The Murder Police Podcast
The Murder Police Podcast
3 Things: The Mendendez Brothers
Two handsome, wealthy young men from Beverly Hills. Parents murdered by shotgun blasts in their own mansion. A whirlwind of spending on luxury cars and Rolex watches. Sexual abuse allegations that split public opinion. The Menendez brothers case remains one of America's most captivating true crime stories more than three decades after the 1989 murders shocked the nation.
We peel back the layers of this infamous case, exploring its most perplexing elements: Why would Lyle and Erik Menendez murder the parents who were already giving them everything they wanted? What role did allegations of sexual and emotional abuse play in their defense? And most controversially - if those abuse claims were true, should that mitigate their punishment?
The case broke open when Erik confessed to his therapist, who secretly recorded their sessions. When that recording reached authorities through the therapist's mistress, it set in motion a legal saga that would include two trials, national media coverage, and sentences of life without parole. Yet even today, efforts continue to secure the brothers' release based on what defense attorneys claim is new evidence supporting their abuse allegations.
Beyond the facts of the case, we explore the troubling phenomenon of public fascination with the brothers themselves. Their wealthy lifestyle and physical appearance seemed to create an immediate bias among many observers who couldn't reconcile their polished exterior with the brutality of their crime - a phenomenon that continues to affect how we perceive defendants in high-profile cases today.
What are your thoughts on this complex case? Would you have voted for manslaughter or murder? Should allegations of abuse affect sentencing in cases of patricide? Share your perspectives and let us know what other infamous cases you'd like us to examine next!
Shop for Murder Police Podcast swag by clicking HERE today! 10% of ALL swag and merch proceeds are donated to the DNA Doe Project.
See what you have been missing on YouTube!
Well, that leads into my second. You know, there were the allegations of the sexual abuse.
David Lyons:Right.
Wendy Lyons:So I don't know, and apparently it had been going on for quite a while, even as the boys were older. So I don't know if that was the catalyst for it, but I tend to think with the speed in which they ran through all that money with, the speed in which they ran through all that money.
Wendy Lyons:Warning the podcast you're about to listen to may contain graphic descriptions of violent assaults, murder and adult language. Listener discretion is advised. The Murder Police Podcast Three Things the Menendez Brothers Murder Investigation. Welcome to the Murder Police Podcast. We're here with another episode of Three Things. Today we're going to discuss the Menendez brothers, one of my favorites. I've been watching for some time now. David, how are you?
David Lyons:Doing good. Looking forward to doing another one of these and I know this speaks to you quite a bit.
Wendy Lyons:It does, I've been following this since 1989.
David Lyons:I have to admit that, like on most contemporary cases, I'm in the dark, so I'm looking forward to people when they comment on youtube to educate me on this a little bit I have some ideas and I've researched lightly.
Wendy Lyons:But I learned a lot. You should have sat and watched that show with me. When I sat and watched the most recent release I I think it was on Netflix.
David Lyons:And I think I got to thinking today. I think that the reason I'm behind is that I was doing my own cases when these happened, or close to it, yes, and was kind of busy, but yeah, so we're going to do the three things concept again, which I think is fun, and it's neat to watch people when they interact with us and share their ideas. But we have to get something out of the way real quick, because we've shot a couple episodes and, uh, we, you've had a change in the way you look and it's, it's your people envious is what it is that's what it is.
David Lyons:It's uh, it's your pickleball glasses okay, I do not play pickleball. Well, the house does smell that house smells suspiciously of dill. That's all I'm gonna say, and is that is that I need to put a picture too of you in your uh, bookworm glasses please do not, yeah, the kamikazes let me just go ahead and share why I've yeah the last couple of times we've recorded, I've had these beauties on yeah okay.
Wendy Lyons:I even had someone tell me in the mcdonald's parking or, I'm sorry, not parking lot, but in the mc the McDonald's drive-thru he said I like your glasses. They're different but they're really cool. And I said they might be different, but they are nowhere near cool.
David Lyons:Yeah.
