Los hermanos Menéndez

Solid documentary. It could have been a little less one sided. I understand from another documentary that there's some incriminating evidence than if it were purely self-defense (such as a recorded telephone conversation between Lyle and a friend).

We can't know for sure what happened behind closed doors in the Menendez family, I'm inclined to believe them.

In any case, what the documentary certainly achieves is that you will find the brothers more sympathetic than the first prosecutor (Pamela Bozanich), even if they were cold blooded killers.

Her behavior and attitude will infuriate you. She comes across as a typical narcissist. But perhaps because of her defensive behavior and certain things she says, you get the impression that somewhere she knows that she might have been wrong.

Her latest comments are ridiculous ("The only reason we're doing this special is because of the TikTok movement to free the Menendi" and "If that's how we're gonna try cases now, why don't we just, like, have a poll? You present the faces, everyone gets to vote on TikTok, and then we decide who gets to go home"). What is wrong with her to make such statements??

Finally, she threatens Tik Tok people who have a different opinion than herself by saying that she is heavily armed. Sounds like an aggressive toddler.

I just had to get this off my chest. Thank you.

It is bewildering that complex PTSD is still not recognised as a disorder in the DSM-V in 2024, let alone be taken into consideration in the Menendez trials when the concept was in its infancy. This documentary presents a comprehensive overview of the salient details of the Menendez brothers' case from the origins of the killings to the current TikTok movement to emancipate the brothers after 34 years of incarceration and counting, including advances in public awareness of sexual abuse of boys committed overwhelmingly by the men to whom the powerless boys were entrusted.

Supported by the testimonies of family members and forensic criminal experts in the first trial, it was established that both Lyle and Erik endured years of grooming and violence (physical, emotional and sexual) by their father, while the mother, herself lacking a moral compass, abetted the father through her passivity and silence. She was more distraught over his affairs with other women than his grotesque tampering with her own flesh-and-blood. Also fact was that the prosecution could not obtain character witnesses for either parent because they were such deplorable human beings.

In the 1990s, trial by media was the new sensation, Judge Weisberg had presided over the acquittal of four police officers of a hate crime (arising in the 1992 LA riots), the six male jurors in the first trial insisted on murder (to exculpate the father and themselves) while the women pressed for manslaughter, and OJ Simpson got off scot-free for murder due to his celebrity status. So Weisberg prevented crucial information from being fairly presented in the second trial to engineer a much-needed win for the DA's office, leading to a 12-0 ruling for first-degree murder within just a week.

As an outsider in Australia, I find the justice system in America bizarre. There is no neutrality when prosecutors like Bozanich and judges like Weisberg have a huge incentive to pursue certain convictions in order to further their public careers. Bozanich is so blind to her own self-righteousness that she doesn't recognise the hypocrisy when she says of the TikTokers, "their beliefs are not facts". She herself remains convinced of the brothers' intent to murder their parents out of greed despite all evidence presented by the defence. "They were just these dumb jock killers", she says of her first impression of them. She claims that she only agreed to participate in this documentary to show up for the slain mother, but it's a feeble disguise for her self-serving motivations. People like her don't care about justice, only themselves.

Finally, a complete revelation of the facts. When children (or anyone) are subjected to systematic psychological and sexual abuse, they are emotionally and mentally dysregulated.

People asking, "why don't they leave, why don't they tell the police?"...do not understand how psychological control works. Their family was a cult of 4. These brothers were completely irrational, illogical...mentally unwell.

Of course they were! Anyone who had lived their torturous childhood would be the same.

This documentary includes corroborating stories to support the disgusting abusive nature of their father, and the lack of care from their mother.

Sometimes with this type of abuse there is only one way out. If you have not experienced it personally, you wouldn't understand.

Judge Stanley Weisberg is corrupt and should be in prison. After having watched the actual trial he was biased from the very start of the first trial. He showed great preference to the prosecution, he would object to nearly every one of the defence's questions and block them and let the prosecution ask ridiculous questions and make atrocious statements. Not to mention he removed all of the abuse testimonies and evidence from the second trial. And there was a lot of evidence of abuse. As for the documentary itself, it was good however after having watched the actual trial it missed out so much of the abuse that these brothers especially Erik endured at both the hands of their parents. There was so much evidence, in the form of photos, medical reports and not to mention the various testimonies from doctors, coaches and family members. I felt that the documentary missed this out. It speaks volumes that not one person other than his paid secretary was a character witness for the father. They were abused in many ways by both parents and I hope that they are free soon. They have served enought time, they deserve a chance at a life.

I waited to watch this documentary instead of the Monsters series that came before it as I'm generally more fascinated to hear from the actual people involved in the case, rather than actors pretending they were there. This documentary is certainly intended to be more sympathetic to the brothers, however I still like the fact it uses real footage of the trial, the media reporting at the time, that you get to hear from actual jurors and the brothers themselves. You can go back and forth about what the documentary left out; those who don't believe the brothers will criticize it that it's too sympathetic to them, equally those who do believe them can point out to more testimony and evidence of their abuse that the documentary didn't show.

Regardless which side of the fence you come down on, I find it very difficult one can argue that their second trial allowed them a fair opportunity to put forward a defense. To not allow numerous testimony from family members, doctors, photos, letters etc that could potentially show how they were abused for years which is central to the defense's explanation of what influenced their actions that night feels incredibly prejudicial. Whether the jury then accepts this version of events is a separate matter, but surely the point of the judicial process is that they have the opportunity to hear the evidence for it. Certainly I think there was political pressure to not allow another acquittal of a high profile defendant for murder with OJ Simpson being acquitted just a week prior to much of the public's disgust. These two factors I think greatly taint their second trial and the inevitable verdict from it that they've now served 34 years for.

The prosecutor Pamela comes off as very unlikable towards the end as well. It's fine if she doesn't believe them, and while I agree TikTok in general is a stain on society, to facetiously joke you'd use a firearm in defense against "TikTok people" as you in the same breath rubbish the Menendez's defence of using a firearm against their alleged abuser is a staggering lack of self-awareness. She also dismisses the social media 'campaigns' for them to be released, which, youthful exuberance and folly aside I'm sure hold little legal grounds, but she does so by acting incredulous that that would make a mockery of the justice process. "Why don't we hold TikTok trials or a poll" she says with indignation, but apparently she's fine with a judge not admitting the majority of a defense's evidence and unfairly influencing the outcome of a trial.

I'm not sure how much legal basis there is for them to have another trial since they already had an appeal denied. I'm sure there are legal minds already exploring options with this case in the spotlight again, so the saga might yet continue in the coming years. Society today is certainly more acknowledging of sexual abuse victims, and how grooming and power dynamics affects how they react to their abuse. If you accept they were abused, and there's certainly much testimony and evidence to support it, then 34 years in jail from a tainted second trial in the 90s when abuse against boys/men was largely ignored feels like an injustice.