Law & Order: True Crime - General Discussion

[shapeshifter]

7 hours ago, wallofsound said:

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.  

So it sounds like it wasn't illegal for them to make use of the devices—rather the law of one call (I guess?) hadn't caught up with the technology. It is interesting.

[Miles]

12 minutes ago, Ailianna said:

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.

So how can potential sexual abuse by parents not be important to a murder trail where those same parents are the victims and the abused children the killers?

I personally sat in the audience of a murder trail and there were multiple witnesses speaking to the realationship between the victim and the perpetrator. How they treated each other, etc. and it did have a big influence on the verdict, since it went to motive. Final verdict was manslaughter in a minor case.

I'm also not basing anything on this one case/show. Any true crime case on TV or podcast makes my hair stand on end. I mean I know they are only going to use the flashiest cases, but you sure do have a looooooooot of those.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Miles

[Ailianna]

9 hours ago, Miles said:

So how can potential sexual abuse by parents not be important to a murder trail where those same parents are the victims and the abused children the killers?

This case/scenario is a little more complicated, but part of the rules of evidence require that there be a legal connection (relevance) as well as a (arguable in some cases) factual basis.  If something is just there to make the jury feel sympathy or emotion for one side or the other, it will usually be excluded.  The idea is that the facts should be determined without sympathy, bias or prejudice for either side.  

Let me give you a more common example than this case.  Boyfriend is accused of hitting girlfriend.  Both admit they had a verbal argument about the football game they just watched,  but boyfriend says that he didn't hit her.  He does say that she is always yelling at him about no t paying the bills on time though, and that one time when he was flirting with her sister three years ago, and that's why she says he hit her.  Should the trial really be about whether he pays the bills or flirted with her sister?  Or is that just the background baggage relationships tend to have?

One of the biggest problems that people have with the admission of the evidence of allegations of child abuse in the Menendez case, is that the accusations were lurid and graphic and had very little proof other than the testimony of two people who had a motive to fabricate.  I'm not saying that this means they were fabricated, but the absence of genuine corroboration and the possibility of the brothers making it up, and their undeniable motive for possibly making it up, is what bothers a lot of people and suggests it perhaps wasn't proper evidence.  Courtrooms shouldn't just allow people to say anything they want without some chance of proving things, band in this case, as the defense no doubt intended, the trial became not a murder trial but a sex abuse trial.  One in which, by the way, if that was the proof to accuse Jose and Kitty of child abuse, would absolutely not have been enough to convict them.  But since it was the defense accusing them, the standards are lower and the court of public opinion has convicted in the absences of proof, in many cases.

[Razzberry]

I've lost any respect I may have had for the whole "Law and Order" franchise. Abramson's attempt to rehabilitate her reputation is laughably biased and insults the intelligence of the audience.  During the real trial I understood it was the only card she had to play, but the victims still being assassinated despite everything we know as fact is disturbing.

I've seen parricide cases that were justified, imo, and many others driven by just plain greed, by a life devoid of any real consequences.  Again, I've never heard of a parent sexually abusing their kids and later paying for therapy sessions. It's ludicrous, and all too quickly waived away here by a juror saying "Jose owned that doctor", another baseless assertion.

As a CA taxpayer I say they've had more than a fair trial and are where they belong. For once wealth wasn't able to buy its way out of paying the consequences with an attorney who's paid to produce a miracle.  That must really be what's sticking in her craw.

[roughing it]

4 hours ago, Ailianna said:

One of the biggest problems that people have with the admission of the evidence of allegations of child abuse in the Menendez case, is that the accusations were lurid and graphic and had very little proof other than the testimony of two people who had a motive to fabricate.  I'm not saying that this means they were fabricated, but the absence of genuine corroboration and the possibility of the brothers making it up, and their undeniable motive for possibly making it up, is what bothers a lot of people and suggests it perhaps wasn't proper evidence.  Courtrooms shouldn't just allow people to say anything they want without some chance of proving things, band in this case, as the defense no doubt intended, the trial became not a murder trial but a sex abuse trial. 

I, too, was getting sucked into the believing the abuse story until I read the Vanity Fair article, which presented an opposing view.  There really was no proof of abuse, and if the brothers fabricated those stories, they are tap dancing as hard as they can to avoid the death penalty.  I can see why the judge, being frustrated with how the previous trial became so long and convoluted, which the defense really strayed from the reason they were there, disallowed the "noise" from the subsequent trial.  Just get to the meat and potatoes, and leave the peas and carrots out of it.

[Miles]

6 hours ago, Ailianna said:

This case/scenario is a little more complicated, but part of the rules of evidence require that there be a legal connection (relevance) as well as a (arguable in some cases) factual basis.  If something is just there to make the jury feel sympathy or emotion for one side or the other, it will usually be excluded.  The idea is that the facts should be determined without sympathy, bias or prejudice for either side.  

