LA district attorney recommends resentencing Menendez Brothers

rgp said:
Tell what to the judge? The jury told the judge that they found the brothers guilty , and he set the appropriate punishment, which they are serving.
Click to expand...
You jumped ahead and answered something that l didn't ask.

My statement was: Jurors are not supposed to be biased. When found out to be blatantly so, a verdict can be over turned'.

You could agree or disagree to this statement and say why if you wanted to. If you knew something related to this you could tell

it to the judge. And as far as the defendants having a defense team, so do the victims--The Prosecution.
 

Olivia said:
You jumped ahead and answered something that l didn't ask.

My statement was: Jurors are not supposed to be biased. When found out to be blatantly so, a verdict can be over turned'.

You could agree or disagree to this statement and say why if you wanted to. If you knew something related to this you could tell

it to the judge. And as far as the defendants having a defense team, so do the victims--The Prosecution.
Click to expand...
No, you didn't ask but . Your statement was accusatory in it's wording don't ya think ? If there was no hint of jury bias , why even bring it into the discussion ?

And , back to the OT ... those two brothers are exactly where they should be.
 
Debrah N. said:
That last jury didn't hear all the facts of the case. No witnesses who testified to what they saw and knew of the family and how the boys were treated. So it wasn't a fair trial. Punish them yes, because they did kill their parents and admitted to it. But not for life because of the mitigating factors, i.e. extreme sexual abuse since they were children.
Click to expand...
From the recent Dateline episode about this I got the idea that the witnesses from the first trial had lost credibility when other friends and family said one of the brothers had contacted them and asked them to lie for him.

If the brothers had been even a few years younger I would have more sympathy for them, but they were perfectly capable of just leaving home and never contacting their parents again. That's what other people do who were sexually abused as children. The boys didn't seem to want to leave all that money behind and preferred to inherit. They were on a wild spending spree within days of the murders.

If being sexually abused or beaten or mentally abused as a child means you don't have to go to prison for your crimes then, sadly, about half of them should be let out right now. There's no reason why these two should be released when none of the other, less good looking or famous are getting out.
 
Della said:
From the recent Dateline episode about this I got the idea that the witnesses from the first trial had lost credibility when other friends and family said one of the brothers had contacted them and asked them to lie for him.

If the brothers had been even a few years younger I would have more sympathy for them, but they were perfectly capable of just leaving home and never contacting their parents again. That's what other people do who were sexually abused as children. The boys didn't seem to want to leave all that money behind and preferred to inherit. They were on a wild spending spree within days of the murders.

If being sexually abused or beaten or mentally abused as a child means you don't have to go to prison for your crimes then, sadly, about half of them should be let out right now. There's no reason why these two should be released when none of the other, less good looking or famous are getting out.
Click to expand...
Agreed !
 
rgp said:
Indeed, your mentioning of jury bias was irrelevant
Click to expand...

Why are you so worried about the word Biased?

Did l say you are? You weren't even on that jury.

You're taking it as if l said you were biased on that jury. Did l?
 
Last edited:
Olivia said:
Why are so worried about the word Biased?
Click to expand...
I'm not worried about anything. But in your wording, IMO, you indicate that the jury was perhaps biased . And again [opinion] it has been proven that they were not.

Why are you so concerned with putting these two confessed murders back on the street ? They are where they belong.
 
rgp said:
I'm not worried about anything. But in your wording, IMO, you indicate that the jury was perhaps biased . And again [opinion] it has been proven that they were not.

Why are you so concerned with putting these two confessed murders back on the street ? They are where they belong.
Click to expand...
I did NOT think that! I would hate to have you on a jury if you think thoughts like that, l'm done replying to you.
And it's not my concern if the brothers are released or not.
 
Last edited:
Olivia said:
I did NOT think that! I would hate to have you on a jury if you think thoughts like that, l'm done replying to you.
And it's not my concern if the brothers are released or not.
Click to expand...
Then why did you post this , in post #68?

"Jurors are not supposed to be biased. When found out to be blatantly so, a verdict can be over turned"
 
Della said:
From the recent Dateline episode about this I got the idea that the witnesses from the first trial had lost credibility when other friends and family said one of the brothers had contacted them and asked them to lie for him.

If the brothers had been even a few years younger I would have more sympathy for them, but they were perfectly capable of just leaving home and never contacting their parents again. That's what other people do who were sexually abused as children. The boys didn't seem to want to leave all that money behind and preferred to inherit. They were on a wild spending spree within days of the murders.

If being sexually abused or beaten or mentally abused as a child means you don't have to go to prison for your crimes then, sadly, about half of them should be let out right now. There's no reason why these two should be released when none of the other, less good looking or famous are getting out.
Click to expand...
I understand sort of what you mean, but what is the likelihood that these boys, who were being sexually abused since they were each six years old, were suffering from a familial version of Stockholm syndrome? A psychological bond that they found impossible to break until they finally snapped?

And I agree, they deserved to be punished and ultimately even they agreed they deserved to be punished. But a life sentence, in view of the terrible violations they lived with for years, is maybe far harsher than either of them deserved.
 
Debrah N. said:
I understand sort of what you mean, but what is the likelihood that these boys, who were being sexually abused since they were each six years old, were suffering from a familial version of Stockholm syndrome? A psychological bond that they found impossible to break until they finally snapped?

