Law & Order: True Crime - General Discussion

[Miles]

It being illegal doesn't make any sense. If it was the vote wouldn't stand and juries who do this would be put on trail. Do you have a source for it actually being illegal?

If it's morally wrong, I guess ymmv.

[Miles]

10 hours ago, RedheadZombie said:

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.

She doesn't look or act like that in her other shows. She is just channeling Abromson here. It's called acting.

5 hours 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.

It was pretty clear that what she did there was immoral or even outright illegal. Not sure what your problem is with that.

Still if only half of what the judge and prosecution got up to, as shown on this show, happened in real life, that was a shitshow of epic proportion.

Also know why we give defense attourneys more slack than the prosecution or especially judges? Because they aren't the ones in power. They don't have the might of the state behind them.

5 hours ago, Ailianna said:

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. 

She said as long as the mother is alive. Doubt she still is. Could obviously be completely fabricated. It's not a documentary afterall. You'd need to ask Marta.

5 hours ago, Ailianna said:

Likewise the lunch conversation between the two cops.  Complete fabrication

You mean this random conversation between these random cops eating some random food after the trail didn't happen exactly that way? Say it ain't so!

It was clearly a representation to show that even amoung those cops some doubt had settled in. If that's true, I don't know, but I don't think anybody believes that this conversation ever actually happened.

[rwgrab]

11 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.

 

3 hours ago, Ailianna said:

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. 

Yes to all of this!  My problem is that the show portrayed her behavior as if she's one woman fighting against "the system" trying to bring her clients down.  Like she's just a mom doing her job and the system is just so hellbent on convicting somebody that they'll do anything to hobble the defense to do it.  At the end of the day, she just goes home to her family just like any other working person.  Or...she's a highly-paid lawyer who used every diversionary tactic available to her to keep attention away from the guilt of her wealthy clients.

That incident with the notes is a big deal, not some personal attack.  Leslie thought she could get away with it and she got busted.  The judge didn't take away her ability to defend her clients; she attempted to clean up some things that didn't look so good for her side.  I know the whole series has been slanted toward Abramson, but for the show to take the opinion that she was within her rights to do that really was a bridge too far...

...until the next scene where the police officers seem to consider that yeah, they were totally abused after all.  Um, that makes zero sense to me based on what we've seen of them thus far.  

[wknt3]

A couple of opposing POVs on the series (and the case itself) I think both articles have some issues of accuracy and bias themselves, but I found them interesting if only as a demonstration of how much passion the case still arouses after all these years.

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/law-order-true-crime-menendez-murders-biggest-lies-1202615500/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/pdominguez/the-right-time-to-revisit-the-menendez-murders?utm_term=.dpE84GLrQ#.tyzYBDWoP

[shapeshifter]

As someone not previously familiar with the details of the case, I'm left confused about what was fiction and what was not. If the confiding by Kitty and José's sisters that they were both victims of incest was based solely on speculation, fine. And if it was based on reality, also fine with me. But is there a podcast (as someone upthread mentioned) that specifically addresses this? If so, I really don't want to listen to a whole podcast, so, is there a transcript or something I can skim?

[Ailianna]

There is no appeal in the US for an acquittal, and juries don't give a reason in court.  They just say guilty or not guilty.  As for a source, 15 years in criminal law, and the oath that jurors take.

Here's the California rule.  So, yeah. It's illegal.  It's not prosecutable, but it's illegal.  Not every illegal thing is a crime.  

[MaggieG]

I know many women do it (not trying to offend anyone) but I will never understand why you would want to marry a man in prison, especially a man who will probably never be released. I probably shouldn't have but I laughed hysterically at the "you may kiss your bride in your mind's eye" line after Anna and Lyle had their phone ceremony.

[punkypower]

He and Anna divorced in 2001 and he married someone else about 2 years later.

[Razzberry]

From Variety: The 7 Biggest Mistakes in ‘Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders’

"Dick Wolf has broken my heart with his first venture into true crime, “Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders,” which ended on Tuesday night. The “L&O” franchise has always been my favorite procedural series, but this miniseries takes the “true” out of true crime.  Yes, we are warned that characters and events may have been changed, but the creators should not have been allowed to alter the facts of the crime."

article continues here:

Menendez Murders - Biggest Lies
 

[toodles]

2 hours ago, Razzberry said:

From Variety: The 7 Biggest Mistakes in ‘Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders’

"Dick Wolf has broken my heart with his first venture into true crime, “Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders,” which ended on Tuesday night. The “L&O” franchise has always been my favorite procedural series, but this miniseries takes the “true” out of true crime.  Yes, we are warned that characters and events may have been changed, but the creators should not have been allowed to alter the facts of the crime."

article continues here:

Menendez Murders - Biggest Lies
 

This is why I had so many problems with this series.  I was looking forward to watching this.  It was WAY too one sided to me and WAY too much Leslie.  I doubt I'll watch if there is another one.

