Law & Order: True Crime - General Discussion

[Eolivet]

Agree to disagree. They never showed him killing Nicole and Ron, they opened with him leaving the mansion. They never had him confessing to anyone that he did it or show any flashbacks that proved he did. The closest they came was Marcia Clark's breaking down the murder timeline with Chris Darden's friends at the bar. But you could, theoretically, walk away from People vs OJ and reach the same conclusion as the jury.

Unlike this show where ... well ... it opened with the two boys with shotguns in their hands, killing their parents. No ambiguity there.

[shapeshifter]

6 hours ago, Jodithgrace said:

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

I was wondering if that was a Leslie Abramson hallmark, or if it was an Edie Falco thing, or if it was both.

[Pop Tart]

I’m mostly finding this just okay, but finally realized what one issue for me is. That it’s called Law and Order and is supposed to be part of that group of shows and it’s just not. Not only has there been little from the police and prosecutors, they’re barely developed as characters at all. Even though the L&O franchise was told from the point of view of the cops and prosecutors, every character was well-written and interesting. With this it’s all Leslie all the time, with a little of the brothers thrown in now and then, but everyone else is being written paper thin.

The prosecutors office is determined to get them, but that is all we know about those characters. In any given L&O episode, you would find a defense attorney who was interesting in and of themselves, so much so that you could easily see them in a show of their own. And certainly we were meant to root for the DA, but often the defense was just as rootable. There is no balance like that here. This feels closer to a Lifetime movie of the crime.

[helenamonster]

I don't think this show needs ambiguity over whether or not Lyle and Erik did it, since they confessed.

Mark Moses! I like seeing him pop up in things. Because he's a good actor but also because he and my dad grew up together in Evanston.

It's interesting to me how much crossover this case had with OJ's. We had Bob Shapiro show up in an earlier episode, Lance Ito got involved as a judge at some point, Garcetti was the DA...I assume there will be a throwaway line eventually about how all of the media attention has shifted to OJ.

Despite the absolutely revolting accounts of sexual abuse, this case seems almost...quaint? I know I make OJ comparisons a lot but that shit was so bananas and this all seems kind of straightforward. I did see it pointed out (I can't remember if it was here or in a review on another site) that this case has been the jumping off point for a lot of other fictionalizations (including on other entries in the L&O franchise): snotty rich kids murder their parents for what is originally assumed to just be the inheritance, but no wait, it goes deeper and get darker. The whole thing is kind of a cliche, but that's an unfair criticism because this case essentially invented that cliche. I just think it's hard to bring anything new to this kind of story because so many imitations have already completely dissected it.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

   I wonder if Abramson is a producer.

That's pretty much my take too. Tnis seems to be more about Leslie than about the Menendez murders.

I too don't understand either why the brothers weren't given sentences that included the possibility of parole. Yes the murders were brutal but so was the abuse they suffered as children. Not that people should necessarily get a pass to kill their abusers but in this case the killings were only considered not justified because they didn't occur close enough to the actual physical abuse. Perhaps the jurors should've considered that the emotional abuse never stopped.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Joimiaroxeu

[iMonrey]

Quote

Unlike this show where ... well ... it opened with the two boys with shotguns in their hands, killing their parents. No ambiguity there.

Comparing this to the OJ trial is like comparing apples and oranges. The guilt in the Menendez case was never in question - they confessed. The reason behind the murders is where the story is. With OJ, it was "did he do it?" There was no question of why - it was obvious why, assuming he was guilty. This is a completely different story. The ambiguity in this case lies in whether or not you believe the Menendez brothers and to what extent.

[movingtargetgal]

I believe Jose did abuse his sons and his wife.  The brothers were adults and could have gotten themselves away from their father, however they would have to give up the lifestyle that their father provided.  Let's say Jose did threatened their lives and they killed him in self defense,  why did they need to kill Kitty?.  They shot their mother at least 10 times and literally blew her face off.  Talk about overkill.  They killed Kitty because after they killed Jose, their mother stood between them and millions of dollars.  If they let Kitty live they would be left with nothing.  They are cold blooded murderers.

