Chloe Sevigny (Kitty Menendez), Nicholas Chavez (Lyle Menendez) and the actress for Diane Vandermolen have all basically confirmed the monsters will be the parents.
I completely understand your apprehension about the series and even about the case in general. What I'll say is that there is an amazing amount of detail and evidence which is hard to find unless you've watched the first trial in it's entirety, especially evidence which contradicts the money motive. The brothers were not charged with the special circumstance of murder for financial gain due to a lack of evidence. The majority of the spending spree was done by the older brother Lyle whereas Erik spent vastly less amounts of money and much of it was managed by his aunt Marta Cano. Regardless excessive spending after a death is actually a very common response due to grief but I won't get into the psychology of it. On the brother's "confession tape" (it's more complicated than that) they make several statements which are inconsistent with premeditated murder and they also reject the notion of killing for money. Some quotes include "I had no choice, I would have taken any other choice" "he was somebody that I loved and almost had no choice to do what I did and...I hate myself for doing it because of the love I had for him and my mother". Outside of this 24+ family members recently signed a document asking for the brothers to be resentenced and at trial the only people who defended the parents were Kitty's brothers. No one else had nearly anything nice to say about either parent. There is much more corroboration for the abuse (including sexual) than you'd find in many other cases and the mother was accused of being just as abusive as the father in different ways. I hope you decide to look further into it before watching the series next month.
Месяц назад
one thing that i say to everyone who doesn't believe the menendez brother: why is lyle such a bad actor when he called 911 but then an oscar winning actor on the stand? doesn't make sense. also a lot of body language experts confirmed that their emotions were real, so that's that. edit: well. i don't really agree with the "murder is not the answer". for example, josé was abusing erik since he was a little boy. he starting to r word him when he was 11. he was beating him up when he was "doing it". he was mentally and physically abusing him almost every day. he was his father and erik was 18, of course he stayed at home, he was a teenager. josé also didn't him to go to college because he wouldn't be able to r word him at home. NOW, this man deserves NO SYMPATHY. i don't care how many times they shot him. i. don't. care. because i don't want to feel sorry for a child rpist. that's my opinion.
You need to do a bit more research on this if you're hoping to cover it. There are hours of testimony of close family and tennis coaches corroborating the verbal/physical abuse and child neglect they personally witnessed. The aunt who testified about the mother's child neglect of her toddlers that she personally witnessed, the uncle who saw the father punch a pre-schooler Lyle in the chest with a closed fist over nothing... The SA isn't so clear cut, but there's no version of this where the parents can be depicted as anything but monsters. I don't believe the imperfect defence argument either, but no reasonable person would doubt the abuse the brothers endured. I'd suggest checking out Crime Weekly's in-depth coverage of this case.
The title doesn’t refer to the brothers, it’s clearly pointed to the parents. The only bad angle they’ll probably get is how reckless they were after with financials and so on.
What you're suggesting has already been done, Law&Order did one season about the Menendez case in 2017 and it was a courtroom drama. It had their lawyer Leslie as the main character and it focused on the trial. I believe Netflix will choose a different approach, otherwise this show would be a remake of the Law&Order Menendez series.
The monsters are not the kids that murdered their parents, its the parents themselves who are the monsters. People are so basic to assume the title is about the brothers and not the parents
In my opinion them speding a lot of money after was a way for them to finaly fell free from their parents since money was one of the ways their father controled them and was more important to them then the boys ever were. After their parents death they did everething they wanted to do that they couldnt do before and was a way of saying f#ck you to them after all this years of abuse
The person you are talking about is Pam she said that men/boys can’t be r*ped so I really can’t take anything she says seriously, I also spent months watching their 1st trial it has a lot of evidence from doctors (on their childhood/teen SA) and family teachers and coaches (on physical abuse they saw) not just the brothers, also Kitty did SA towards Lyle it seems like you didn’t know this. Maybe before the series comes out watch some of the 1st trail, watching it made me go yes they should of gotten time but not life without parole or possibly of the death penalty something that wasn’t even on the table for OJ Simpson. Also there’s new evidence against José another men (at the time it happened a child) has come forward about being r*ped by him.
