Law & Order: True Crime - General Discussion

[wknt3]

6 hours ago, helenamonster said:

Is all the stuff with the psychiatrist and his mistress really true? If so, please tell me he lost his license after all this. Blabbing about his high-profile patient to a certified lunatic, who he also moved into his house with his wife and children??? Yikes, dude.

Can someone more familiar with the law help me out on this: wouldn't the psychiatrist actually have a legal obligation to report Erik's confession to the police? I thought doctor/patient privilege went out the window when it came to crimes being committed. At the very least, aren't you supposed to report them when you have reason to suspect that they are a current and present danger to themselves or somebody else, which the psychiatrist clearly thought he was (telling his wife to take the kids and get out of the house).

Yes it is true (or at least supported by the available evidence) and he did eventually lose his license. http://articles.latimes.com/1997-01-04/local/me-15399_1_menendez-brothers @kilda summed up "duty to warn" pretty well so I have nothing to add except to stay tuned if you are interested in privilege and the confession. We aren't done with this issue by a long shot...

 

18 hours ago, Steph J said:

So is Leslie Abramson a producer on this show? Because I feel like so far the series has spent a lot of time telling me how great she is.

They have spent a lot of time on her, because Edie Falco is the star of the show and because Leslie Abramson was the "breakout star" of the original story. And they spend a lot of time setting her up as a great attorney because she is a great attorney. I don't think they are going for anything beyond that it just in comparison to the therapist and the Menendez family anyone will look pretty good.

Edited October 4, 2017 by wknt3
revised and extended my remarks

[Steph J]

1 hour ago, wknt3 said:

They have spent a lot of time on her, because Edie Falco is the star of the show and because Leslie Abramson was the "breakout star" of the original story. And they spend a lot of time setting her up as a great attorney because she is a great attorney. I don't think they are going for anything beyond that it just in comparison to the therapist and the Menendez family anyone will look pretty good.

When I said that the series is spending a lot of time saying that Abramson is great I wasn't referring to her abilities as an attorney. I meant that it feels like the show is spending a lot of time trying to establish her as a idealized person through these asides where she's bringing her clients food in prison, washes the blood off a client's face, and the discussion with her husband where she gets to defend her dedication to her work against his accusation that it makes her an "absentee" mother. It feels a bit Mary Sue-ish, though I'll concede that since the character doesn't actually get involved with the case until the second half of this episode that maybe these scenes were just a way to keep the character (and, as you point out, the show's star) from being excluded from the part of the story that has to do the heavy lifting in terms of hooking the audience.

[eurekagirl mOo]

Oh MAN do I remember this! I was in mid 30's and raising 3 kids at the time. I had NIGHTMARES about people coming in and shooting me! We didn't get shot quite as much in those days so it was pretty shocking.

And yes, there was a LOT of abuse. But a LOT of women are in prison because they killed abusive partner/husbands. They never get any slack. They SHOULD! But they don't. 

[starri]

I wish the rest of the cast was worthy of what Edie Falco is doing here.  The material isn't great, but it's also not terrible, but she's the only person who's consistently rising above it.  Although I have a feeling Josh Charles probably would be as well, at least if he wasn't paired with Heather Graham.

On 10/4/2017 at 1:49 PM, fireice13 said:

Overall is is a sympathetic portrayal but I know most of the people involved came out of it believing the brothers had been abused and didn't deserve life without parole.

I absolutely believe they were abused.  But I also believe the primary motivator in killing the parents was money.  But I'm not sure I can fairly do the math to figure out how much the former should subtract from the sentence.

[spiderpig]

Mixed feelings here.

The brothers may have been mentally and/or physically abused.  A lot of people are who don't go on to shotgun their parents who are sitting on a sofa watching TV.  They were young men, not adolescents.

The thing that has gotten me since the real-life event is the brothers' spending spree after the murders.  Even if you loathed your parent(s), what would possess you to blow a million bucks within six months of their murder?  And a million bucks on bling?

I agree Lyle was dominant, but Erik wasn't ten years old and was clearly capable of saying no.

Bad seeds.  Though Lyle was worse.