[Miles]

19 hours ago, Eolivet said:

Agree to disagree. They never showed him killing Nicole and Ron, they opened with him leaving the mansion. They never had him confessing to anyone that he did it or show any flashbacks that proved he did. The closest they came was Marcia Clark's breaking down the murder timeline with Chris Darden's friends at the bar. But you could, theoretically, walk away from People vs OJ and reach the same conclusion as the jury.

It was different, because he didn't confess. They let us draw our own conclusion but basically said outright "he is guilty as all hell" by like episode 3.

 

1 hour ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

That's pretty much my take too. Tnis seems to be more about Leslie than about the Menendez murders.

I mean they got Edie Falco. If I was a writer on this show I wouldn't have done anything differently.

 

1 hour ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

I too don't understand either why the brothers weren't given sentences that included the possibility of parole. Yes the murders were brutal but so was the abuse they suffered as children. Not that people should necessarily get a pass to kill their abusers but in this case the killings were only considered not justified because they didn't occur close enough to the actual physical abuse. Perhaps the jurors should've considered that the emotional abuse never stopped.

Afaik the jurors didn't even hear about the abuse in the second trail, because fuck defendants who can only afford a public defender, I guess.

 

7 minutes ago, movingtargetgal said:

I believe Jose did abuse his sons and his wife.  The brothers were adults and could have gotten themselves away from their father, however they would have to give up the lifestyle that their father provided.  Let's say Jose did threatened their lives and they killed him in self defense,  why did they need to kill Kitty?.  They shot their mother at least 10 times and literally blew her face off.  Talk about overkill.  They killed Kitty because after they killed Jose, their mother stood between them and millions of dollars.  If they let Kitty live they would be left with nothing.  They are cold blooded murderers.

Maybe they killed her because she stood idly by for over a decade while their father regularly raped them? Just a thought.

[MoreCoffeePlease]

Hey, all these actors have to pay the bills, you know.  That is why even A-listers do commercials and beauty ads.  Easy money.

One of the female lawyers was also on L&O Criminal Intent years ago, right?  I'll have to look it up.  She had short hair when on Criminal Intent.

[WendyCR72]

59 minutes ago, MoreCoffeePlease said:

One of the female lawyers was also on L&O Criminal Intent years ago, right?  I'll have to look it up.  She had short hair when on Criminal Intent.

Julianne Nicholson. She played Det. Megan Wheeler (Logan's partner) on L&O: CI.

[CelticBlackCat]

55 minutes ago, MoreCoffeePlease said:

Hey, all these actors have to pay the bills, you know.  That is why even A-listers do commercials and beauty ads.  Easy money.

One of the female lawyers was also on L&O Criminal Intent years ago, right?  I'll have to look it up.  She had short hair when on Criminal Intent.

Yes, her name is Julianne Nicholson and she played Det. Megan Wheeler on L&O:CI with Vincent D'Onofrio.  I miss that show and I like both actors!

[shapeshifter]

6 hours ago, Miles said:

7 hours ago, movingtargetgal said:

I believe Jose did abuse his sons and his wife.  The brothers were adults and could have gotten themselves away from their father, however they would have to give up the lifestyle that their father provided.  Let's say Jose did threatened their lives and they killed him in self defense,  why did they need to kill Kitty?.  They shot their mother at least 10 times and literally blew her face off.  Talk about overkill.  They killed Kitty because after they killed Jose, their mother stood between them and millions of dollars.  If they let Kitty live they would be left with nothing.  They are cold blooded murderers.

Maybe they killed her because she stood idly by for over a decade while their father regularly raped them? Just a thought.

Yes. Posters on various boards commonly preface their comments with "everything I know about the law I learned from L&O." Well, looking back on this case and the Harvey Weinstein cases and my own unprosecutable cases from decades ago (not remotely related to the Menendez case), I can now say that everything is 20/20 in hindsight with "everything I learned from L&O SVU," including that victims of child abuse blame the enabler—sometimes even more than the abuser, especially if the enabler refused to believe it was happening when confronted. With the 20/20 vision of countless hours of SVU cases, any 21st century defense attorney could have probably at least had the brothers incarcerated in a psychiatric facility.