I know what relevance is. I'm just calling bullshit on this not being relevant. It speaks to motive and state of mind of the defendants. If juries are so easily swayed, maybe you should get rid of them. It's ludicrous that people's lifes are in the hands of complete lay people anyway.

 

6 hours ago, Ailianna said:

One of the biggest problems that people have with the admission of the evidence of allegations of child abuse in the Menendez case, is that the accusations were lurid and graphic and had very little proof other than the testimony of two people who had a motive to fabricate.

and some weird ass photos, and people who talked about it to reportors, but later with a camera on them, couldn't remember it...

Also what motive to fabricate did the cousins have? They didn't seem that close with the boys and sexual abuse going on doesn't really reflect well on the family. Also shouldn't the jury decide if the testimony is believeable? That what it is for, isn't it?

6 hours ago, Ailianna said:

Courtrooms shouldn't just allow people to say anything they want without some chance of proving things

That's literally all eyewitness testimony.

3 hours ago, Razzberry said:

Again, I've never heard of a parent sexually abusing their kids and later paying for therapy sessions.

With a complete quack of a therapist who reported everything back to the parents? That doesn't seem too far fetched. Just another way for the parents to control them.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Miles

[iMonrey]

Quote

I am absolutely and genuinely begging you not to think that this show accurately shows the American justice system or its ideals. 

Then again, you'll have to ignore countless hours of 48 Hours, ID Investigates, Dateline, and myriad other shows if you want to maintain an illusion that the US justice system is above board and never corrupt.

Quote

I, too, was getting sucked into the believing the abuse story until I read the Vanity Fair article, which presented an opposing view. 

You need to acknowledge Dominick Dunne's own bias in the case though. He had an in with family members who didn't believe there was any abuse because they were related to Jose and didn't want to believe he would ever do that. Dunne took their side because he had access to them and exploited it for his own gain. He didn't want to lose that resource and their bias became his bias.

It's really no different than the Jon Benet story when it comes to opposing sides. To this day there are going to be people who vehemently refuse to believe the parents had anything to do with it because, oh gosh, parents would just never do anything that horrible! That's really what it boils down to: emotions. If you simply cannot allow yourself to believe abuse like this is a thing, then you dismiss out of hand any eyewitness, any photographs, any testimony, any evidence contrary to your pre-disposed point of view.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Miles said:

Also what motive to fabricate did the cousins have? They didn't seem that close with the boys and sexual abuse going on doesn't really reflect well on the family. Also shouldn't the jury decide if the testimony is believeable? That what it is for, isn't it?

It's now been so long—are there any relatively recent interviews or blog posts with/by the cousins? Or how about the "friends" who initially were shown in this show to have known of the abuse years prior to the murders? Have they  said anything else about it? I'm guessing not, or it would be in the show. So are there non-disclosure agreements in place? If so, what was the reward for signing them? The show seems to want to retry the case with the audience being the jury, but we still don't have enough information to form an opinion.

[Angeltoes]

Has there been any talk of having another season of this show? 

[meatball77]

With this being "law" and order it makes sense for them to be focusing on the lawyers.  I don't get why they're not focusing on both sides though.

[Ailianna]

5 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Then again, you'll have to ignore countless hours of 48 Hours, ID Investigates, Dateline, and myriad other shows if you want to maintain an illusion that the US justice system is above board and never corrupt.

I think we all know that no human institution of any kind is perfect.  However, MOST of the people in law enforcement and in the justice system are in it for the "right" reasons, to try to do work they believe in with little or no  appreciation, long hours, dealing with inanity and brutality, and just wanting their communities to be a better place.  Sure, it's not good TV, but if I went by TV, I would think all hospitals were full of people having sex and discovering fantabulous diseases, and all ER residents were capable of surgical miracles even though their supervisors didn't approve.  Just one example, but with someone from another country with a very different legal system who appears to be using this as a template for all of our system, I feel like I have to point out that this case was extravagantly out of the ordinary in every way, including the level of politics that came into play.

[iMonrey]

Quote

I think we all know that no human institution of any kind is perfect.  However, MOST of the people in law enforcement and in the justice system are in it for the "right" reasons, to try to do work they believe in with little or no  appreciation, long hours, dealing with inanity and brutality, and just wanting their communities to be a better place.  Sure, it's not good TV, but if I went by TV, I would think all hospitals were full of people having sex and discovering fantabulous diseases, and all ER residents were capable of surgical miracles even though their supervisors didn't approve. 