Wendy Lyons:I think he thought that I just was choosing to wear these. So I have to say I found out that I had cataracts. I told the eye doctor I was way too young for that Well you are.
David Lyons:That was kind of a surprise. Yes, and you know surprisingly you know you're 70 and most people don't go until they're 80.
Wendy Lyons:Surprisingly, he told me that he had seen, he had had a patient that was 17 with them. I don't know what causes it or why, but anyway I had two of them, as you know. One was really bad in the right eye, so when he suggested that I get them removed, he also told me that they could do there's a new LASIK that's out. I don't know how new it is, but it's light adjusted lens. And so I went in, as you know, on a Monday and had the right eye done and a Tuesday and had the left eye done. Yes, I was extremely nervous because you know I don't handle needles or procedures or anything well at all, but I do have to say they were exceptional there. The glasses, I have to wear them. I have another procedure done in a few more days and then I can come out of these beauties. And I know you me mostly I'm going to be so missing them so terribly.
David Lyons:And again, we're not really doing a commercial for Commonwealth House of Jury. No, we are not, but we're going to shout them out because lo and behold, they are so good to me. And they're true crime fans.
Wendy Lyons:Okay, you give it away.
David Lyons:There's always a plus right there.
Wendy Lyons:Dr Patel. I have to call her by name because we made the connection over one of my adjustments. Somehow true crime got. Actually it was from the tech in there, matt. We were talking about it when she walked in and he told her that we did the podcast. Actually he said I recognize your voice, I just didn't know where, and he actually had watched and listened to the Lydia Blanche Cassidy that we had covered domestic violence, murder a few years ago and so his wife worked with Lydia and he said I knew I knew your voice from somewhere. It was from the podcast. So when he told Dr Patel she was just kind of blown away because she, like most of us, loved true crime. So Dr Lance Ferguson did the surgery and Dr Patel has done all of my follow-ups and my adjustments. Thus the name Light Adjusted.
David Lyons:Lens.
Wendy Lyons:And no, they are not paying us, we did not get requested, it's just. I had such a great experience with them. I am very pleased. It was a very unique procedure to see far away and then take distance away in one eye to give you up close in another. So there was quite an adjustment period of that balance. I'm still kind of dealing with it. But overall I'm so pleased and I couldn't be more happy with my vision now.
David Lyons:Well, I'm excited for you too to have that vision, because, I mean, everybody I've talked to enjoys that. So there's our big shout-out to Commonwealth.
Wendy Lyons:Eye Surgery, commonwealth Eye Surgery they did great, and the fine staff out there this year. And to you, dr Patel, I told you I'd talk about you. You've done great also.
David Lyons:Good deal. Well, that said, let's go ahead and roll. Roll into what we're going to talk about, is that? This is one of your picks. The Menendez Brothers it was, and.
Wendy Lyons:I just have to go on because I'm so excited to tell you that we've got to do Jeffrey Dahmer next. That's my next. I've followed that for years, but the Menendez Brothers I have been. It happened in 89, august of 89, actually and I was so blown away because they were not that much older than me at that point when they did this. A little bit older than me, but well, david, without going into too much detail, why don't you tell us a little summary of what the Menendez brothers case is about?
David Lyons:Absolutely Okay. Now the Menendez brothers case is one of the most infamous parricide cases in American history, parricide being the murder of parents by their children. So what we're looking at is at the time of the murder. On around August 20th 1989, lyle Menendez, who was 21 at the time, and his brother Eric Menendez, who was 18 at the time, were accused of murdering their wealthy parents, jose and Kitty Menendez, in a big mansion in Beverly Hills, california. It caught fire as a case. That's why I'm going to run through just the basics of what the case is, for people to catch them up and for the listeners. If I miss something, it's unintentional, and if I get something wrong, comment down below so we can straighten the record out. But let's go. The best way to look at this is probably take people back in time and follow the timeline of the incident and the investigation that followed. So on August 20th 1989 is when the murders took place. It's reported that at about 10 o'clock 10 pm, jose and Kitty Menendez were brutally shot in their Beverly Hills home with 12-gauge shotguns, which for anybody that's been around that that's a very violent, violent scene when a shotgun is used like that because of the damage that it creates to the victim. Now, at 11.47 pm, it's reported that Eric and Lyle Menendez actually called 911, and they were sobbing and claiming their parents had murdered. Almanandez actually called 911, and they were sobbing and claiming their parents had murdered. So there's the first little thing. Is that discrepancy between the belief that the murders happened at 10 and they were called at 11.47 pm, I guess on their arrival home During August of 1989, the initial investigation takes place and originally it's reported that the police thought that the murders were a mob hit, probably due to the status of Mr Macendez and the community out there, maybe and because of the fact that they appear to be execution style in nature.