[Spartan Girl]

My view on the case: lousy parents and lousy kids. I don't know if there was sexual abuse -- if that story about the dad killing their dog and sticking his head in the fridge is true, JFC. But the brothers are not innocent victims.

The shrink deserved to get his license revoked. Hope his wife took the kids and left him over his Fatal Attraction mistress.

[galaxychaser]

The brothers got the right sentence.  I don't believe that they were abused sexually. 

[Drogo]

Erik and Lyle begin to divulge details of the abuse they suffered at the hands of their parents. However, a lack of evidence leaves Leslie and Jill to wonder how they will convince a jury.

[Drogo]

Judge Stan Weisberg grants a petition allowing the court proceedings to be broadcast on television, bringing a heightened level of public scrutiny to the case. When the prosecution's star witness, Dr. Oziel, takes the stand, his questionable ethics and motives threaten to destroy his credibility. Meanwhile, the defense faces an uphill battle in getting Judge Weisberg to understand the relevance of Lyle and Erik's complicated upbringing.

[roughing it]

I don't remember anything about the case when it happened, other than the headlines of two brothers who killed their rich parents.  But from what I've seen so far I've deduced that the kids, led by Lyle, killed their parents to get the money (after they learned they were *out* of the will) and then used the abuse angle only to soften their sentence.

[Kelly]

On 10/8/2017 at 4:32 AM, galaxychaser said:

The brothers got the right sentence.  I don't believe that they were abused sexually. 

I never believed they were abused sexually either.  I've always thought that they came up with that to garner sympathy.  They went too far with it, they accused their mother of sexual abuse, they accused their father (and some of the things they indicated the father did to them, just seemed...way over the top - thumbtacks in the thighs for example), and Lyle indicated that he himself sexually molested Erik.

[Shaynaa]

Has this post been unlocked since last night?  No comments?  I'm still quite liking this show.  Nitpick but I'm pretty sure the term "reality tv show" didn't exist in 1990.  I'm not terribly familiar with the case but I am curious how close to reality this is.  I'm guessing Judalon really did say Oziel was using mind control on her while she was on the stand?  I can see why L&O picked this case.  So much crazysauce going all around.

Before I call everyone dumb for this, weren't jail visits/phone calls recorded back then?  I know LA told them to not discuss their case with anyone but still

[Eolivet]

10 minutes ago, Shaynaa said:

Nitpick but I'm pretty sure the term "reality tv show" didn't exist in 1990. 

Was coming here to say the same thing. If it was '94, The Real World had been on MTV for 2 years (including, I think the season of Pedro with AIDS).

Begs the question why the writer didn't just say "Trying to turn this into The Real World," unless they thought the audience wouldn't get that reference.

(Who is Anthony Edwards in this? I keep looking for him, but I haven't been able to recognize him.)

[Whimsy]

3 hours ago, Shaynaa said:

Has this post been unlocked since last night?  No comments?  I'm still quite liking this show.  Nitpick but I'm pretty sure the term "reality tv show" didn't exist in 1990.  I'm not terribly familiar with the case but I am curious how close to reality this is.  I'm guessing Judalon really did say Oziel was using mind control on her while she was on the stand?  I can see why L&O picked this case.  So much crazysauce going all around.

Before I call everyone dumb for this, weren't jail visits/phone calls recorded back then?  I know LA told them to not discuss their case with anyone but still

 

2 hours ago, Eolivet said:

Was coming here to say the same thing. If it was '94, The Real World had been on MTV for 2 years (including, I think the season of Pedro with AIDS).

Begs the question why the writer didn't just say "Trying to turn this into The Real World," unless they thought the audience wouldn't get that reference.

(Who is Anthony Edwards in this? I keep looking for him, but I haven't been able to recognize him.)

That phrase immediately took me out of the episode too. 

[kilda]

yes, "reality tv" was an anachronism.  Definitely not a phrase anyone would have used in 1989.