I assume you're referring to Grey's Anatomy since your description is so on point. But that's a fictional show. I'm talking countless seasons of Dateline and 48 Hours that cover actual, true-life crimes. Rightly or not, those shows have given me the distinct impression that wrongful arrests, inept police and corrupt prosecuting attorneys are far too common. After all, there seems to be no end to the source material and true horror stories regularly featured on those shows.

[WendyCR72]

15 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I assume you're referring to Grey's Anatomy since your description is so on point. But that's a fictional show. I'm talking countless seasons of Dateline and 48 Hours that cover actual, true-life crimes. Rightly or not, those shows have given me the distinct impression that wrongful arrests, inept police and corrupt prosecuting attorneys are far too common. After all, there seems to be no end to the source material and true horror stories regularly featured on those shows.

There are bad apples in every profession. But with many of these shows, the same case is told over and over, too. So I'd still like to think it's more the exception than the rule.

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

There are bad apples in every profession. But with many of these shows, the same case is told over and over, too. So I'd still like to think it's more the exception than the rule.

I would like to believe that too, but I have a daughter swimming upstream in her profession in an effort to effect some measure of reform in the area of criminal justice, and one irrefutable statistic is that the US prison systems are warehousing the mentally ill. In addition to being disproportionately filled with minorities and the economically disadvantaged, well over half the incarcerated suffer from mental illnesses, including a high proportion with developmental disabilities. 

The first Menendez trial, however, was not really representative of what generally goes wrong in the American courts, because the defendants were financially able to afford skilled attorneys, and to pay for the necessary hours of legal work to mount a good defense. In fact, I wonder, like Leslie Abramson asks in an earlier episode, what would have happened if they were poor. Would they have received the death penalty? Or maybe they would have obtained an option of possible parole because it would have been easier for a jury to imagine disadvantaged boys being abused? Regardless, the second trial may be more typical economically, but the social media fallout from the first trial dictates that the second trial will be anything but typical as well—which I guess is why the case was selected for this series.

[wallofsound]

The ' Menendez Withdrawal' article from VF that was posted upthread said that the boys each had something like 5 or 6 hours of telephone privileges per day!!   Eventually it was reduced to the standard 20 minutes a day like everybody else.   Why on earth were they given such a special privilege?  

 

And i I do agree that Dominick Dunne is biased, but much of what he writes is factual - things that were included or revealed in the trial that this Law & Order show is just not showing us.   Biased or not, I remember loving reading his overly detailed articles way back then and I am loving reading them again in this thread.    i love his gratuitous name dropping!

Edited November 10, 2017 by wallofsound

[Sweet-tea]

On 11/9/2017 at 10:28 AM, roughing it said:

I, too, was getting sucked into the believing the abuse story until I read the Vanity Fair article, which presented an opposing view.  There really was no proof of abuse, and if the brothers fabricated those stories, they are tap dancing as hard as they can to avoid the death penalty.  I can see why the judge, being frustrated with how the previous trial became so long and convoluted, which the defense really strayed from the reason they were there, disallowed the "noise" from the subsequent trial.  Just get to the meat and potatoes, and leave the peas and carrots out of it.

Me too. Now I am really questioning whether the abuse actually happened. Obviously, the show is presenting it as true. I wish the show had a more balanced approach. Watching this makes me want to research the case. Anyone have any recommendations on best articles (besides Dunne's) or books?

On a shallow note, I understand what people are saying about Falco's eyes. I don't remember them being that prominent on The Sopranos. Is she intentionally widening them for effect? It looks odd. 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Sweet-tea

[Marsupial]

Sweet-tea, the BBC did an excellent documentary that covered both sides very well, it's available on YouTube:

 

Quote

With this being "law" and order it makes sense for them to be focusing on the lawyers.  I don't get why they're not focusing on both sides though.

Especially since, in this case, the prosecution did an excellent job. When both sides are strong, it's more interesting to watch, so it would in fact have made for better TV, but the producers of this show seem determined to make it "Brave Little Leslie and Her Misunderstood Sweater Boys." 

[Marsupial]

Quote

Biased or not, I remember loving reading his overly detailed articles way back then and I am loving reading them again in this thread.    i love his gratuitous name dropping!

Some people hate that about Dunne, but I'm with you, I LOVE it! His books about murder and mayhem among the well-heeled are terrific. Dunne, of course, also spoke from personal experience as his daughter was a murder victim.

[Miles]

On 9.11.2017 at 8:13 PM, shapeshifter said:

It's now been so long—are there any relatively recent interviews or blog posts with/by the cousins? Or how about the "friends" who initially were shown in this show to have known of the abuse years prior to the murders? Have they  said anything else about it? I'm guessing not, or it would be in the show. So are there non-disclosure agreements in place? If so, what was the reward for signing them? The show seems to want to retry the case with the audience being the jury, but we still don't have enough information to form an opinion.