David Lyons:At the first part of it investigators really had no signs of forced entry which suggested what you could call an inside job or somebody who had access to the home Sometimes that's a trusted person or somebody that was already in the house and the brothers provided inconsistent alibis. Already in the house and the brothers provided inconsistent alibis were not immediately suspects and if you watch some of the documentaries you'll see that they actually mocked the police for missing things physical evidence that was out in their car. Now, in late 1989, in early 1990, the two brothers started demonstrating suspicious behavior which started to bring the attention of the police but later captivated the people in the country that were watching this case. They began to spend money like crazy that came from their parents' estate. They were buying luxury cars, rolex watches, a multimillion-dollar real estate deal and a restaurant, and so that started to get people's attention because and for the investigators it got their attention because the Menendez estate was estimated worth was around $14 million In March 1990, there's a big break in the case.
David Lyons:Tons of documentaries go into more detail on this. But basically what had happened? Eric confessed to his psychologist detailing the murders. Now the psychologist unknown to Eric was recording those sessions. Now the psychologist unknown to Eric was recording those sessions. What makes it even more bizarre on how the break happened is the psychologist had a mistress and the mistress later exposed the confessions to authorities. So he shared the information with her. Probably, I guess, maybe let her listen to the recordings Later she goes forward. That's the thing. That's the break that investigators are looking for. Is somebody inside this chain of information to cut loose and talk. So what happens? The police begin surveillance and they finally built a case against the brothers. In March 8, 1990, lau Menendez was arrested. He was outside of his Beverly Hills home and was taken into custody. Eric, who was in Israel for a tennis tournament, was advised to return to the United States. So he returns and on March 11, 1990, he's arrested by turning himself into the Los Angeles Police Department. Both of them are formally charged with first-degree murder. So they're in custody, they're housed and now the prosecution and the trials begin.
David Lyons:In 1992, the process starts with some legal battles over admissibility of evidence. The defense challenged the use of the taped confession by the psychiatrist claiming doctor-patient privilege. Not unusual, not unrealistic. But the California Supreme Court ruled that portions of the tapes could be used, which weakened the defense. A lot of hopes went dashed with that. In July 1993, the first trial begins. It was broadcast nationally, which weakened the defense. A lot of hopes went dashed with that.
David Lyons:In July 1993, the first trial begins. It was broadcast nationally, which there's where the whole story caught on fire once again as far as the media attention. The defense team actually used some defenses that as in they acted in self-defense. The two boys acted in self-defense, alleging that they had years of physical, emotional and sexual abuse at the hand of their father. The prosecution's argument was that the murders were premeditated for financial gain, that excessive spending showed motive and the brutal nature of the crime suggested a direct intent to kill. Of course the defense countered back with their argument that the boys acted out of fear, believing that their father would kill them. And they actually went ahead because they had to defend themselves with the killing of their mother, kitty Menendez, and she was portrayed as a complicit enabler of all the abuse. Now, this was also something that they had offered, as Eric had documented past trauma related to sexual abuse.
