Can you explain why? I vaguely remember that it seemed plausible there were extenuating circumstances that were worth considering. Weren’t they horribly horribly abused? Or is that the part you’re calling bullshit?
I have listened to the Last Podcast on the Left coverage of these two. The brothers are full of shit.
Like, okay, they did put up with a lot of bullshit from their father and maybe select people in the family. But the sexual abuse thing was stretching it waaaaay too far. Not trying to justify their actions but there were so many other angles they could’ve picked, that were legitimate and stronger in defense than making up one out of no where.
From what I’ve been reading it seems pretty likely they were sexually abused. Do you have any counter evidence? Even the judge in this said that the new evidence “slightly supports” the idea of abuse they just don’t think that it would have resulted in a change to the outcome of the case.
I’m not sure I’ve heard any child sexual abuse case where i was like “oh yeah that seems plausible”. They are always unbelievably heinous and mind-blowing to me, so would be curious why this one seems particularly unbelievable
Can you explain why? I vaguely remember that it seemed plausible there were extenuating circumstances that were worth considering. Weren’t they horribly horribly abused? Or is that the part you’re calling bullshit?
I have listened to the Last Podcast on the Left coverage of these two. The brothers are full of shit.
Like, okay, they did put up with a lot of bullshit from their father and maybe select people in the family. But the sexual abuse thing was stretching it waaaaay too far. Not trying to justify their actions but there were so many other angles they could’ve picked, that were legitimate and stronger in defense than making up one out of no where.
From what I’ve been reading it seems pretty likely they were sexually abused. Do you have any counter evidence? Even the judge in this said that the new evidence “slightly supports” the idea of abuse they just don’t think that it would have resulted in a change to the outcome of the case.
https://www.the-independent.com/life-style/monsters-lyle-erik-menendez-therapist-dr-oziel-b2616368.html
They confessed to the killings to their therapist (as they denied in public to any involvement and actively tried to cover up the act).
What they did NOT confess to the therapist (when they thought they had patient-doctor confidentiality) is any type of sexual abuse.
It was admitted at trial because they threatened to kill the therapist, nullifying the privilege.
I’m not sure I’ve heard any child sexual abuse case where i was like “oh yeah that seems plausible”. They are always unbelievably heinous and mind-blowing to me, so would be curious why this one seems particularly unbelievable