Why would it be in the show? The show tells the story at the time. Also as a matter of fact, I saw a rather recent documentary and one of the cousins was in it and she stuck to her story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyQ0_Qn3Umc

On 10.11.2017 at 0:42 AM, Ailianna said:

I think we all know that no human institution of any kind is perfect.  However, MOST of the people in law enforcement and in the justice system are in it for the "right" reasons, to try to do work they believe in with little or no  appreciation, long hours, dealing with inanity and brutality, and just wanting their communities to be a better place.

Not sure how much that helps when the system is so fundamentally broken that prosecutors and judges can get away with this. Even if most won't (which I'm not convinced of), it's still a big problem.

You have 693 prisoners per 100.000 people. That is the highest incarceration rate on the planet. For comparision, germany has 78 per 100.000 people. You are getting close to 10 times our rate. I know, I know there are multiple factors to this, but at least part of it has to be the "justice" system.

 

From the WF article:

Quote

Other, less publicized jurors have also spoken up. No one had more to say than Jude Nelson, a member of Lyle Menendez’s jury, who had voted for murder in the first degree. Like many jurors, he maintained that the jury instructions had been too complicated, an assertion agreed with by the renowned defense attorney Alan Dershowitz when he and I appeared as part of a panel on Ted Koppel’s Nightline to discuss the abuse/excuse defense. Nelson also believed that the foreman of the Lyle jury would have leaned toward outright acquittal if that option had been available to them.

What? Outright acquittal is always availible to the jury. It's called jury nullification. I know that and I'm not even american.

Edited November 11, 2017 by Miles

[helenamonster]

Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt did an excellent episode this season about women who fall in love with incarcerated men, and after seeing it I wanted to try to be a little bit more understanding of women like the jurors who Leslie, bizarrely, invited over to her house so that they could talk to Erik. But something in my brain is preventing me from fully sympathizing with them. I don't get it and I never will.

Were Erik and OJ really jail neighbors? And did they really meet before both sets of murders?

I don't even know what to think about the abuse anymore. On the one hand it was horrifying but on the other it was so over the top, almost so cartoonishly evil that the brothers had to be making it up. If Jose was really raping them that brutally, wouldn't someone have to have noticed? A doctor, perhaps? Though maybe it's just the way this show is portraying it. Those flashbacks give me the heebie jeebies. I feel like they didn't have to be that explicit about it.

After the success of People vs. OJ so many other networks are trying to ride the true crime wave. The problem is that the ACS series had things to say and points to make. This is just an overdramatic retelling. I'll stick it out, since I made it this far, but I find it ironic that this show pales in comparison to OJ's, just as this case was overshadowed by the Brown/Goldman murders.

[ClareWalks]

The male jurors were so cartoonishly awful I couldn't believe they passed the selection process. "Jose worked hard to support his family! He's a hero!" Dude, really? It reminded me of the South Park episode where the guy in the talk show audience wouldn't shut up about Michael Jackson. "Leave the man alone! Yes, maybe he touched some children now and then, but he entertained us for so many years!"

[Mannahatta]

17 hours ago, Miles said:

What? Outright acquittal is always availible to te jury. It's called jury nullification. I know that and I'm not ven american.

As I fell down the internet rabbit hole about this case, I came across this article: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-07/local/me-64883_1_lyle-menendez

Apparently the option of outright acquittal isn't always available: ".... the judge dealt a severe setback to the defense, turning down a request for a jury instruction offering the option of an acquittal. Weisberg said the facts of the case did not meet the legal standard: that a reasonable person would have feared imminent death on the night of Aug. 20, 1989, when the brothers shot and killed their parents."

This makes sense as the defendants weren't pleading that they were not guilty. The trial was to determine the severity of the charges, based on whether or not the defendants felt their lives were in danger at the time of the homicides.

[smiley13]

Weisburg really was a jerk in this case.  Did he have some prior issue with Abramson?  This show has him come across as biased against the two defendants.  If he was unable to remain impartial, he should not have taken on the case.

And I can't stand Dunne.  What a pompous man.

[rigs32]

I’m a bit behind on the show, but many of the theatrical defense attorneys end up getting away with much more than they should because the judge doesn’t want to appear as if they are being too harsh.  

 

There’s one defense attorney in my city that will whisper offensive things to prosecutors under his breath knowing that the prosecutor cannot react without being viewed poorly.  This includes the C word to female attorneys.  

[rigs32]

On 11/8/2017 at 9:16 PM, shapeshifter said:

So it sounds like it wasn't illegal for them to make use of the devices—rather the law of one call (I guess?) hadn't caught up with the technology. It is interesting.

There’s no such thing as a “law of one call”.  You’re thinking of what you see on TV where people ask to use their one phone call.  That’s when people are arrested and booked into the jail.