David Lyons:In January 1994, the first trial ends in a hung jury. The jury deadlocked. The numbers on the jury polling were 9-3 in favor of manslaughter for Eric and 8-4 in favor of manslaughter for Lyle. That's a pretty scattered jury decision. Clearly that jury had a lot in front of them to work with and a mistrial was declared. Back at it again. In October 1995, the second trial begins. This time the standing judge, the judge holding court, ruled that no testimony about sexual abuse would be allowed in, which of course was a big dent in the defense case. The trial was not televised this time because of all the sensationalism that developed over the first trial.
David Lyons:Go ahead, we get into March 20, 1996. The trial's over, it goes to the jury and they come back with a guilty verdict. The jury convicted both brothers of first-degree murder. Notice the difference between the previous trial of manslaughter they were sentenced to life in prison without parole. July 2nd 1996 is the sentencing hearing. When that's over, lyle and Eric were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole and they were sent to two different prisons so they wouldn't be housed together.
David Lyons:Now, in some of the things that happened after that trial, in 2018, the brothers were reunited in the same facility after being decades apart and new evidence had emerged claiming that possible connection between Jose Menendez and a known abuser in Hollywood had sparked interest in reopening the case. And that's where we are today. Are the Menendez brothers going to have their sentence reduced and could they stand a chance of walking out without serving their life in prison? As far as March 2025, when we're recording this? The Menendez brothers, both Lyle and Eric, continue their efforts to be released from prison with instances of their counsel. They've been serving those life sentences without parole since 1996 for those 1989 murder of their parents, jose and Kadeem Menendez. Okay, so what does it look like From the district attorney's stance in Los Angeles.
David Lyons:Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hockman has expressed that he would consider resentencing the brothers only if they quote sincerely and unequivocally admit end quote to the full extent of their crimes and acknowledge any previous falsehoods regarding the murders. Regarding the murders Interesting, there is no question that they murdered their parents. They've admitted to that. Hockman withdrew a previous motion for resentencing filed by his predecessor, george Gascon, and has been skeptical of the brothers' claims of sexual abuse by the father, citing a lack of corroborative evidence presented during their trials. There's a big difference between new evidence and alternative theories.
David Lyons:The family members and supporters of the brothers have criticized Hockman's position, of course, accusing him of focusing on politics rather than justice. They argue that the brothers have been rehabilitated during their incarceration and deserve release. Rehabilitated. Okay, gotcha. The parole hearing is scheduled right now. As of this recording, california Gavin Newsom has announced that the Menendez brothers are scheduled to appear before a parole board on June 13, 2025. The hearing will include a risk assessment involving public safety experts and psychologists to evaluate the brothers' suitability for reentry into society. That will be a circus. Okay, let me finish with that new evidence. It's just. Basically, the Brothers Legal Team has presented what they call evidence alleging that their father, jose Menendez, sexually abused them. They claim this includes a letter from Eric to his cousin in 1988 detailing the abuse, and allegations from a former member of the boy band Menudo Wow, where'd that come from? Who claims he was also abused by Jose Menendez. However, hockman, the Los Angeles County District Attorney, has dismissed these claims as insufficiently corroborated and opposed granting a new trial based on this evidence.
Wendy Lyons:To just know that they murdered their parents and one of my three things.
David Lyons:Well, let's go into those, if we're going to go, because we need to get right to the three things. Well, my three things.
Wendy Lyons:That's what I'm saying. One of my three things Number one Number one why did they murder their parents? They were getting money. It's not like they were being cut off.
David Lyons:It's a good one. That's a good one. Why do?
Wendy Lyons:you have to murder them. They're giving you everything cars, private tennis lessons, anything these boys wanted.
David Lyons:I'll bet some of the viewers and listeners have thought that too is the big why you know the estate was worth like $14 million or something, which doesn't sound like much now, I guess.
Wendy Lyons:But in 89? Yes, and it was in Beverly Hills. You just don't hear of that in Beverly Hills, that's exactly.
David Lyons:So that is it no-transcript.