[movingtargetgal]

59 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Maybe they killed her because she stood idly by for over a decade while their father regularly raped them? Just a thought.

The fact that they planned to commit the murders when Kitty was with Jose tells me that their main motive for the murders was for money.  They could have killed Jose when Kitty was not at home, but then SHE would have inherited all the money.

Kitty should have done something to help her sons there are no excuses for that.  However, Jose was extremely controlling and had mentally and physically beaten her down over the years and most likely felt she was powerless to help herself or the boys. Both she and her sons were completely dominated by Jose.  I am not making excuses I am just acknowledging the family dynamics.   

I am a child abuse survivor and I empathize with other victims of childhood abuse.  The brothers did not kill their parents in self-defense. they were adults and were free to walk away from their abusers. They killed their parents for money and used an abuse excuse to try to get away with it.  The brothers using their victimhood to justify murder for profit is an insult to every survivor of child abuse.

[iMonrey]

Quote

The fact that they planned to commit the murders when Kitty was with Jose tells me that their main motive for the murders was for money.  They could have killed Jose when Kitty was not at home, but then SHE would have inherited all the money.

Yes but that doesn't mean they weren't mentally disturbed. Mentally disturbed people plan things all the time. Both of these boys were broken. It's easy to see how they could blame their mother (as an enabler) just as much as their father. I do think when they found out Jose was changing his will it was the final straw but that doesn't negate any of the abuse or their mental state. You can't say "Oh well sure they were abused but they could have just walked away!" You are projecting and expecting mentally broken people to behave in a rational way after a lifetime of crazy abuse. That's not a reasonable expectation.

[movingtargetgal]

Yes the brothers are mentally broken, I agree on that.  However, they are still responsible for their actions.  Sociopaths are disturbed individuals but that does not mean they are not responsible for their criminal behavior.  Unfortunately the brothers are not unique.  There are millions of children and adult survivors of sexual abuse and it is a sickening fact.  What sets the brothers apart from most victims is that they used their abuse as an excuse to murder their parents .... for profit.   They knew right from wrong.  These two men could have walked away.  Many survivors of sexual and/or domestic violence walk away everyday and with far fewer resources and financial support than these grown men.  The brothers would not be penniless and living on the streets or in shelters.  Their reasons for killing their parents was more about Jose changing his will that it was about abuse.   

 

There are some people who are sexually abused as children who grow up and become abusers themselves.  They are mentally broken but that does not mean that their crimes against others are excused.  When caught they (hopefully) go to prison.  People make choices in their lives.  Some survivors of abuse become criminals and use their "victimhood" as an excuse for their crimes.  The brothers are right where they belong. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

There are some people who are sexually abused as children who grow up and become abusers themselves.  They are mentally broken but that does not mean that their crimes against others are excused.  

Nobody is saying their crimes were excusable or justified. All I'm saying is there's a reason why they killed their parents, and it's not just "they were spoiled and wanted money." There's way more to it than that. They weren't using the abuse as an "excuse," they were using it as an explanation. There's a difference. I've never argued money wasn't a motive, I'm only saying there's more to it than that.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Heather Graham discusses "Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders" on Build:
 

Edited October 31, 2017 by ElectricBoogaloo

[shapeshifter]

The bit in the cemetery with Leslie Abramson correcting the couple about sexual child abuse being worse than murder, followed by her father's support, was worth the price of the ticket, I guess.

[Miles]

On 22.10.2017 at 1:13 AM, movingtargetgal said:

People make choices in their lives.

To be honest I don't believe that. We are biological machines and our actions are determined by our genes and experiences. There are neurological studies that show that we react/act first and then second rationalise an explaination for why we acted that way.

There are also experiments with people who have a split brain, where one side of the brain can not communicate with the other, yet when one side of the brain does something the other will rationalise a reason. You show the non-verbal side a card with "pick up the bana" on it, when it picks it up, you ask the verbal side why it did that and it will tell you "I was hungry" and that side will believe it wholeheartedly, never knowing about the card with the text. That shows that we are great at rationalising our actions, even if they are anything but.