[WendyCR72]

I think the only way a new iteration of this series can work is if no "get" names are cast. And go back to the two-sides kind of storytelling that all three fictional series did well at.

Because falling for a certain "big" actor is, as was seen, a danger, and can become a showpiece for the actor rather than tell a coherent story.

[RedheadZombie]

8 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

As someone not previously familiar with the details of the case, I'm left confused about what was fiction and what was not. If the confiding by Kitty and José's sisters that they were both victims of incest was based solely on speculation, fine. And if it was based on reality, also fine with me. But is there a podcast (as someone upthread mentioned) that specifically addresses this? If so, I really don't want to listen to a whole podcast, so, is there a transcript or something I can skim?

That was a bridge too far for me.  Accusing an old woman of molesting her five year old son, thus being the cause of her son's horrific abuse of his own children, and therefore bringing about her own son's murder - revolting.  This wasn't speculation.  This was putting those words in Jose's sister's mouth.  If this did not occur, I hope NBC and the producers of this show have to pay big.

4 hours ago, MaggieG said:

I know many women do it (not trying to offend anyone) but I will never understand why you would want to marry a man in prison, especially a man who will probably never be released. I probably shouldn't have but I laughed hysterically at the "you may kiss your bride in your mind's eye" line after Anna and Lyle had their phone ceremony.

It was hysterical.  How about Leslie's quivering lips and tear-filled eyes?  She's all about love, y'all.  She's mother earth.

[CelticBlackCat]

1 hour ago, toodles said:

This is why I had so many problems with this series.  I was looking forward to watching this.  It was WAY too one sided to me and WAY too much Leslie.  I doubt I'll watch if there is another one.

Interesting article by Ms. Shelley Ross.  Also interesting comments which refutes some of what she asserts as being lies.

[FozzyBear]

I liked this series ok, well enough to tune in for S2 if it happens, but I didn’t like all of it and I didn’t like this episode. I felt like the series almost got there but then this episode showed it’s fatale flaw: it didn’t really have a strong point of view.

American Crime Story did a great job of being entertaining while also showing why we should still care about the OJ case. As someone who was a teenager and remembers all the hoopla but wasn’t into it at the time, ACS did a great job of drawing a line for me of how the OJ case influenced how we talk and think about a bunch of stuff from the 24 hour news cycle, to the expectations of women in the workforce, to trust in PD, to the problems with color blind racial attitudes. The show had a strong point of view that the OJ case was one of the major cultural events where all these treads were coming together in a way that couldn’t be ignored anymore. I could see why the show existed and why I should care.

With Law & Order True Crime, not so much. There wasn’t a clear point of view about why this case still matters. There was stuff that almost got there (how we talk about sex abuse, the way a male mode of behavior is considered the default “professional” way to behave, media cycles and how it matters if you’re in the sympathetic part or the backlash part), but ultimately it just sort of dropped these ideas in from time to time without anything interesting to say about them.  It was like the Seinfeld of drama TV (what’s the deal with not believing victims of sex abuse?), all setup, no punchline.

[SarahPrtr]

On 10/28/2017 at 3:09 AM, Scarlett45 said:

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

Which is why the defense 'renamed' Lyle and Erik and started referring to them as The Menendez Boys, instead of The Menendez Brothers.  By calling them 'boys', they would seem like they were young teenage boys and more juvenile.

[tvfanatic13]

I know that people think that this was too Abrams-centric, but the judge came across as such an ass that I actually hated Anthony Edwards for a bit. YMMV. Nowhere near the level of People vs. OJS though. 

Edited November 18, 2017 by tvfanatic13
Because thought and though mean two different things!

[Sweet-tea]

On 11/16/2017 at 11:26 AM, Razzberry said:

From Variety: The 7 Biggest Mistakes in ‘Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders’

"Dick Wolf has broken my heart with his first venture into true crime, “Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders,” which ended on Tuesday night. The “L&O” franchise has always been my favorite procedural series, but this miniseries takes the “true” out of true crime.  Yes, we are warned that characters and events may have been changed, but the creators should not have been allowed to alter the facts of the crime."

article continues here:

Menendez Murders - Biggest Lies
 

Interesting article, but the reporter is getting hammered in the comments. Many don't find her credible as she didn't even get the details of the show correct. Ex: Final scene--it was the mother who apparently molested Jose. 

