too young to watch this trial when it happened; but I gotta say Jodi Arias' defense team putting Travis Alexander's character on trial is right up there!! I was stunned and disgusted!!

[jrlr]

28 minutes ago, punkypower said:

I was too young to watch this trial when it happened; but I gotta say Jodi Arias' defense team putting Travis Alexander's character on trial is right up there!! I was stunned and disgusted!!

I watched these trials and agree that the trashing of the victims in both cases was disgusting.  The judge in the Arias case was a fucking idiot who had never tried a death case bfore - and it showed.  Let me add a slightly different third example: accusing Casey Anthony's father of molesting her while he was defending his murderous daughter was another "judge WTF are you thinking" trial - defense attorney Jose Baez , who was apparently sleeping with his client - probably would have trashed the four year old victim if he could have thought of a way.  

[fireice13]

On 11/2/2017 at 10:25 PM, Marsupial said:

I can't recall any crime victims whose reputations were as thoroughly and disgustingly maligned as Jose' and Kitty Menendez. 

It's only being maligned if it isn't true. Just because you don't believe the abuse happened, doesn't mean it didn't. People can be one way in public and complete monsters behind closed doors. There were enough jurors in the first trial who believed the boys which is why in the second trial the just didn't allow the abuse testimony in; the DA and the judge were under pressure to get a conviction and not lose another high profile case. 

[WendyCR72]

37 minutes ago, fireice13 said:

It's only being maligned if it isn't true

True, but the thing is, we'll never know. Jose and Kitty Menendez could have been monsters. Or maybe not. But as we'll never have a definitive answer, all us peons have to go on is our gut/feelings. And some will believe the abuse and some won't.

[iMonrey]

One of the tragedies of abuse is that victims often fail to report it because they fear nobody will believe them. 28 years later and people are still disputing the abuse of the Menendez brothers. It's really sad, and weird, that people would somehow rather believe two brothers are just "evil" than believe parents could ever molest their child. As if such a thing never happens. And yet none of those doubters ever questions how the brothers could have been so broken and so "evil" they would go to the extreme lengths of killing their parents. Normal kids don't do that no matter how greedy or selfish they are. Clearly the brothers were sick and somebody did that to them. 

There has been plenty of corroboration about the abuse. A lot of people simply choose to disbelieve it, hand-wave it, and minimize it. This series has taken the position that the abuse happened because that's already been established as fact. 

[WendyCR72]

For me, if these guys were abused, it's tragic. But I'm still not 100% convinced. But even if they were? They still murdered two people. Not just murdered, slaughtered. Yes, IF the parents were monsters, maybe they deserved punishment. But not like that. JMO.  Report them if they did so. If the proof was out there as has been discussed, bring it to the authorities.

I still think it is tied together with greed, and it is the greed that was the root cause, especially if the boys were out of the will.

And that lessens my sympathy. Greatly.

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

One of the tragedies of abuse is that victims often fail to report it because they fear nobody will believe them. 28 years later and people are still disputing the abuse of the Menendez brothers. It's really sad, and weird, that people would somehow rather believe two brothers are just "evil" than believe parents could ever molest their child. As if such a thing never happens. And yet none of those doubters ever questions how the brothers could have been so broken and so "evil" they would go to the extreme lengths of killing their parents. Normal kids don't do that no matter how greedy or selfish they are. Clearly the brothers were sick and somebody did that to them. 

There has been plenty of corroboration about the abuse. A lot of people simply choose to disbelieve it, hand-wave it, and minimize it. This series has taken the position that the abuse happened because that's already been established as fact. 

I guess many people are more comfortable with any explanation other than that kind of abuse. They just don't want to believe it exists. I can understand someone not being able to accept the existence of parents sexually assaulting their sons, but it's really unfortunate that those people weren't excluded from the jury of the trial because the parents weren't on trial.

[Ailianna]

Of course the parents were on trial.  Anyone who thinks they weren't being tried in the court of public opinion and in the jury box is not thinking through the case itself.  This case more obviously than some, but any time a defendant claims any type of self-defense, perfect or imperfect, what he is saying is that the victim did a bad thing and deserved to die.  That the victim's actions excuse the fact that the defendant killed the victim.  Of course, the victim has the disadvantage of no attorney who is specifically representing the victim, no direct voice in court, and no chance to put forward their own version of events.  But then, our system is truly not designed to protect the rights of victims.

The elder Menendezes were absolutely on trial--and they are again in this show.

[SWLinPHX]

If all the flashbacks presented in this drama are how it all happened and the sexual allegations are true, I definitely feel more empathetic now for the boys than I did at the time.  Too bad the OJ trial and "the fix" put in by the prosecution for the second trial made it unbalanced.

[Ailianna]

I have to keep hoping they are making up a lot of things, since there are so many egregious courtroom errors (and especially on the part of Leslie Abrahmson), that it's making me crazy.  She doesn't have the right to know what the votes on the charges are, or what they jury is talking about.  Deliberations are secret!

And if she really did host a fan-girl party of jurors in her home afterward--there's nothing per se improper about it I guess, but it seemed to demean the dignity of all 4 fan girls, how they gushed over the guy who admitted killing his parents, even if they 10000% believed he had a reason.  He's still got a lot of mental problems that need addressed, and them making him out to be a poor puppy/hero of the abused isn't helping him any.

And somehow even though Leslie is completely about the game playing as she goes along, and admits it, the show only makes it bad when someone else does it.  Are we sure this isn't the Law & Order Leslie show?