 

But even if you think that I'm crazy and of course people have free will and do make decisions all the time. Don't you think it makes a difference why people kill? If so do you think we shouldn't have three distinct categories (four if you count self defence)? Should we just have murder in the 1st and to the gas chambers with all of them? Or are murder in the 2nd and manslaughter a usefull construct? If so, when should those be used if not in a case like this?

[CelticBlackCat]

There was too much of Lyle and Erik's premeditation and planning for these two murders to be anything but first degree murder in the State of California.

Edited October 25, 2017 by CelticBlackCat

[CelticBlackCat]

Exactly.  That woman had no business talking to Leslie like that right after she literally buried her mother.  I shouted, "Good for you Mr.  ... Daddy!" when Leslie's father defended her!

[Miles]

1 hour ago, CelticBlackCat said:

There was too much of Lyle and Erik's premeditation and planning for these two murders to be anything but first degree murder in the State of California.

It seems weird to me that there wouldn't be some kind of contingency for diminished capacity in the law, which this clearly constitutes, imo. But then again, as I said before, I don't know enough about laws in the US and specifically California.

[Jodithgrace]

What is it with that judge? He does seem patently unfair to the Defense. Those little asides to the potential jury, for example, and cutting off half of the defense witnesses. I don't know enough about the history of this case to know what that is all about. He seems like a pretty bad judge, to me. And by mentioning Rodney King, I think the show is presenting him that way, too. 

Kitty Menendez seemed incapable of maternal love, even when the boys were little, so of course, she didn't defend them from their father's abuse and even did it herself. (though the show seems to have forgotten about that part) Eric claimed that his mother was suicidal and he felt sorry for her and hers was a "mercy killing, " but that I seriously doubt. I think he killed her because she never gave a damn about him and enabled their father's abuse. 

[CelticBlackCat]

In the first trial the defense tried to include all the abuse history they could, as we saw from this episode, some of which was struck down by the judge.  The second trial fared worse for the defense in that regard; the jury was not allowed to hear about any abuse allegations.

[iMonrey]

Quote

The bit in the cemetery with Leslie Abramson correcting the couple about sexual child abuse being worse than murder, followed by her father's support, was worth the price of the ticket, I guess.

I also think it sums up the most prevalent reaction to the Menendez case in a nutshell. Some people are just so horrified by the thought of a child killing their parent they can't see anything beyond it. There's a lot of projecting when it comes to this case. I think people imagine their own children killing them, or imagine themselves killing their parents, and can't conceive of such a horror unless someone was just purely evil. And I think that speaks to the fact that most people neither abuse their children nor were abused by their parents and the thought of it is so alien they don't even believe it's possible.

There's also this "honor thy mother and father" cultural meme that's ingrained in most people to the extent that they can't even conceive of any exceptions to it.

I just think as soon as people hear that kids killed their parents, their brains shut down and they stop hearing anything after that. Especially in this case when the family is rich and the media is selling a simplified, black and white, easily digestible story about spoiled kids who wanted money.

But Leslie raised a crucial point in her address to the jury. What do people say about kids who kill their parents when they're poor? 

[helenamonster]

This might have been addressed in the show but I missed it/forgot about it: why do Lyle and Erik have separate juries even though they're being tried together? I don't think I've ever seen that before. I've seen coconspirators tried in separate trials with separate juries and coconspirators tried together with one jury who were responsible for bringing back verdicts on separate charges, but I don't think I've ever seen it like this. What is the precedent for it? Is it a California/state-level thing or does it happen everywhere? Does it still happen? I find it so bizarre.

In general the courtroom scenes have been really good. I'm not exactly taking up a torch for Lyle and Erik but watching their friends lie (and lie so terribly...that one guy who was recorded saying that Lyle told him about Jose's abuse and still denied saying it as the recording was playing, what was that about?) was so angry-making. No one's denying they killed their parents at this point, just tell the truth and let the jury decide if it's legit.

Oziel is such a snake. Josh Charles is doing really well with the part, he gives me the heebie jeebies. I feel bad for anyone who had him as a therapist. $1300 for showing up uninvited to extend condolences? That is the height of quackery.

And then there's the judge. Making cracks about Abramson's appearance...in literally what reality is that remotely acceptable behavior? I wonder if he and Lance Ito were buddies.