 

It’s common for co-defendants to be separated and order not to have contact the prevent collusion or one trying to pressure the other to take the fall.  If such an order had been granted here, then what they were doing was in violation of it.

On 11/9/2017 at 5:31 PM, meatball77 said:

With this being "law" and order it makes sense for them to be focusing on the lawyers.  I don't get why they're not focusing on both sides though.

Same.  They only thing we hear about the prosecution is their supposedly unethical behavior. I can’t watch shows like this that try so hard to push their personal agenda.

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, rigs32 said:

There’s no such thing as a “law of one call”.  You’re thinking of what you see on TV where people ask to use their one phone call.  That’s when people are arrested and booked into the jail.

 

It’s common for co-defendants to be separated and order not to have contact the prevent collusion or one trying to pressure the other to take the fall.  If such an order had been granted here, then what they were doing was in violation of it.…

Ah! Thanks for the clarification—which ties in with what I've been wondering: If the older brother really did molest the younger brother and is really remorseful about it, why didn't he take the fall?

[Ailianna]

Also, judges know that if they make a mistake and rule against the defense, they can be overturned on appeal, but since the People can't appeal, they know they can screw over the prosecution without any worries about a higher court calling them out on it.

[Ailianna]

On 11/9/2017 at 10:48 PM, shapeshifter said:

I would like to believe that too, but I have a daughter swimming upstream in her profession in an effort to effect some measure of reform in the area of criminal justice, and one irrefutable statistic is that the US prison systems are warehousing the mentally ill. In addition to being disproportionately filled with minorities and the economically disadvantaged, well over half the incarcerated suffer from mental illnesses, including a high proportion with developmental disabilities. 

Which, I would like to point out, is not a reflection of the criminal justice system but of society's decision to close all the psych hospitals in the 1980s and 1990s.  Yes, those were places with horrible abuses going on, and shouldn't have been allowed to continue as they were.  But, generally, they were closed down and the patients sent out into the world with no other help or support system.  And now, most people with serious mental health problems face extreme problems in getting treatment, particularly the type of person whose illness makes it difficult for them to integrate well into regular society.  And since no one else will take care of them, they are left to self medicate with illegal drugs, to live in homelessness, and to commit crimes, often driven by their mental health issues. And when no one else will deal with a segment of society, police and the court system are forced to.  We have no one to pass the buck to.  And we lack the power to order people to take meds or deal with mental health issues in any ways beyond the most superficial.  

Police, prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys--we are all aware of the problem but we aren't the solution--we are just where people often end up when they have no where to go for their mental health needs.  And we end up with no where and nothing to do with them but eventually put them into custody.  If you look into things though, often there have been efforts to help them by the criminal justice system before, like probation with treatment, mental health courts, and other efforts.  We are dealing with them because no one else wants to.

You want to keep the mentally ill out of jails and prisons--so do we.  But society has to decide that they are willing to bear the expense and burden of providing meaningful access to mental health care for everyone, or the criminal justice system will continue to be the place of last resort to handle such problems.

[Evenshorter]

On 10/26/2017 at 2:50 PM, iMonrey said:

It's 1994, so a high end kitchen in California would already have granite. Today, they'd be ripping it out to put in marble or quartz. 

I must say, the actor who plays Lyle just oozes manipulative smarm even when he's not uttering a word. 

The actor used to be The Young and The Restless, and he oozed the smarm there as well.

[Evenshorter]

On 11/1/2017 at 11:10 PM, tivofanatic said:

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.

I still remember that trial! One of the best story lines in daytime, ever. Judith Light was phenomenal.

[fireice13]

Blind item that seems to be about Jose. http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2017/10/todays-blind-items-not-shown-on-tv.html

Today's Blind Items - Not Shown On TV - The Strangest Tie In Of All Time

Back in the 80's, there was a very powerful record executive. He was part of the day to day group of people managing the careers of this Spanish speaking boy band. He was also the first in that group of people who said the boy band members should be rotated frequently. Why? There was the story for public consumption and then there was the truth. The men all liked having sex with teen boys and rotating them kept them fresh and also kept them on edge when they would be leaving.

It was during this time period that the executive started working on some soundtracks for movies. At the label where he worked, he had to do more than deal with the boy band and rape their members. The label had been big in Old Hollywood with soundtracks but was not having much success in the 80's One notable exception was a soundtrack from one of their own artists who was also making a movie.

Anyway, shortly after that movie came out, our executive was talking to movie producers and seeing how this label could be a part of their movie. At a party he was introduced to this actor who was foreign born. He had just started making his second movie after starring on a television show for tweens.