The other thing that bugged me was some of the exchanges between the boys' lawyers.  They keep saying people hate their clients because they're rich and privileged.  And I'm thinking, "No I think it's because they shot their parents to death.  I'm thinking it's not so much the privilege, as the murder."  Then when one of them says basically that ("they shot their mother in the face") and the lawyer says something about how she's a mom and she can only imagine what terribly dark things must have happened between the parent and child to make a child do that (paraphrasing).  So because the kids shot their mom in the face, that proves she must have been a really awful parent?  It could mean that, or it could mean that the kids are really awful, murderous human beings.  It just really bothered me that the fact that the mom was brutally murdered somehow proved she deserved it.

[roughing it]

4 hours ago, Eolivet said:

(Who is Anthony Edwards in this?

The judge.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Nitpick but I'm pretty sure the term "reality tv show" didn't exist in 1990. 

Yeah I don't think anyone really used that term prior to Survivor, and that show debuted in 2000.

Quote

So because the kids shot their mom in the face, that proves she must have been a really awful parent?  It could mean that, or it could mean that the kids are really awful, murderous human beings.

But one begets the other. If your children turn out so twisted, awful and broken they end up shooting you in the face, how good a parent could you have been?? Unless you just think they're "bad seeds" and no amount of good parenting would have saved them. I personally don't believe in inborn evil. I think kids are a product of their upbringing and environment. 

I'm glad to see the show is giving the story a pretty balanced presentation, especially since

Spoiler

next week it looks like they'll be addressing the polaroids. That's what convinced me the sexual abuse was true.

[nlkm9]

8 hours ago, Shaynaa said:

Has this post been unlocked since last night?  No comments?  I'm still quite liking this show.  Nitpick but I'm pretty sure the term "reality tv show" didn't exist in 1990.  I'm not terribly familiar with the case but I am curious how close to reality this is.  I'm guessing Judalon really did say Oziel was using mind control on her while she was on the stand?  I can see why L&O picked this case.  So much crazysauce going all around.

Before I call everyone dumb for this, weren't jail visits/phone calls recorded back then?  I know LA told them to not discuss their case with anyone but still

I caught that--I was like hey we didnt know what reality tv was!!

[helenamonster]

I didn't even catch the reality tv thing, but in my defense I don't remember a time when that wasn't a commonly-used phrase so...yeah, someone should have spot-checked that in the script.

Listening to Erik describe the sexual abuse at the hands of his father turned my stomach. Again, I don't know much about the case, but looks like next week they find photographic evidence? Yuck. Yuck yuck yuck. I get why they did it. I don't condone it. It's unfortunate that we live in a society where people who do such awful things usually don't face the consequences, but that still didn't give the brothers an excuse to do what they did either. And the monumental stupidity of spending all that money immediately after the murders makes me think that generally they are not great decision-makers.

I do feel a little bad for Lyle being so young and needing that awful hairpiece. Yikes.

The guy who plays Abramson's husband play one of the detectives in People vs. OJ.

"Was it a sacred phone cord?" Edie Falco wins everything forever all the time always.

[iMonrey]

Quote

It's unfortunate that we live in a society where people who do such awful things usually don't face the consequences, but that still didn't give the brothers an excuse to do what they did either. And the monumental stupidity of spending all that money immediately after the murders makes me think that generally they are not great decision-makers.

It's not really about finding an "excuse." Nobody is excusing their behavior. But there's a difference between "excuse" and "reason." There's a reason they did what they did and it's not just "they were spoiled brats who wanted money." Which was the public perception at the time thanks to the media. Hey, there are lots of spoiled brats who want money. Most of them don't kill their parents for it. There's more to it than that.

I also think the spending spree was basically an act of defiance. Yes, I think they did find out they were going to be cut out of the will, but that was likely the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. After a lifetime of sexual abuse it was the final insult. It was their way of finally stopping him from hurting them.

Edited October 11, 2017 by iMonrey

[meowmommy]

11 hours ago, Shaynaa said:

Nitpick but I'm pretty sure the term "reality tv show" didn't exist in 1990. 

Exact first thing I thought, too.  And wondered how closely the writers referred to actual transcripts and recordings from the time.

[CelticBlackCat]

I caught the reality tv show reference too and thought it was not a phrase used in 1989.

[RedbirdNelly]

On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 7:08 AM, Shaynaa said:

Nitpick but I'm pretty sure the term "reality tv show" didn't exist in 1990. 