[meep.meep]

2 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I just think as soon as people hear that kids killed their parents, their brains shut down and they stop hearing anything after that. Especially in this case when the family is rich and the media is selling a simplified, black and white, easily digestible story about spoiled kids who wanted money.

But Leslie raised a crucial point in her address to the jury. What do people say about kids who kill their parents when they're poor? 

A really big part of how they were perceived was the trial for the Billionaire Boys Club like the year before.  People were seeing the Menendez's through that lens.

I'm only watching this because I didn't pay attention to their trial when it was going on, and kinda wanted to find out what it was all about.  I keep finding myself muttering "just convict them already."  

[Scarlett45]

5 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I also think it sums up the most prevalent reaction to the Menendez case in a nutshell. Some people are just so horrified by the thought of a child killing their parent they can't see anything beyond it. There's a lot of projecting when it comes to this case. I think people imagine their own children killing them, or imagine themselves killing their parents, and can't conceive of such a horror unless someone was just purely evil. And I think that speaks to the fact that most people neither abuse their children nor were abused by their parents and the thought of it is so alien they don't even believe it's possible.

There's also this "honor thy mother and father" cultural meme that's ingrained in most people to the extent that they can't even conceive of any exceptions to it.

I just think as soon as people hear that kids killed their parents, their brains shut down and they stop hearing anything after that. Especially in this case when the family is rich and the media is selling a simplified, black and white, easily digestible story about spoiled kids who wanted money.

But Leslie raised a crucial point in her address to the jury. What do people say about kids who kill their parents when they're poor? 

I think a lot of it had to do with jealousy around the boys wealthy upbringing and their anger about being cut out of the will. 

IMO (on a moral level not a legal level), the Mendez parents death was more mercy than they deserved after the years of rape and mental torture they inflicted upon their sons.

I do also think because most children abused by their parents or rape victims don't kill their rapists, there's the "well other people survived things like that and didn't kill anyone- you're just greedy."  

Edited October 25, 2017 by Scarlett45

[wknt3]

5 hours ago, helenamonster said:

This might have been addressed in the show but I missed it/forgot about it: why do Lyle and Erik have separate juries even though they're being tried together? I don't think I've ever seen that before. I've seen coconspirators tried in separate trials with separate juries and coconspirators tried together with one jury who were responsible for bringing back verdicts on separate charges, but I don't think I've ever seen it like this. What is the precedent for it? Is it a California/state-level thing or does it happen everywhere? Does it still happen? I find it so bizarre.

 

Here is the explanation from coverage of the trial. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/20/us/sometimes-two-juries-are-better-than-one.html

Short answer is it's not just a California thing, not common, but not unique at all, and IANAL, but a cursory search shows it still happens and I imagine it will unless those who wish to overrule every precedent protecting defendants' rights concerning admissibility of evidence prevail. I don't imagine we will see it on legal dramas any time soon as it means hiring more extras, building another jury box and making the director's life more complicated with extra camera angles and using parts of the set that are never on camera without adding anything to the story.

[captain1]

Is t just me, or does Leslie Abramson’s kitchen look NOTHING like an 80’s kitchen with its granite countertops and fancy faucets?  It takes me right out of the story.

[shapeshifter]

7 hours ago, helenamonster said:

And then there's the judge. Making cracks about Abramson's appearance...in literally what reality is that remotely acceptable behavior?

Sign of the times? 

[sweetandsour]

On 10/19/2017 at 11:43 AM, Miles said:

Maybe they killed her because she stood idly by for over a decade while their father regularly raped them? Just a thought.

I definitely understand this perspective, but I'm not sure how the defense would have fit this into their "imperfect self-defense" and I don't remember who exactly the brothers were allegedly afraid would kill them. Certainly Jose. But did they say the same about Kitty, or could they try to prove the same about Kitty? Complicit enabler, yes, but if they didn't have a fairly feasible reason to unreasonably believe she would try to kill them, too, then gunning her down was not imperfect self-defense, was it? It was murder for another reason, whether premeditated or not. And if they couldn't demonstrate that they had reasonably expected Jose to be alone when they went to kill only the person they feared in imperfect self-defense - except Kitty happened to be there and they killed her, too - how exactly does that work in their imperfect self-defense case?