I agree with her description of how saintly Abramson was portrayed though. 

Edited November 18, 2017 by Sweet-tea

[Joimiaroxeu]

After this episode I think Lyle is guilty AF but I think Erik was mostly a victim of Lyle's malevolent influence. However, that second trial was a travesty. The verdicts were mostly the result of OJ walking after his murder trial, LA city hall politics, and an unabashedly incompetent, hostile, and biased judge. At the very least I think the Menendez brothers should've gotten sentences which included the chance for parole after 20 or 30 years.

If NBC thinks this series is going to compete with the recent cable shows that took on the OJ trial, they're sadly mistaken, IMO. Has Dick Wolf lost his touch?

[ClareWalks]

My lasting impression of this finale is I feel bad that the brothers are in separate prisons. It would have been a small kindness to keep them together, even if they'd only see each other in the yard or at meals sometimes.

[shapeshifter]

25 minutes ago, ClareWalks said:

My lasting impression of this finale is I feel bad that the brothers are in separate prisons. It would have been a small kindness to keep them together, even if they'd only see each other in the yard or at meals sometimes.

Although the separation was likely intended to deprive the brothers of any possible comfort they might derive from each other, I wonder if it might have ultimately been more healing for them to be removed from the reminder of a painful past. I'm not a therapist, so I could be way off base with this speculation.

[ClareWalks]

9 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Although the separation was likely intended to deprive the brothers of any possible comfort they might derive from each other, I wonder if it might have ultimately been more healing for them to be removed from the reminder of a painful past. I'm not a therapist, so I could be way off base with this speculation.

Good point, I wish there had been some mention of how they felt about the separation.

[FozzyBear]

Aren’t co-conspirators usually sent to separate prisons?

[wallofsound]

I can’t believe Leslie went into judge’s chambers at the very end after all of that animosity between her & Weisburg to ask if he’d accommodate Lyle, Erik & the girlfriend for a quickie wedding ceremony.   What in the hell did she think he’d say?  “No problem, Leslie.   How can I help?”   She’s like a dog with a bone, just bull dozing everyone to get her way.  

 Everything I’ve read about the trial lately paints her out to be an unethical liar, so this whitewash of her that Law & Order gave us just felt so forced and deliberate.  Those altered transcripts were a really big deal.   She coached and most likely coerced that witness to change everything to support the defense’s case.  You can’t do that.  It wasn’t a simple ommision of the word ‘thought’, as she said in the episode.  

 

Totally random observation - but I saw some footage of ‘the boys’ first courtroom appearance where they wore those dark Armani suits. They kind of sauntered in like they owned the place.   They presented such a different vibe and aura than later when they were hunched over in their pastel sweaters.   They looked very, very mature and cocky, of course.    

[shapeshifter]

On November 16, 2017 at 5:38 AM, wknt3 said:

A couple of opposing POVs on the series (and the case itself) I think both articles have some issues of accuracy and bias themselves, but I found them interesting if only as a demonstration of how much passion the case still arouses after all these years.

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/law-order-true-crime-menendez-murders-biggest-lies-1202615500/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/pdominguez/the-right-time-to-revisit-the-menendez-murders?utm_term=.dpE84GLrQ#.tyzYBDWoP

Reading these articles and the comments section for the Variety article lead me to conclude that the focus of this series on the abuse of the brothers was probably intended to fill a vacancy in the coverage to date. Unfortunately, for those of us having only the slightest previous knowledge of the case, the series felt lacking in the perspective of the "abuse excuse" faction.

This scholarly article, Framing Child Sexual Abuse: A Longitudinal Content Analysis of Newspaper and Television Coverage, 2002–2012, tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10538712.2016.1257528, does not mention or cite earlier articles that mention the Menendez case, presumably because the case has not been publicized as being about abuse.

Edited November 19, 2017 by shapeshifter

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, wallofsound said:

Totally random observation - but I saw some footage of ‘the boys’ first courtroom appearance where they wore those dark Armani suits. They kind of sauntered in like they owned the place.   They presented such a different vibe and aura than later when they were hunched over in their pastel sweaters.   They looked very, very mature and cocky, of course.    