[kilda]

I don't have a problem believing that abuse occurred (although I am skeptical about the allegation that the mom also sexually abused the boys).  But I still don't buy the self-defense argument.  I would be more sympathetic to the abuse being used as a mitigating factor.  I don't buy for one minute that the boys thought they were going to be killed by their parents, or that they felt they had no other options.  I think it was a really weak defense, and the crime was clearly premeditated murder.

I will also say that there are such things as sociopaths, who can be that way despite being raised in normal families by decent parents, and who would have no problem fabricating this kind of story of abuse to justify their actions.  I have no problem believing that some parents are so evil as to sexually abuse their children.  I also however believe that there are children who are evil enough to murder their parents.  My problem with this case is I don't know  which is the case here.

[iMonrey]

How many episodes left in this story? I thought this one covered the politics of the retrial pretty well. It's an entirely separate issue, but equally tragic, that so much of what the judge and the prosecutors decide is based on their own egos, their careers, and their elections. It isn't about what's fair, or what's right, or who's guilty or innocent, it's about public perception, accolades and getting reelected. Really makes you disgusted with the whole justice system.

[wallofsound]

The scene with Erik calling his aunt from prison and asking her to patch him through to a number in Virginia was interesting.  The Vanity Fair article that someone posted in the Episode 6 thread talked about these phone conversations in detail.   Apparently, some Menendez family members had devices installed on their phones that allowed them to connect Erik and Lyle to other parties.   Once the boys were no longer in cells right next to each other, they would each call a family member who had one of these devices on their phones at the same time and the family members were somehow able to patch Erik and Lyle through to each other.   The prison only had a record of them calling their family member, but the boys were able to talk to each other at length about the trial with no one knowing.  

[toodles]

Since we are at this part of the case (the new trial), I don't think this is a spoiler, but just in case.......

Spoiler

https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2015/03/dominick-dunne-menendez-trial

Edited November 8, 2017 by toodles

[meatball77]

If they were younger then self defense would be an argument, and both of them participating kind of eliminates that it was a snap decision or one of them breaking.  They were old enough to leave their parents and not go back and I don't think they were even living with them at the time.  Sure it would be hard but not as hard as recovering from killing them. . . .

I think the sexual abuse and manipulation was true and that the boys probably had enough and shot them because of it.  But this isn't really the same as a woman shooting her abusive husband that she can't get away from because it was both of them.  With the circumstances the DA really should have done a plea deal for second degree murder for both of them with life sentences.  I suppose you could argue that one of the brothers was less responsible because the other brother manipulated them but that defense couldn't be used with the combined trial.

[rwgrab]

12 hours ago, Ailianna said:

Are we sure this isn't the Law & Order Leslie show?

I think this gets at the heart of my trouble with this show.  The dramatic presentation was slanted to suggest that the judge was so mean to ol' Leslie during the first trial, but then they try to portray the critical reaction as if the judge wasn't tough enough on her.  Huh?  I mean, both could potentially be true, but it makes for a bit of a confusing narrative if they're going to show all the mustache-twirling from the prosecution to then introduce the idea that in real life there was another perception by the public.  I'm ok with a slanted portrayal, but there's just no nuance to it.  When we see law and order, they're always doing something mean or underhanded while the defense is always just trying to do what's right.

Which I guess is my problem with what we've seen so far.  Yes, Law and Order shows are consistently "law and order people good, criminals bad".  They're turning that on its head here, but it's still very clear who we're supposed to root for.  I'm fine with that, but then don't call it "True Crime" in the title.  It just leaves me questioning "did that really happen?" to everything we see, and I don't remember enough about the case to know/have time to go research it to find out.  So while I sympathize with Fake Erik and Fake Lyle from the show, I have no clue if it changes my perception of them from back in the early 90s.

[Miles]

As a non-american it's really shocking to me what judges and prosecution can get away with and what their motives can be. I have watched quite a few trails in germany, as part of an internship for my university studies and I always had the impression that judges and prosecution were genuinly interested to find out what happened and why and would hear all the necessary witnesses. That a judge can and will just decide that a witness isn't important, for whatever reason, is just baffling to me.

 

On the other hand, I have to say, this show making the lawyers out to be saints doesn't quite sit right with me either. Most of the lawyers dropping out having nothing to do with the money being gone? Sure, I totally believe that. /s

Just as much as I believe that it would garner her a lot of publicity had nothing to do with the fact that Abramson stayed on...

 

13 hours ago, Ailianna said:

Are we sure this isn't the Law & Order Leslie show?

I mean these are the posters for this show, so basically, it is:

Edited November 9, 2017 by Miles

[Ailianna]

18 minutes ago, Miles said:

As a non-american it's really shocking to me what judges and prosecution can get away with and what their motives can be. I have watched quite a few trails in germany, as part of an internship for my university studies and I always had the impression that judges and prosecution were genuinly interested to find out what happened and why and would hear all the necessary witnesses. That a judge can and will just decide that a witness isn't important, for whatever reason, is just baffling to me.

I am absolutely and genuinely begging you not to think that this show accurately shows the American justice system or its ideals.  This is NOT how the system as a whole works.  And on the point about judges excluding witnesses, part of that is to keep a trial about the incident in question.  Especially with domestic cases, the parties will try to drag things up that happened years ago, just like when people argue who have been in a long relationship, but it may have nothing to do with what happened on a particular date.  And our system does say that we should decide if a person committed a specific crime, rather than if they are a good or bad person.