They touched on it briefly, but I wonder how the inheritance really passed. A couple of the male characters (Kitty's brothers?) had said that since Jose died first, his assets flowed to Kitty, and then when she died very shortly after, the assets she inherited from Jose would have flowed to her family, not her sons. I'm not sure if Kitty had a separate will from Jose's deleted one, and even if she did, would the assets would have flowed in that two-step sequence? If the brothers really had killed for the money, they would be pisssssssed.

[CelticBlackCat]

The Menendez Brothers were planning on getting away with murder with the fake Mafia mob hitman being the culprit.  That way both parents are out of the way and the money goes to them but I don't think they realized there could be a determination made of who died first, Jose or Kitty.

[CelticBlackCat]

Male judges used to make comments about female attorneys in court all the time.  They wanted to be the standard bearers for what women should look like.

[roughing it]

17 hours ago, captain1 said:

Is t just me, or does Leslie Abramson’s kitchen look NOTHING like an 80’s kitchen with its granite countertops and fancy faucets?  It takes me right out of the story.

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.

The judge certainly isn't having any of Leslie Abramson.  She is quite brash.  I wonder had she toned her approach down some, if more things would have gone her way.  I wonder what Lisa? (Lyle's attorney) thinks of Leslie's style.  She seems to cringe at some of Leslie's outburts.

[shapeshifter]

10 hours ago, CelticBlackCat said:

Male judges used to make comments about female attorneys in court all the time.  They wanted to be the standard bearers for what women should look like.

I assume that the judge's dismissive attitude towards the child sex abuse defense was also supposed to be representative of the times—but does this show accentuate the judge's dated behavior, or does it mirror it pretty accurately? (I didn't see the original trial.)

[MoreCoffeePlease]

Edie Falco's wide-open eyes as she portrays Leslie ... is that an acting choice or did she have work done? 

I appreciated that the cousin confronted Kitty right away about the abuse when Lyle or Eric (can't keep them straight) told her about it, but was that it?  She didn't tell anybody else?

[kilda]

On 10/25/2017 at 1:15 PM, iMonrey said:

I also think it sums up the most prevalent reaction to the Menendez case in a nutshell. Some people are just so horrified by the thought of a child killing their parent they can't see anything beyond it. There's a lot of projecting when it comes to this case. I think people imagine their own children killing them, or imagine themselves killing their parents, and can't conceive of such a horror unless someone was just purely evil. And I think that speaks to the fact that most people neither abuse their children nor were abused by their parents and the thought of it is so alien they don't even believe it's possible.

You're right, but what I find interesting is that the projecting goes two ways.  Some people assume the murder proves the kids were evil - and some people assume it proves the parents were evil.  Evil patricidal monsters, or evil child abusing monsters?  As you say, we can't conceive of such a thing happening unless someone was just purely evil.  But which side here is projecting, and which side is right?  No way to know, is there?

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?

[iMonrey]

Quote

Is t just me, or does Leslie Abramson’s kitchen look NOTHING like an 80’s kitchen with its granite countertops and fancy faucets?  It takes me right out of the story.

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. 

[Scarlett45]

18 hours ago, sweetandsour said:

I definitely understand this perspective, but I'm not sure how the defense would have fit this into their "imperfect self-defense" and I don't remember who exactly the brothers were allegedly afraid would kill them. Certainly Jose. But did they say the same about Kitty, or could they try to prove the same about Kitty? Complicit enabler, yes, but if they didn't have a fairly feasible reason to unreasonably believe she would try to kill them, too, then gunning her down was not imperfect self-defense, was it? It was murder for another reason, whether premeditated or not. And if they couldn't demonstrate that they had reasonably expected Jose to be alone when they went to kill only the person they feared in imperfect self-defense - except Kitty happened to be there and they killed her, too - how exactly does that work in their imperfect self-defense case?

They touched on it briefly, but I wonder how the inheritance really passed. A couple of the male characters (Kitty's brothers?) had said that since Jose died first, his assets flowed to Kitty, and then when she died very shortly after, the assets she inherited from Jose would have flowed to her family, not her sons. I'm not sure if Kitty had a separate will from Jose's deleted one, and even if she did, would the assets would have flowed in that two-step sequence? If the brothers really had killed for the money, they would be pisssssssed.