Our actor would go on to be A list and was a definite heartthrob of the decade. At this party, the movie producer offered up the actor to the record executive. Apparently the two had sex. How do we know they had sex? Well, a few years later, this record executive made the news in a very big way. Not the way he probably would have hoped. His wife probably hoped not to make the news in that way either. The husband and wife are pretty big again this fall. Anyway, when the big news happened, our actor said to more than one person that he had hooked up with the record executive in a cabana next to the pool at the movie producer's house.

Oh, and that movie producer who is permanently A+ list was passing off this actor when the actor was 14 or 15. Yeah, and also having raping him on an almost daily basis.

[CelticBlackCat]

If anyone disbelieves Erik and Lyle's abuse claims now, well...

I am not saying they should be exonerated for what they did.  I do believe there was sexual abuse and molestation in the Menendez family though.

[Ailianna]

I don't think a blind item that is playing coy about identities (see the comments and people debating about who is being referred to) confirms something that may or may not have happened 30 years ago (when the defendants would have been kids).

[RedheadZombie]

Did Leslie Abramson write this script?  Was she their only source?  There has to be a reason that she is portrayed as a saint when she had a shady reputation.  She was willing to throw herself under the bus to save her boys?  Eric made a huge recovery because Leslie "re-mothered" him?  What a bunch of hogwash.  And don't forget, she was also able to be a hands on mother to her new child.  Mother of the year that one, she wasn't weak or incompetent, like Lyle's attorney who had to quit because she didn't even know her own child anymore.

The whole thing seems backwards because Law and Order has always focused on the cops and prosecutors, and is considered to be very pro-prosecution.  Here, the defense is ready to lay down their entire careers, and go with minimum pay like heroes.  The prosecutors and judge are almost cartoon villains.  And the family suddenly realizes that Lyle and Eric were innocent children subjected to horrific abuse, and had to kill to save their own lives.  

I'm guessing next season will focus on poor set-up OJ.

[Racj82]

20 minutes ago, RedheadZombie said:

Did Leslie Abramson write this script?  Was she their only source?  There has to be a reason that she is portrayed as a saint when she had a shady reputation.  She was willing to throw herself under the bus to save her boys?  Eric made a huge recovery because Leslie "re-mothered" him?  What a bunch of hogwash.  And don't forget, she was also able to be a hands on mother to her new child.  Mother of the year that one, she wasn't weak or incompetent, like Lyle's attorney who had to quit because she didn't even know her own child anymore.

The whole thing seems backwards because Law and Order has always focused on the cops and prosecutors, and is considered to be very pro-prosecution.  Here, the defense is ready to lay down their entire careers, and go with minimum pay like heroes.  The prosecutors and judge are almost cartoon villains.  And the family suddenly realizes that Lyle and Eric were innocent children subjected to horrific abuse, and had to kill to save their own lives.  

I'm guessing next season will focus on poor set-up OJ.

Wow, look at all traffic!

Anywho, network TV isn't going touch OJ in scripted format after cable aced it twice.

If it wasn't for the podcast I would have been out. Show was weaksauce.

[kilda]

yeah, I was very disappointed at how one-sided this was, not only in portraying the boys as victims and killings as somewhat justified, but also in portraying Abramson as a hero we are supposed to love and root for.  It's a fascinating case with a lot of layers to it and I would have liked to see a show take a thoughtful, balanced look at all of it.  Instead it was just 8 weeks of "the poor boys were terribly abused, the parents were monsters, Leslie Abramson is an angel!"

[jrlr]

1 hour ago, RedheadZombie said:

Did Leslie Abramson write this script?  Was she their only source?  There has to be a reason that she is portrayed as a saint when she had a shady reputation.  She was willing to throw herself under the bus to save her boys?  Eric made a huge recovery because Leslie "re-mothered" him?  What a bunch of hogwash.  And don't forget, she was also able to be a hands on mother to her new child.  Mother of the year that one, she wasn't weak or incompetent, like Lyle's attorney who had to quit because she didn't even know her own child anymore.

The whole thing seems backwards because Law and Order has always focused on the cops and prosecutors, and is considered to be very pro-prosecution.  Here, the defense is ready to lay down their entire careers, and go with minimum pay like heroes.  The prosecutors and judge are almost cartoon villains.  And the family suddenly realizes that Lyle and Eric were innocent children subjected to horrific abuse, and had to kill to save their own lives.  

I'm guessing next season will focus on poor set-up OJ.

Or poor set-up Jodi Arias.  

[RedheadZombie]

21 minutes ago, jrlr said:

Or poor set-up Jodi Arias.  

Jodi Arias:  A Victim of Her Own Beauty.

[RedheadZombie]

I'm attempting a re-watch because I zoned out/fell asleep the first time.

After the verdict was read, I'm surprised Leslie didn't attempt to pull Eric on her lap and nurse him.