Wendy Lyons:There were the allegations of the sexual abuse. So I don't know, and apparently it had been going on for quite a while, even as the boys were older. So I don't know if that was the catalyst for it, but I tend to think with the speed in which they ran through all that money, again it makes you question why do you have to kill them? You're getting the money, them, you're getting the money. But maybe it was this the lump sum they were going to get, because I mean they were getting new cars and rolex and clothes and seats to the lakers right there on the floor and and I mean the stuff they were buying was crazy. So I'm inclined to say greed, because they went through the money really quick. But but then it lends to the. Was there sexual abuse and the guys were tired of it. I think the mom knew about it, according to their testimony.
David Lyons:If she did, she'd be at least an enabler, if not a facilitator, right.
Wendy Lyons:So that leads into my second thing, which is the allegations of sexual abuse. But I don't know, I'm going to go with probably greed, and if the sexual abuse allegations were true, I hate to say I can't blame them, but I could see why they would be tired of it and want to put a stop to it.
David Lyons:That's a defense theory for sure.
Wendy Lyons:Right.
David Lyons:For sure. What about your number three then?
Wendy Lyons:My number three the confession that Eric made to his counselor that he killed them, and then the counselor told his mistress, who told the police? You know and I'm not advocating getting away with it by any means, so I hope it doesn't come across as this but why tell? I mean, okay, they were on the police radar, they were especially with how quickly they were spending the money, but why make the confession to the therapist? I don't know why you made the confession.
David Lyons:Right. Just telling and I think it speaks to what we talk about on all these cases is that I think with the investigators, that's that break they're looking for is what they're looking for is somebody in a chain of that communication to leave the chain right so she could have stayed quiet. He could have been quiet. You said it was Eric or Lyle, Was it Eric?
David Lyons:It was Eric who told Exactly, so Eric didn't have to divulge. That, was it Eric? It was Eric who told Exactly, so Eric didn't have to divulge that. But again, eric was holding on to the client privilege that you have with people that are assisting with you, and I can't say how strong that is.
David Lyons:I want to say that I thought there were exceptions on things that big too. But maybe somebody out there listening that knows more about the case or knows more about that part of the law where they live could advise us. That is that privilege, that communication privilege. Is it absolute?
David Lyons:Yeah, even with murder of your parents, that's what I'm saying Because, for example, you have people that may tell clergy counseling therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and I could have looked, I just didn't take the time to look. But how absolute is that? Then, even if it's there, there's the ethical conundrum of the person that takes that information in. I think we feel pretty sure that in active things of abuse and things like that, that that has to be reported.
David Lyons:And like in Kentucky. I think there's legislation that says that that does. But the interesting thing right there is, as you're right, is that's where these cases fall, is people talk, and where they talk, you know, but again, hard for is somebody's got to shoot their mouth, somebody. If your conscience gets to you that they come forward, if guilt, if fear of your own prosecution and being involved is again, we do that. So luckily for the police is that that happened because that right there was when they actually started putting up surveillance on the boys and building a case on that. I do know that there was a suppression attempt to try to get that statement and all that suppressed eventually ruled that the key integral parts could come in and maybe the other stuff which it looks like they were trying to balance. What's left of that privileged communication on his mental health or his services and everything. So good, three things.
Wendy Lyons:Yeah, it just makes me wonder if he hadn't told.
David Lyons:Oh, we may not know.
Wendy Lyons:We may not know, they might have gotten away with it.
David Lyons:We know so much now because it's in the past and they've been interviewed and they've been to trial and that's why we know so much now. So when we armchair a quarterback, it feels natural. But I'm with you. Go back to that moment of not knowing, because there just wasn't a whole lot of direct stuff that was pointing to them in the beginning. It was pointing to them in the beginning.
David Lyons:We know now that, even in one of the documentaries I did probably walk through the room on, is that they were kind of mocking the police for missing some of the physical evidence in one of their cars that morning. So that's it. So to summarize what's Wendy's three things One more time what's number one again?
Wendy Lyons:Why did they murder the parents when they were getting the money?
David Lyons:There we go. I love it.
Wendy Lyons:And number two. Number two the sexual abuse allegations.
David Lyons:Whether they're true or not.
Wendy Lyons:right you gotcha, and number three, his confession to the counselor and the counselor's telling the mistress.