In the state of IL most wills have clauses stating inheritance based on "survival 30 days after my death"; these clauses starting getting written into wills when planes, trains and buses made "who died first" a question of inheritance. I don't know why this hasn't been discussed! Basic law school wills and trusts question. 

IMO legally it should be treated as if Kitty and Jose died and the same time and the will read that way.....but I'm not an estate planning attorney (I am an attorney though). 

Edited October 26, 2017 by Scarlett45

[LGGirl]

I often wonder if there would have been a different outcome if the trial happened now?   I could see convicting Lyle because he was clearly the mastermind but not so sure about Eric.  

[FozzyBear]

On 10/25/2017 at 3:54 PM, Scarlett45 said:

I think a lot of it had to do with jealousy around the boys wealthy upbringing and their anger about being cut out of the will. 

IMO (on a moral level not a legal level), the Mendez parents death was more mercy than they deserved after the years of rape and mental torture they inflicted upon their sons.

I do also think because most children abused by their parents or rape victims don't kill their rapists, there's the "well other people survived things like that and didn't kill anyone- you're just greedy."  

I also think their ages played into the lack of sympathy. I think a lot of people thought that since they were legal adults they should have just walked away and the reason they didn’t was the money.

[Scarlett45]

Just now, FozzyBear said:

I also think their ages played into the lack of sympathy. I think a lot of people thought that since they were legal adults they should have just walked away and the reason they didn’t was the money.

Yes I agree with you. Had they been younger teens 14-16, people may have had more sympathy for them. 

[FozzyBear]

24 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

Yes I agree with you. Had they been younger teens 14-16, people may have had more sympathy for them. 

I also think Eric might have been a more sympathetic victim by himself. He was still in high school and living at home and didn’t really have a big motive outside of the abuse. He was going to UCLA. Was a competitive tennis player. Seemed like a good kid with supportive parents.There really wasn’t a reason for him to off his parents that made a ton of sense until you brought up the abuse. Lyle was a tougher sell. Getting kicked out of collage and he just seemed like kind of a shallow, spoiled shit. I think it was easy for people to assume that Jose was going to cut Lyle off after the Princeton cheating fiasco so Lyle decided he’d rather get an  inheritance then a job and he dragged Eric along with either made-up or exaggerated claims of abuse. Lyle is the one with a motive, not Eric. 

[biakbiak]

On Thursday, October 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.

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

[biakbiak]

22 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I'm not sure if Kitty had a separate will from Jose's deleted one, a

Also, was it discussed why she wouldn't have left her sons anything?

[hilaryvm]

Quote

IMO legally it should be treated as if Kitty and Jose died and the same time and the will read that way.....but I'm not an estate planning attorney (I am an attorney though). 

Not an estate attorney but also an attorney.  Most wills I've seen now state "if we both die together" or something along those lines.  As in, I leave everything to my husband but if he dies before me, or we die together, then leave everything to x.

Quote

Also, was it discussed why she wouldn't have left her sons anything?

This wasn't discussed, but if she didn't have a will, or had one before the boys were born, the boys would automatically inherit.  I know that if you murder someone you don't get to benefit from that, so that's why Kitty's family believed they would get it, but it was all a bit unclear what happened with the inheritance situation.

As for the abuse being admitted as evidence, if the judge in the second case didn't believe their abuse amounted to self-defense, then there was no reason to admit the evidence; it would have been more prejudicial than probative to the jury (basically, it's evidence the parents were bad people and deserved to die - again, assuming the self-defense theory wasn't allowed).  It really doesn't matter why they did it if they can't claim self-defense and didn't argue insanity or something along those lines.

[shapeshifter]

5 hours ago, hilaryvm said:

and didn't argue insanity or something along those lines.

Was this never considered as a defense strategy by Leslie?

[CelticBlackCat]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

Was this never considered as a defense strategy by Leslie?

Two brothers who go insane at the same time?  Not likely.  Leslie probably did the best she could with what she had as well as the other defense attorney.

[RedheadZombie]

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.