I had the exact same thought--did we actually use that term then? The Real World started close to the same time but I'm pretty sure later and that is the first "reality show" I remember where people may have used the term.

[roughing it]

So what was the friend doing going through the boys' dresser drawers and packing stuff up and sneaking it out?

[hilaryvm]

I think I'm a terrible person because I laughed so hard at Lyle not being able to wear his hairpiece in jail because they took his glue.

Quote

So what was the friend doing going through the boys' dresser drawers and packing stuff up and sneaking it out?

I wondered this too.  I can only hope it will come up in a later episode.

[SunnyBeBe]

I just wanted to say that Edie Falco is outstanding in this.  OMG.....she has it.  She had me from the first minute.  I totally buy her and this was not an easy role.  In fact, it's because of her that I'm watching.  I had MANY preconceived notions about this case and my mind was pretty closed, but, only watched it to see Edie.  She hasn't disappointed me at all.  I have no idea if my mind will be changed or not, but, it's pretty interesting to see this version.  

I pretty much think that when your lawyer tells you to NOT discuss the case with anyone, it means, not to ask a witness to perjure themselves while on a JAIL telephone! lol  You can't make this stuff up. 

[emma675]

I'm loving Edie Falco in this.

I was too young to follow this case when it was all happening, but was Judalon really that batshit crazy? And was Oziel really that twisted? How on earth did those two get on the stand and still have the judge rule that the session tapes/notes were admissible? Oziel was breaking every rule in the book.

[wknt3]

This was a great episode. I'm even more convinced that they should have gone with some sort of flashback structure so we didn't have to sit through two relatively boring weeks of set up before the story kicked into high gear. Maybe the classic L&O opener where the crime is discovered and then we FF to the arrest and the news specials and show the investigation with a line by a reporter or a question followed by showing us what really happened interspersed with the jailhouse interviews and the DA's office scenes? It will be really sad if the rest of the series is this good, but it doesn't matter because they lost the audience with two weeks of aimlessly wandering prologue and Edie Falco sitting around her kitchen.

[spiderpig]

9 hours ago, emma675 said:

I'm loving Edie Falco in this.

I was too young to follow this case when it was all happening, but was Judalon really that batshit crazy? And was Oziel really that twisted? How on earth did those two get on the stand and still have the judge rule that the session tapes/notes were admissible? Oziel was breaking every rule in the book.

I remember the case well, but had to Google to find out what happened to the sleaze Oziel.  Talk about giving mental therapists a bad name...

That's Heather Graham, Roller Girl from Boogie Nights, playing Judalon.  She's 47 now.  How time flies!

[iMonrey]

Quote

I'm loving Edie Falco in this.

I am too, but dare I say - isn't a show like this a little too lowbrow for an actress like Falco? I mean, she's used to doing higher profile things on pay cable, and while I freely admit to enjoying this show, it's pretty cheesy stuff. Maybe she just really liked the role, but I've gotta believe $$$ was a motivating factor for her. They must have thrown a lot of it at her.

[shapeshifter]

12 hours ago, iMonrey said:

isn't a show like this a little too lowbrow for an actress like Falco?

This's question makes me wonder whether Edie Falco has strong feelings about how the brothers were tried by the media/public at the time and/or about how the actions of an unethical pyschotherapist lead to their conviction—including the therapist's failure to see they were having serious problems before the murder (assuming the abuse allegations were real).

 

About the use of the term "reality TV," I must've missed that line, but couldn't it have been used as a descriptive turn of phrase that would not become a household word for at least another ten years? Maybe the phrase was injected on purpose or at least intentionally not edited out to tell us that the trial was no different than Reality TV with a capital R? Or are we sure it was just sloppy editing?

[toodles]

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

Dominic Dunne's take on the trial

[WendyCR72]

11 hours ago, toodles said:

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

Dominic Dunne's take on the trial

Ironically, Dominic's son, Griffin, also appeared multiple times in the franchise. As a matter of fact, I'm watching him on a L&O: CI episode as I type. (His first on there of, I believe, three appearances on CI alone.)

[Sweet-tea]

On 10/11/2017 at 10:13 AM, Whimsy said:

 

That phrase immediately took me out of the episode too. 

Me too. 