David Lyons:Loose lips sink ships.
Wendy Lyons:It's not Thank.
David Lyons:God, thank God and again thank God for the mistress, to again boat out and do that Well she did that because she was wanting to be with him.
Wendy Lyons:Yeah, sure, and he had a wife that he, I guess wasn't wanting.
David Lyons:Hell has no fury. That's right, that's it so.
Wendy Lyons:I guess it was kind of like you're not going to leave your wife and be with me. She was a patient too. I do have to say that she had her own issues.
David Lyons:Well, and he did too, if he's dealing with a patient, yeah, they had a thing going on.
Wendy Lyons:She started out as a patient.
David Lyons:Yeah, oh yeah, there's a big ugly in that thing too.
Wendy Lyons:Yeah, you don't do that?
David Lyons:No, good three things, thank you. So for everybody that's listening or watching, let us know what you think about those three things. Now mine kind of cross over to yours a little bit. Of course, we can talk before we sit down to kind of have an idea where we're going with this. But my first one is something that I've wrestled with for a long time, and that's some of the people in the public eye that have paid attention to this case.
David Lyons:Is this fascination with the Menendez brothers themselves, two young, high lifestyle kids, again, like you said, having anything they want and, to be candid, very attractive handsome people and what I've watched over the years that I did grasp is how many people camp immediately on their side, even though they admitted to killing their parents. That's not in question, but the influence that that lifestyle and that physical appearance appears to have on people and how it skews their judgment a little bit, in that that they get a bias built on that that maybe, maybe, like well, they don't look like they could do that.
Wendy Lyons:Yeah, they don't look creepy like what you think. That's it.
David Lyons:Exactly, yeah, but then again you know that's past that first thing you talk about who kills their parents, right?
Wendy Lyons:Right.
David Lyons:Is. Is that so? That was my number one. Is that fascination, because it comes into play in cases frequently?
David Lyons:There's a fantastic book that I'll recommend for the audience, called called Guilty the Collapse of Criminal Justice by Judge Harold Rothwax. He's been passed away for several years. I think Ray the DA Larson rest in peace actually interviewed him on his radio show one time. But the book is about a judge in New York that I believe he was a chapter president of the ACLU as a defense attorney. So he was very strong on advocating for defendants and doing the right thing. We've talked about that before, the importance of that. But then he gets seated on the bench, he becomes a judge and he starts seeing things from that side that he sees that are wrong in a criminal justice system Tons of stuff.
David Lyons:Read the book. It really makes you wonder where we're at. And when we say the justice system is broke, I'm going to argue it's broke from a couple of different sides. But here we go, boys and couldn't. The first trial was a mistrial because the jury got hung. Well, here's his point and back to my point. He cites several cases in his book where the holdout juror, the one that was holding the conviction back was holding out because of things like this that the defendant didn't look like he could be an armed robber, that the defendant didn't look like he could be an armed robber, that the defendant didn't look like they could be of this lifestyle. And the problem with that is that and Judge Rothwax argued is that bias has nothing to do with the case facts that are presented and it has nothing to do with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, because that's not reasonable doubt is looking at somebody and saying I think you're too handsome to be a killer, is there?
David Lyons:So it's kind of like the thing with Ted Bundy where I've read that supposedly there's women that have his dental impressions tattooed on their body somewhere. And when I was researching this case, getting prepared and looking for graphics is, I actually stumbled across a fleece, blanket, throw with the Menendez brothers on them. So this I don't know. I guess do people not realize that, despite their lifestyle and their good looks and stuff like that, that these are dangerous people?
Wendy Lyons:Yeah, I think they don't care. I mean, they were getting marriage proposals. The one got married. Oh yeah, exactly, I think a couple times.
David Lyons:Kind of crazy, kind of crazy. So that was my number one is that I picked up, but it's not uncommon and we see it in different cases. Oh sure, my number two is the most recent information on the case where there's this attention being given to the fact that can they get out of prison early? They were sentenced to life without parole, right? So they're in.