And I agree, they deserved to be punished and ultimately even they agreed they deserved to be punished. But a life sentence, in view of the terrible violations they lived with for years, is maybe far harsher than either of them deserved.
Click to expand...
But there is no evidence/proof that they were ever abused. Are we supposed to just take their word for it ?
 
rgp said:
But there is no evidence/proof that they were ever abused. Are we supposed to just take their word for it ?
Click to expand...
Well, I guess you and I will have to disagree. I've heard what family has said, the pictures of the boys private areas, that singer from the Manudo group who says he was raped by the father.......if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, good possibility it's a duck.
 
Debrah N. said:
Well, I guess you and I will have to disagree. I've heard what family has said, the pictures of the boys private areas, that singer from the Manudo group who says he was raped by the father.......if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, good possibility it's a duck.
Click to expand...
All hearsay. Do you really believe that an adult [the singer] is not going to fight back ? And has a fair to better than fair chance of fighting him off ? And then not report it to the authorities at the time it happened ?

And again, if the family knew all this, why did they not come forward [then] ? If this is all true ? then they are guilty of not reporting a crime .
 
Last edited:
Pepper said:
Rape is not a crime known to be done in a public setting with witnesses.
Click to expand...
But there is [generally speaking] some after the fact evidence.

besides, even if it did happen [which I doubt] it was a revenge killing at best. And we do not allow for revenge after the fact in our laws.
 
chic said:
Eric had a throat issue which was the results of foced fellatio as stated by a doctor but this was not mentioned in court for some reason and it should have been. Medical records corroborating abuse would have been useful.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I just do not believe that. Stated by the doctor ... too who if not in court ? If not in court, then again, just hearsay . And again,again if the doctor failed to report it to the authorities @ the time, he is guilty of not reporting a crime against a child, and should be held accountable , if he is stating it now.
 
rgp said:
All hearsay. Do you really believe that an adult [the singer] is not going to fight back ? And has a fair to better than fair chance of fighting him off ? And then not report it to the authorities at the time it happened ?

And again, if the family knew all this, why did they not come forward [then] ? If this is all true ? then they are guilty of not reporting a crime .
Click to expand...
The singer was not an adult when it happened. He was a teenager, a kid and vulnerable. And it's a fact that where now we acknowledge that men, boys can be victims of sexual assault, back then it was even more taboo among men to talk about being raped, then for women who were raped. Defending a child rapist???? I find that very sad.
 
Debrah N. said:
The singer was not an adult when it happened. He was a teenager, a kid and vulnerable. And it's a fact that where now we acknowledge that men, boys can be victims of sexual assault, back then it was even more taboo among men to talk about being raped, then for women who were raped. Defending a child rapist???? I find that very sad.
Click to expand...
I am not defending anyone !! Period, and do not accuse me of anything just because I do not agree with you .

I am defending our legal system and the decision handed down by the judge . That is all.

A teenager can fight back, and report to the authorities @ the time of the alleged assault , if it happened , he didn't do that. Why should we believe it happened now ?
 
rgp said:
I am not defending anyone !! Period, and do not accuse me of anything just because I do not agree with you .

I am defending our legal system and the decision handed down by the judge . That is all.

A teenager can fight back, and report to the authorities @ the time of the alleged assault , if it happened , he didn't do that. Why should we believe it happened now ?
Click to expand...
Agreed, you didn't say categorically that the dad was a good guy and the boys were monsters. But you are denying the plausibility of the family accounts of the parents characters, the Manudo teen singers account, the sleazy 'character' evidence of photos of a boys private parts and the fact that the sexual abuse information was not offered at the second trial. If all the information available is not offered, is it a fair trial? Is a judgement based on a lack of evidence just? I don't think it is.

But like I said before, we can disagree and move on.
 
Debrah N. said:
Agreed, you didn't say categorically that the dad was a good guy and the boys were monsters. But you are denying the plausibility of the family accounts of the parents characters, the Manudo teen singers account, the sleazy 'character' evidence of photos of a boys private parts and the fact that the sexual abuse information was not offered at the second trial. If all the information available is not offered, is it a fair trial? Is a judgement based on a lack of evidence just? I don't think it is.

But like I said before, we can disagree and move on.
Click to expand...

Well, I do agree with most that you have said here. Have you actually seen these reported photos ? I have heard of them before .... heard of them, but have never seen even a censored version of them. Even at that , how do we know who took them ?

"
But you are denying the plausibility of the family accounts of the parents characters, the Manudo teen singers account, "
Click to expand...

OK, maybe I am but ...... to forgive someone [in this case two someone's] of such an egregious crime ..... I need something of proof.

As to the fair trial .... If evidence was not permitted ? perhaps it was not considered good evidence ?
 
rgp said:
Well, I do agree with most that you have said here. Have you actually seen these reported photos ? I have heard of them before .... heard of them, but have never seen even a censored version of them. Even at that , how do we know who took them ?

"


OK, maybe I am but ...... to forgive someone [in this case two someone's] of such an egregious crime ..... I need something of proof.

As to the fair trial .... If evidence was not permitted ? perhaps it was not considered good evidence ?
Click to expand...
Of course I haven't seen them personally, but in the documentary, we saw the lawyer offering them up as evidence and asking Eric about them. If you watch the documentary, you'll learn how all this went down.

Anyway, I'm done with this topic. Hope you have a good day.
 
Debrah N. said:
Of course I haven't seen them personally, but in the documentary, we saw the lawyer offering them up as evidence and asking Eric about them. If you watch the documentary, you'll learn how all this went down.

Anyway, I'm done with this topic. Hope you have a good day.
Click to expand...
Good day wishes back at'cha !
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top