I wasn't overly familiar with Edie Falco's work prior to this show, and I hate to say it, but I think she's going to be a deterrent to watching any other show she's in.  The bug-eyed expression, the way she holds her mouth, the shrill voice, her body language.  I feel bad saying it, because I suspect she thinks she's giving an Emmy worthy performance.  I'm sure she'll be nominated on her name alone.

[kilda]

when you think about everything that went on in this case - brutal shotgun murders, allegations of terrible sex abuse, the craziness with Dr Oziel and his girlfriend, it's kind of amazing that they somehow made it so boring.

[iMonrey]

The finale really drove home how horribly political the trial became towards the end, largely thanks to other trial outcomes at the time. And Judge Weisburg can DIAF.

Overall I thought the show was pretty good in its presentation of the facts, which to this day seem to be largely unknown to most people. At the end of the day I remain resolved that while Lyle and Eric are probably where they belong, I believe equally that Jose and Kitty Menendez are where they belong too.

[teebax]

51 minutes ago, RedheadZombie said:

I'm attempting a re-watch because I zoned out/fell asleep the first time.

After the verdict was read, I'm surprised Leslie didn't attempt to pull Eric on her lap and nurse him.

I wasn't overly familiar with Edie Falco's work prior to this show, and I hate to say it, but I think she's going to be a deterrent to watching any other show she's in.  The bug-eyed expression, the way she holds her mouth, the shrill voice, her body language.  I feel bad saying it, because I suspect she thinks she's giving an Emmy worthy performance.  I'm sure she'll be nominated on her name alone.

I think Edie is a fantastic actor, in fact she portrayed two of my favorite TV female characters of all-time on The Sopranos and Nurse Jackie. However, this was drivel for me. I don't think it was her that was the problem, although I can see what you're saying. The problem is she was the big-name draw for the series, and I think the producers felt like they had to highlight her. This story would be better told from both sides of the story and, instead, we really got a pro-Abramson take on it.

I have no idea why I stuck with it, but I hope if they do another case they don't make it so one-sided.

[CelticBlackCat]

7 hours ago, Ailianna said:

I don't think a blind item that is playing coy about identities (see the comments and people debating about who is being referred to) confirms something that may or may not have happened 30 years ago (when the defendants would have been kids).

I did read the comments and debates.  The funny thing about the blind gossip websites is people in the know can post anonymously what their theory is, and sometimes it truly is the fact.

[maryle]

I actually like the  show as someone who didn't  know anything about the case it was interesting!

Sure, could be more balanced a bit but I think it is perfectly obvious that it's the defense side that is presented and I don't have a problem with it! Why, it is ok to have a prosecutor bias sometimes and even often in show of this kind but cause this once it's more the defense view it's wrong! I think this case as many layers and I did see them while watched what surprised me the most was the judge attitude who objectively does sound to be prejudiable to the defense by his overal and repeat desicion. And, that what make me question the trial not the way the defense lawyers were favored.

[Ailianna]

7 hours ago, RedheadZombie said:

Did Leslie Abramson write this script?  Was she their only source?  There has to be a reason that she is portrayed as a saint when she had a shady reputation.  She was willing to throw herself under the bus to save her boys?  Eric made a huge recovery because Leslie "re-mothered" him?  What a bunch of hogwash.  And don't forget, she was also able to be a hands on mother to her new child.  Mother of the year that one, she wasn't weak or incompetent, like Lyle's attorney who had to quit because she didn't even know her own child anymore.

The whole thing seems backwards because Law and Order has always focused on the cops and prosecutors, and is considered to be very pro-prosecution.  Here, the defense is ready to lay down their entire careers, and go with minimum pay like heroes.  The prosecutors and judge are almost cartoon villains.  And the family suddenly realizes that Lyle and Eric were innocent children subjected to horrific abuse, and had to kill to save their own lives.  

I'm guessing next season will focus on poor set-up OJ.

 

4 hours ago, iMonrey said:

The finale really drove home how horribly political the trial became towards the end, largely thanks to other trial outcomes at the time. And Judge Weisburg can DIAF.

Overall I thought the show was pretty good in its presentation of the facts, which to this day seem to be largely unknown to most people. At the end of the day I remain resolved that while Lyle and Eric are probably where they belong, I believe equally that Jose and Kitty Menendez are where they belong too.

I had a problem with the fact it wasn't "pro-defense" it was "Saint Abramson".  She was outrageous even in just this episode, and made a lot of it about herself, as portrayed, even while loudly declaiming she was trying to protect the "boys".  Talking with the psych witness wasn't a problem.  Having him change his notes was a huge problem.  Having "new" notes and not providing them to the prosecution was a huge problem.  Her indignant shrieking not withstanding, her behavior was absolutely unethical, and she basically once again was just acting as if being obnoxious enough would make a judge rule her way just to keep her from throwing more fits.  If a prosecutor acted that way, the case would be reversed on appeal, the prosecutor would be fired, and probably censured if not disbarred.  But hey, it's Leslie and she has a "mission" so it's ok and we should all applaud her.