David Lyons:And then the headlines start reading that the defense teams, the new defense teams, now have, quote unquote, new evidence that they want to have it looked at and it's called quite a stir. There was a DA in Los Angeles County that was going to examine that. That DA got replaced. The new DA was like whoa, whoa, whoa, pull your horses back a little bit. I don't know about this and whatnot, so there's always a thing on that. Well, so then you got to look at it and say, okay, what was that new evidence? Well, the new evidence is evidently a claim that they have fortified these sexual abuse claims. I think it's through a letter that was written in like 1988 from one of the boys to his cousin or something, and that's their evidence.
David Lyons:Well, oddly enough, I think what strikes me about that is the conversation has to be. What's the difference between real evidence, formidable evidence that has value to submitting an alternative theory and that gets confused a lot, A lot of times when you see people that say I've got something new on a case and they start a petition and everything most of the time when I see that they're presenting what you would call an alternative theory. And that's just it, it's a theory. Appeals courts don't usually examine those and go with those because there's nothing in those theories usually that's tangible that you can point to and say, hey, that's real, If I bring this in the court, it'll survive the best evidence rule, It'll survive everything we need to survive and it's enough for a jury to consider again not that proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I think this latest thing, that's got everybody touted up and now you've got two camps. You've got the people that, oh, they're so handsome and whatever that they should get out of prison. You've got them.
David Lyons:And then the diehards like me that say no they shouldn't, but I think we're following an alternative theory. I think we're following that people are being ginned up on something that there's already. The latest DA out there has already said hold your horses. This doesn't look like evidence to me. If you're going to have that process kick into gear, it's got to be something. So my number two is are we being drug along with an alternative theory instead of real evidence? And I think that's the case. Number three goes back to your number two. So we'll do some common core math.
David Lyons:All right, my number three comes back to your number two. The allegations of sexual abuse and maybe even the emotional and physical abuse, because there was allegations that the father was very demanding and domineering.
David Lyons:And even then you got to look at well, was he pushing? Because you know, with our own children we do want to challenge them. And how bad was that? Was it really that bad? Or was it somebody that didn't want to be pushed and challenged? Maybe with a silver spoon in your mouth you didn't think you had to do that. But the sex abuse thing is in a higher order. So my thing is, along with the alternative theory thing, let's assume it's true, let's assume that it's proven, or that we just believe that they were sexually abused, or one of them was sexually abused or whatever. Here's my condonium and the ethical issue with that. If that's found to be true, does that mean that their punishment should be mitigated on that, and that's a hot topic right now?
David Lyons:You know, what I mean Like okay, life without parole, but since they were victimized, do we pull that back and look at a potential release date? Does that make sense?
Wendy Lyons:Yeah, because then there's their justification of why they did what they did. That's it.
David Lyons:But even if we accept that, yes, that happened and that, yes, that was their reasoning, two lives were still taken.
David Lyons:Does that mean I'd be interested to see what people think. And again, no right or wrong in it, because it's one of those things there isn't a right or wrong to I know. Personally I don't believe in it, but I don't want to sway anything with that because I know people will have good points if they comment on our YouTube channel about that. But it's that philosophical, ethical thing of okay, except that those two things are present. Do they get out early?
Wendy Lyons:Right and did it warrant murder.
David Lyons:That's it. Because then, okay To kind of chip away at that, everything you said earlier is what defeats any of that the greed, the money, the spending, the intentional killing, the deception after the killing and all that kind of stuff. After the killing and all that kind of stuff. It was my when I had true self-defense acts when I was doing the job. I will just say this the people that didn't go on the run, or if they left the scene, they made themselves really available and that's the first thing they'd say is I did this, and even if they had an attorney meet us and everything is that, that's it. The other thing is, ethically you look at it because we see the same defense in battered spouse syndromes and stuff like that is that what we think is a buildup, a buildup, a buildup, and then I can't take it anymore. But as a society here's the thing Do we allow room for that extrajudicial conduct of making that decision?