But were they really mature? Reading this comment reminded me of a friend of mine from the 80s whom I've long since lost track of. She was sexually abused by her father and wound up marrying an excon with whom she had corresponded while he was incarcerated. It didn't work out, and towards the end of her marriage she had latched onto some pop psychology of the time that claimed adults could be emotionally as young as 4 or 5 years old.

I started doing a little research in the PyscINFO and PubMed databases to see if there was any credibility to this theory, especially as it would relate to the possible "emotional ages" of the Menendez brothers (assuming the reported abuse was accurate). If they were emotionally children, then Leslie Abramson's references to "the boys" would have been warranted. I'm sorry to say I have not yet determined either the validity or bogus-ness of "emotional age" of adults, but there's quite a bit on attachment disorders among victims of abuse.

 I did find an interesting article on the media and coverage of child sexual abuse cases: Framing Child Sexual Abuse: A Longitudinal Content Analysis of Newspaper and Television Coverage, 2002–2012, tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10538712.2016.1257528, which does not mention the Menendez case or cite earlier articles that mention the case, presumably because it has not been publicized as being about abuse.

Edited November 19, 2017 by shapeshifter

[Ailianna]

2 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

 I did find an interesting article on the media and coverage of child sexual abuse cases: Framing Child Sexual Abuse: A Longitudinal Content Analysis of Newspaper and Television Coverage, 2002–2012, tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10538712.2016.1257528, which does not mention the Menendez case or cite earlier articles that mention the case, presumably because it has not been publicized as being about abuse.

Or the Menendez trials didn't take place during the years covered in the article, which indicates it covers 2002-2012.

[shapeshifter]

38 minutes ago, Ailianna said:

Or the Menendez trials didn't take place during the years covered in the article, which indicates it covers 2002-2012.

Yes, but the other, earlier articles referenced by this article don't mention the case either.
For example:
Cheit, R., Shavit, Y., & Reiss-Davis, Z. (2010). Magazine coverage of child sexual abuse, 1992–2004. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(1), 99–117. doi:10.1080/10538710903485575 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ross_Cheit/publication/269548278_Television_Newsmagazine_Coverage_of_Child_Sexual_Abuse_1990-2005/links/570ba2b108ae8883a1ffd075.pdf
and:
Beckett, K. (1996). Culture and the politics of signification: The case of child sexual abuse. Social Problems, 43(1), 57–76. doi:10.2307/3096894 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Katherine_Beckett/publication/249985363_Culture_and_the_Politics_of_Signification_The_Case_of_Child_Sexual_Abuse/links/596fc1a4a6fdccc6c96c1407/Culture-and-the-Politics-of-Signification-The-Case-of-Child-Sexual-Abuse.pdf
 

[SarahPrtr]

On 10/5/2017 at 5:15 AM, kilda said:

seriously.  those are the kind of decisions he makes in his own life and he's supposed to help other people be healthy and make good decisions?  jeez.

no, he's violating confidentiality if he turns them in.  A therapist has what's called "duty to warn" if they think a patient poses a danger to someone, but that means telling the possible victim, not telling the authorities.  So if Eric had come to him and said "we're planning to kill mom and dad," he would have been obligated to contact the parents and tell them.  In this situation, since it was too late to warn the parents, there would be no justification for him to break confidentiality.  

I didn't know the full story of Dr Oziel and how whacked out Judalon was.  First of all, I thought Dr Oziel was a single man who was dating Judalon.  Didn't know that he was married with kids. Second, I thought that he was threatened by Lyle and feared for his life, so he decided to tell someone close to him - in this case, his (crazy) mistress - in case he was killed.  Not what actually happened, which is, he violated every single  ethics and moral code of conduct and did terrible things to every single person close to him.

 

There was a show a few years ago called 'Murder Made Me Famous' which had this case in one of the episodes. They didn't mention how crazy Judalon was or how unethical the psychiatrist was.  They actually had Judalon on the show.

[punkypower]

According to the Variety article in the Episode 8 thread, Judalon was not whacked out and did nothing of those things.

Edited November 19, 2017 by punkypower
Because article and thread may be related when it comes to clothes, not so when it comes to posting

[wallofsound]

12 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

But were they really mature?

Not at all!!!  But they swaggered into the courtroom looking like gangsters in expensive suits.   Just pointing out the contrast to their innocent sweater boy image.    