[meep.meep]

On 10/14/2017 at 1:19 AM, shapeshifter said:

This's question makes me wonder whether Edie Falco has strong feelings about how the brothers were tried by the media/public at the time and/or about how the actions of an unethical pyschotherapist lead to their conviction—including the therapist's failure to see they were having serious problems before the murder (assuming the abuse allegations were real).

Why?  Isn't it more likely that she sees it as a big juicy part - the lead in a miniseries - that might lead to other big juicy parts.  Or it might get her that vacation home in the Bahamas.  She's an actor, she'd play the mother if she thought that was a better part.  The people producing this might have had those feelings about the trial.

People vs OJ got buckets of Emmy's too.  This is not going to get Emmy's.

[roughing it]

1 hour ago, meep.meep said:

This is not going to get Emmy's.

Edie Falco is a big name.  She will be nominated regardless of project or performance.  Kind of like anything Meryl Streep is in, she will get nominated for an Oscar (Florence Foster Jenkins, seriously??)

[Scarlett45]

I am just now getting to this series. I didn't know Constance Marie was in it! She's still so gorgeous. 

Loving Eddie Falco- she is bringing it as always. 

 

I do believe that there was sexual abuse in the home. I also believe if you abuse and mistreat your children like that, there is a special place in hell for you and death by gunshot is more mercy than you deserve. 

[shapeshifter]

43 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

do believe that there was sexual abuse in the home. I also believe if you abuse and mistreat your children like that, there is a special place in hell for you and death by gunshot is more mercy than you deserve. 

Too bad that wasn't the closing argument for the defense.

The script illustrates how much the outcome was a product of the times. But then the same could be said of the Salem Witch Trials and the Dreyfus Affair.

[voiceover]

Heyyyy!!!  It's Duck Phillips from Mad Men as Gil Garcetti!

I confess that my POV on this case was completely formed by Dominick Dunne's Vanity Fair columns.  So I've always thought: Snotty spoiled rich boys!!

But I'm sucked in here.  And torn.

Those columns are in a collection he published years ago.  Which I own.  I think a reread with new perspective is called for.

[Razzberry]

This is even more biased than the Scott Peterson series.   I wonder if Abramson is a producer.

[hilaryvm]

I was fairly young when this all happened, so didn't have much of an idea about the outcome of the case at the time.

If most of this show is true, I'm willing to buy the abuse story.  But, as this episode illustrated, you legally have a problem arguing self-defense because of the abuse.  They were in no immediate danger (as in, their father wasn't about to kill them right then), so it's not a true self-defense claim.  I can see how a jury would still convict them.  A real sad story all around, really, regardless of what the truth is.

[SWLinPHX]

I was surprised to find out the ongoing sexual abuse was a fact.  At the time I was in my early 20's and thought they were using the abuse as an excuse.  But if they suffered this much sexual and psychological abuse for so many years in their childhood why was their sentence so harsh with life imprisonment with no rehabilitation or chance for parole?

[fireice13]

24 minutes ago, SWLinPHX said:

I was surprised to find out the ongoing sexual abuse was a fact.  At the time I was in my early 20's and thought they were using the abuse as an excuse.  But if they suffered this much sexual and psychological abuse for so many years in their childhood why was their sentence so harsh with life imprisonment with no rehabilitation or chance for parole?

Because the jury that convicted them never got to hear about the abuse. The first trial that allowed the abuse testimony in as evidence resulted in a hung jury. The judge wouldn't let the testimony in for the second trial.

[Scarlett45]

27 minutes ago, fireice13 said:

Because the jury that convicted them never got to hear about the abuse. The first trial that allowed the abuse testimony in as evidence resulted in a hung jury. The judge wouldn't let the testimony in for the second trial.

Yes. Although the prosecution could make the arguement that the brothers weren't in immediate danger of harm and thus a "self defense" theory wouldn't stand, on a moral level in sure a lot of people would agree that a quick death by gun shot was too good for someone who would do that to their child- hence the hung jury in the first trial. 

 

I think the actors playing the brothers are doing a good job. Lots of emotional layers....