David Lyons:and how much time passes, and I guess for me is that I still think that's the outlier. So my argument would be as bad as this sounds. We live in a world where likely hundreds of thousands, if not more, people face some kind of abuse in their lifetime. It's been like from time immortal. One day maybe we'll get better about it. And most everybody doesn't do that. They escape, they get therapy, they report it to the police or whatever. But again, when you've got a case like this, do we ever want to go down that slippery slope of relativism and say, yeah, that's justifiable, because, man, once you open that to me, it's a huge box Right.
David Lyons:Because what you think is justifiable and what I think is different. And again, in our world, what the delineating things have been is that, no matter what you feel, no matter what you think, there's a few things you don't do. You don't take people's stuff and you don't break it, you don't hurt people, you don't physically abuse people, you don't take it out and, man for the love of God, you don't take their life. We believe, no matter what country and the differences in the system is we believe that we take that somewhere else to have that. So that was my third Is that ethical conundrum over if we accept the physical abuse is what's that mean?
David Lyons:Does it mean that they get mulligans and points and whatnot? And I'll stop there because we could get into whether or not you can rehabilitate those people or not, but I'll leave it at my opinion Hell, no, they stay in 25 to life, because everything I have seen on them they're scary individuals. Let's just be candid that they're spooky individuals, that there's an evil mechanism that drives behind there, sure, because they plotted it for some time before they did it.
Wendy Lyons:And they even went. If people haven't seen it, I don't want to give the whole documentary away, but they were in a real rush to go to the movies and get a ticket. Well, the movie had already started and the little girl at the window was adamant she wasn't going to sell them a ticket. The movie had already started. You've got to get the ticket to the next show.
David Lyons:And they wanted that one ticket for the I think, 10 o'clock show or whatever it was, and that's one of the scores of things that is wrong with their whole plan where they were able to nick away at all those alibis.
Wendy Lyons:Yes.
David Lyons:I thought it was good.
Wendy Lyons:So that's our three things which makes six, that's a half dozen. So we want our listeners to comment on what they think of our three things and certainly what their three things are. Yeah.
David Lyons:If you're watching, let us know what you think about ours and really jump in and what are your three things, or your big things, and what about the case? We just flushed over it pretty quick. There's so much more to it.
Wendy Lyons:What about the case do?
David Lyons:you want to add that you see from a source and let's jump in and do that.
Wendy Lyons:And I have to say, aside of Jeffrey Dahmer, what other, what other ideas do you have that?
David Lyons:you want us to look into.
Wendy Lyons:I'm always open to watching something that I've not watched or talking about something I've not talked about.
David Lyons:I'll say it again. I'll be the first to tell you that a lot of the cases that people talk about and when people ask me about them, I'm like what's that?
Wendy Lyons:And I look like a complete rube being out of that thing, but it's because of you, because you don't sit in front of the TV like I do.
David Lyons:No, I don't Researching this stuff. I know, yeah, because I did it for a living.
Wendy Lyons:It's always a bone to pick with you. You know what you might have, but you'll be in those glasses and I'm coming out of these next Tuesday and I'm going to end it Sharp as a tack. I'm going to end it with. I'm still so proud of my doctors and my new eyes and Commonwealth.
David Lyons:I'm excited for you, I'm excited for it and I'm excited too. So, with that, have a good, have a good listen, a good watch, jump in with your ideas.
David Lyons:Yeah, share with us your thoughts and let us know what you think. The Murder Police Podcast is hosted by Wendy and David Lyons and was created to honor the lives of crime victims, so their names are never forgotten. It is produced, recorded and a link to the official Murder Police Podcast merch store where you can purchase a huge variety of Murder Police Podcast swag. We are also on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, which is closed caption for those that are hearing impaired. Just search for the Murder Police Podcast and you will find us. If you have enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe for more and give us five stars and a written review. On Apple Podcasts or wherever you download your podcasts, Make sure you set your player or automatically download new episodes so you get the new ones as soon as they drop, and please tell your friends.
Wendy Lyons:Lock it down.
David Lyons:Judy.