I really liked the video! I definitely agree that it would have been a more appropriate story for American Crime Story. This case literally launched Court Tv and I think it has a lot to say about American values and culture of the time. My guess is that since there already was a Law and Order True Crime series about the Menendez brothers that was essentially a courtroom reenactment, Ryan Murphy did not want to redo a courtroom drama? The ultimate lesson in the show might be that the parents were monsters and they made the sons monsters... But I agree it is very murky territory. I appreciate your nuanced thoughts. I certainly believe they deserved a prison sentence, I just don't think it's necessary or morally right that they die in prison. They've already spent 35 years there. Just my thoughts!
Shame. This version might try to be more graphic to reduce the lack of understanding 🤔 but really it's other perspectives that led to this level of consequences. Yes they did the deed by unaliving their own parents, but other perspectives such as the prosecution, the media, etc is what further shaped the new path. This is why it's important to focus more on those other perspectives even though it is their story. Using an ACS structure could still make for great storytelling. Seems like the creators didn't see it that way.
I wish they'd stop making these honestly. It's one thing to make a documentary it's another to make a mix of fact and fiction dramatic retelling. Especially for a case like this.
One of the documentaries I watched on these guys recently, I wish I could remember who’s it was, talked about how they were told to leave a lot of the sexual abuse out because it was the 90’s and it was still very strongly believed back then that males could not be victims of sexual abuse. It also talked about some of their strange behaviours was a result of one or both having some developmental delays. I think it was especially the younger boy acted below his actual age. I feel like they did need to go to jail, but not as long as they have been there assuming what they say was true.
i know im off the internet fr when im just learning that my own generation stans the menedez brothers..i don't agree or disagree but damn growing up all i knew from adults and tv mentioning them is that they definitely did it, mum abt it being a response to abuse. focus felt like it was on them being bad greedy and ungrateful sons. might have been due to the conservativism😅 this is a true crime case i can understand being reexamined
I guess I want to understand if abuse justifies murder. That really the mentality. Do you think abuse and fear are justifications to murder? It’s not a question of if they did it. It’s also semi proven that they had something problematic going on in the home. It’s truly a matter of what should be allowed.
I don't think anybody's arguing they should've got away with murder. People are arguing that they should have the possibility of parole, just like Gypsy Rose who has been released from prison. Gypsy Rose is free after being sentenced to 10 years for the killing of her mother, but these brothers are sentenced to life in prison...
@@CelesteBou it’s literally the same debate as Gypsy. She just had “evidence” of her abuse. Her family that was alive advocated for her after. Popular opinion justified her actions.
It's not about justifying murder. But they were abused since they were children. Do anyone think they are going to be healthy and functional. They aren't. They are totally not alright and probably never will be. But the monsters in the show are the parents.
@@judithwilliams3147 as someone who was sexually abused by a family member growing up and then gaslit by another family member that it didn’t happen… both are still alive. They were not required to stay with their parents. They wanted to maintain a lifestyle. Post death, they spent tons of money to continue that lifestyle. The abuse wasn’t right. They were not expected to just be “normal” after it all. But homicide is a big jump.
The People v. OJ was not an accurate depiction of the event let alone the actual trial. The series was taken from Jeffrey Toobins' book, a book that is very bias and flawed. It was more of a sensation piece than attempting to be accurate. Not once in the series do you feel OJ was innocent because even Jeffrey didn't think he was innocent. After 30 years the narrative is still "OJ did it" even though he was found not guilty and acquitted. Whoever posted the actual trial on RU-vid, thank you because I found that more informative and other books on the case about the defenses thinking and prosecutions thinking as well. That entire ACS is a whole lie!
No one can convince me that the bothers 💀 their parents because of abuse. They were living the high life after 💀. They wanted the money and freedom to spend it.
Not even top lawyers were able to find evidence supporting the idea that it was for money. I recommend actually watching the trial, there was a lot of evidence of sexual abuse. Evidence like that today would convict abusers easily.
The abuse was supported by evidence + witnesses and the money theory wasn't. So what's your logic in concluding they "simply wanted the money"? Is it based on anything other than the fact that they spent after the murders?? It doesn't prove it was for financial gains.