Edited November 19, 2017 by wallofsound

[Ailianna]

The Dateline special that aired Friday on the case also noted that she wasn't a nut job, and showed footage of her being interviewed at the time. She is also apparently smart enough to have refused a second interview of the updated special.  She was discussed for a few minutes, and they made a point of saying that she was in fact asked to be there as insurance, and they repeated the threat from Lyle that this show mocked.

[helenamonster]

Overall, I was underwhelmed with this series. People vs. OJ set the bar very high for true-crime limited series and this show didn't even come close to clearing it. I think a lot of the ACS copycats learned all the wrong lessons from that show's success. Yes, it had great casting and told the story of a highly publicized, batshit insane criminal trial, but it was how it told the story from our modern-day perspective that made it an all-time classic. So far the only true-crime project I've seen since People vs. OJ that's come close to excelling in this area was Netflix's Casting Jon Benet, which was formatted completely differently but was similar in how it set up the show's perspective.

I did think the final shot of the vans going in separate directions, the two brothers likely to never see each other again, was very effective. They could have leaned on that angle a little more, contrasting the relationships between siblings and parents/children and how that played into the murders, abuse or no. There were so many interesting ways this series could have been framed, and they went with exactly zero of them.

On 11/15/2017 at 0:15 PM, RedheadZombie said:

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.

If you ever consider watching The Sopranos, please don't let how you feel about Edie in this show put you off it. There are so many great things about that show and she is absolutely one of them. Her complex portrayal of Carmela, who could have been a two-dimensional stereotype in lesser hands, is a work of art.

On 11/16/2017 at 10:47 AM, MaggieG said:

I know many women do it (not trying to offend anyone) but I will never understand why you would want to marry a man in prison, especially a man who will probably never be released. I probably shouldn't have but I laughed hysterically at the "you may kiss your bride in your mind's eye" line after Anna and Lyle had their phone ceremony.

Right? Relationships are hard enough without that kind of baggage.

Although (I mentioned this in another thread) the Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt episode "Kimmy Can't Help You!" does a really good deep-dive into this phenomenon. It's a season three episode but you don't need too much context to appreciate what it has to say. I still don't fully get it, but the episode helped me sympathize with these women a little bit more.

[smiley13]

I still believe that the boys were abused by their parents.  And that the judge was a complete jerk for not allowing the testimony about it in the second trial.  Was the judge really as horrible as he was shown here?  He was shown to have complete bias against the defendants.

[RedheadZombie]

Dateline did a two hour episode of the Menendez brothers.  I was only half listening, because there's was really nothing new.  But, I was absolutely fascinated, and a little shocked, by what the female prosecutor of trial one said.  According to her, all the prosecutors would talk about who they would shoot (or kill?) in the court room if they had two bullets.  The male prosecutors all said they would shoot Lyle and Eric.  She said she would shoot Leslie Abramson - twice.  You could tell she absolutely despised Abramson and all her games.

[toodles]

http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a12231370/menendez-brothers-murders-trial-why-they-did-it-story/

An article about the "boys" that is not Vanity Fair.

[toodles]

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/09/07/0355863.pdf

 

Court documents regarding their appeals, which were denied.  The higher court concluded they received a fair trial.

 This is a lot to slog through, but it sheds light on the judge's decisions based on the then current law.  I'm not lawyer and I don't play one on tv and I didn't understand some of it.  But I thought it was interesting.

[Dora James]

What this show portrays on judges behavior is exactly the way some judges here in pa are. Judicial immunity should be eradicated. Judges need to be held accountable by other than other judges. I have researched many actions of judges and some have over reached with detrimental consequences. 

[lovinbob]

I am late to this series so the conversation is probably not active at this point. But I am hoping that the series gets a little more balanced. I can't believe how completely sympathetic it is the to the brothers. My memory of this case was the opposite.

Speaking of which ... I don't have strong memories of this case at all--I was in college and not terribly attentive to news or TV. But my vague recollection was that Leslie was this somewhat inappropriate mother hen. I'm also struck, in this telling, by how she seems focused on saving them from the death penalty. It seems like that's what she thinks she can get--not that they will be free to walk away. 

On 10/18/2017 at 12:59 AM, voiceover said:

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

So happy with this casting! Although I wish they'd done his hair a little more Garcetti-like. I did not love the casting of Bruce Greenwood in The People v. OJ. Bruce Greenwood felt too fundamentally decent. Mark Moses has that slightly sleazy choir boy thing happening. 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Emmy nomination:

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Limited Series or Movie - Edie Falco