[Drogo]

The jury hears from Lyle and Erik for the first time when the brothers testify in court, recounting in detail the years of sexual abuse that led them to fear for their lives. Leslie makes a surprising move after Judge Weisberg approves the prosecution's request to unseal the tape of the brothers' confession to Dr. Oziel. After closing arguments are made, the jury is left to determine a verdict.

[Jodithgrace]

it makes no sense to me that the jail would put Eric and Lyle in cells right next to each other where they would be able to compare notes and get their stories straight. I can't imagine this happened in real life. 

I like Edie Falco, but her bug-eyed reactions to everything kind of freak me out. 

I think the boy actors are very good, but while I'm almost I'm 100% convinced of the sexual abuse, I have questions.  I can see, from the mother's scene with the psychiatrist, that she most likely grew up in an abusive home, herself, and therefore did not know how to be a parent. But Jose? What caused him to be an abuser? He sounds like a total monster. Did that come out of nowhere? I assume the answer lies with HIS father, but he doesn't seem to be still alive. 

Still, it is an interesting case, and while I was exposed to it at the time (since I wasn't living under a rock) I didn't remember much about it. Not like the OJ case which I followed, live, like the rest of America. 

[Scarlett45]

@Jodithgrace I think Jose was probably just an evil sick man, who was so narrassistic he never thought the boys would fight back. Some people who grow up abused repeat the cycle, but I think some people are just evil. 

[iMonrey]

It was sometime after the fact that I saw a documentary about this case and that's the first time I learned about the Polaroids. That's what convinced me the abuse was real. How can anyone possibly hand-wave that away? What possible purpose could their parents have had in taking naked pictures of their little boys? I defy anyone to rationalize that. 

Now, don't get me wrong - I don't buy that the brothers thought they were in imminent danger and killed their parents in self-defense. I think they did find out they were being cut out of the will, and for them, that was the final slap in the face and they were determined not to let their father get away with it once and for all. It was just the straw that broke the camel's back. And I think the ensuing spending spree was just jubilation that they had finally "won" and beaten their father.

I think the Menendez brothers got what they deserved (although I would argue they should be eligible for parole at some point because clearly they were never a danger to anyone but their parents). However, I also think Jose and Kitty got what they deserved, too.

[Eolivet]

That's a Diane Sawyer look-alike, I assume? She's distracting.

I'm finding this hard to watch, honestly. I almost wish that they treated it like they weren't sure if the abuse happened, like how People vs OJ never took a firm stance on guilt or innocence. I know there was nobody else who could've committed the murders, but this has crossed the line from dramatic to depressing. I don't find the lawyers that compelling (stop trying to make Leslie Ambramson into Sarah Paulson's Marcia Clark -- she is not and never will be). And honestly, I don't find Lyle or Erik that sympathetic as characters, even if I feel terrible about what happened to them. It's too sad to be just sordid (with Oziel and Judalon -- it's like they're acting in a different show) and too sordid to be just sad. So, it comes across as this horrible story about people I don't really care about, and I end up feeling bad for not caring.

I also think they've spent far too much time on the build-up, and I wish they would've jumped into the trial sooner. It's felt a lot like killing time (no pun intended), which may be another reason this feels like it's dragging.

[Miles]

9 hours ago, fireice13 said:

Because the jury that convicted them never got to hear about the abuse. The first trial that allowed the abuse testimony in as evidence resulted in a hung jury. The judge wouldn't let the testimony in for the second trial.

That always baffles me, that a judge can just decide "nope, I'm not going to allwo this potentially exculpatory evidence, because I don't feel like it" and that is still considered a fair trail.

Even if you don't believe that they felt that they were in immediate danger, and with that the self-defense argument is bull, motive still goes to the classivifaction of the killing and years of abuse would have to be considered regarding their mental state, and possible diminished capacity, at the time. I'm not so sure about american law, but in germany that might get it down to manslaughter, certainly murder two, instead of murder one.

 

3 hours ago, Eolivet said:

I'm finding this hard to watch, honestly. I almost wish that they treated it like they weren't sure if the abuse happened, like how People vs OJ never took a firm stance on guilt or innocence.

Did we watch the same show? They were absolutely clear on the fact that he was guuuuuuuiiiiiiilty.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Miles