This is what I don't like about this case.  Not that it shows things from the defense side, but that it skews things so much you don't even get an accurate picture of the defense case.

And as for the conversation at the end with Marta and Leslie--made up from wholecloth.  Has to me.  Leslie said she would never tell, and Marta wouldn't either.  It goes back to the idea that the show is able to demonize the parents without fear of any pushback.  They have no one to file a defamation suit for them, or to stand up for them.  All their relatives are also Lyle and Erik's relatives, and have no reason now to rock that boat.  Likewise the lunch conversation between the two cops.  Complete fabrication, and their warning that some things have been added or created to me doesn't really excuse the liberties with the facts.  Definitely not based upon the kind of factual research that the recent cable OJ things have had.  I'm not sure I can handle a second season.

[Ailianna]

Or it may not be.  That's the point.  It's not proof of anything.

[RedheadZombie]

5 minutes ago, Ailianna said:

 

I had a problem with the fact it wasn't "pro-defense" it was "Saint Abramson".  She was outrageous even in just this episode, and made a lot of it about herself, as portrayed, even while loudly declaiming she was trying to protect the "boys".  Talking with the psych witness wasn't a problem.  Having him change his notes was a huge problem.  Having "new" notes and not providing them to the prosecution was a huge problem.  Her indignant shrieking not withstanding, her behavior was absolutely unethical, and she basically once again was just acting as if being obnoxious enough would make a judge rule her way just to keep her from throwing more fits.  If a prosecutor acted that way, the case would be reversed on appeal, the prosecutor would be fired, and probably censured if not disbarred.  But hey, it's Leslie and she has a "mission" so it's ok and we should all applaud her.

This is what I don't like about this case.  Not that it shows things from the defense side, but that it skews things so much you don't even get an accurate picture of the defense case.

And as for the conversation at the end with Marta and Leslie--made up from wholecloth.  Has to me.  Leslie said she would never tell, and Marta wouldn't either.  It goes back to the idea that the show is able to demonize the parents without fear of any pushback.  They have no one to file a defamation suit for them, or to stand up for them.  All their relatives are also Lyle and Erik's relatives, and have no reason now to rock that boat.  Likewise the lunch conversation between the two cops.  Complete fabrication, and their warning that some things have been added or created to me doesn't really excuse the liberties with the facts.  Definitely not based upon the kind of factual research that the recent cable OJ things have had.  I'm not sure I can handle a second season.

I agree with you, but I really didn't care about vilifying Kitty and Jose, since that was part of the case.  Adding that Leslie was told by Jose's sister that their mother molested him - if that wasn't true it was absolutely outrageous.  The sister said not to tell until their mother is dead, and I'm sure she's dead by now.  If they made up what Jose's sister said, I hope they are sued - hard.  

[MonicaM]

20 hours ago, CelticBlackCat said:

If anyone disbelieves Erik and Lyle's abuse claims now, well...

I am not saying they should be exonerated for what they did.  I do believe there was sexual abuse and molestation in the Menendez family though.

At the time of the trial, the media covered the defense strategy as "the abuse excuse" and I remember doubting that they had actually suffered abuse.  I've learned a lot about the family and the case since, and now I have no doubt the sons were abused verbally, emotionally, and sexually.  

I don't believe they should have been exonerated.  However, I believe that a sentence of "life with the possibility of parole" would have been more appropriate, all things considered.  

[Miles]

On 11.11.2017 at 10:04 PM, Mannahatta said:

Apparently the option of outright acquittal isn't always available: ".... the judge dealt a severe setback to the defense, turning down a request for a jury instruction offering the option of an acquittal. Weisberg said the facts of the case did not meet the legal standard: that a reasonable person would have feared imminent death on the night of Aug. 20, 1989, when the brothers shot and killed their parents."

It doesn't matter what the jury is instructed on. They can vote not guilty, even if the person is clearly guilty, confessed to the crime and said he did it for fun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Of course a judge will never tell a jury about this fact. Doesn't make it any less of a fact.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Miles

[Ailianna]

Despite your Wikipedia reference, jury nullification isn't legal or authorized.  A juror swears an oath to follow the law and to apply the fact to the law.  They are morally and ethically bound not to decide they don't like the law and let someone off because of that.  Now, are there times when 12 strangers get together and all agree to break their sworn word and disregard their legal duty?  Yes.  But it's not something a judge can tell a jury about because it is illegal.