Conference back40::soapbox

   <<< Note 14.1199 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    I mentioned before that I watched Ted Koppel interview all the members
>    of Erik's jury (with the exception of the 2 women who refused to con-
>    vict - these women refused to appear to be interviewed).
>    The jurors themselves were outraged because they felt these women did
>    not make their decisions based on evidence presented.  

  I don't believe that all of the jurors were on that program. Erik Menendez's
jury was split 6 to 6 with all of the men wanting 1st degree murder and all of
the women wanting either an acquittal or manslaughter charge. In other
interviews the women expressed just as much outrage and claimed that it was the
men who would not listen to reasons using strong anti-gay language when
describing the defendant and speaking in derogatory terms about the women on
the jury. 

  In one interview I heard one woman complain that one of the men threw down
the picture of the victims in front of her and said something to the effect "I
don't care what you say, this is 1st degree murder". The pictures showed the
bloody bodies of the parents who had been shot 6 or more times each with
shotguns. 

  Clearly the man was being irrational. In California the condition of the
bodies has nothing to do with determining whether a homicide is murder or not,
rather it's based on the intent of the individual or individuals who committed
the homicide. That would not show up in a picture. 

  Lyle Menendez's jury was also split rather evenly although they did not break
down on a man/woman basis. At one point 11 of the jurors agreed on a compromise
involving one count of 2nd degree murder but one woman held out for 1st degree
murder and they were unable to reach a verdict. 

  In just about every pole, formal or informal conducted by Court TV or the
networks people who had listened to the testimony broke down pretty much
50-50 on whether the brothers were guilty of murder. Most of the respondents
were outraged, but there were about as many outraged by the stories of abuse
as there were outraged by the crime itself.

  George

	George, do you think by entering this twice it will generate twice as
much dialogue? :-)

    This time I would would like to see them charged separately for the two
    murders.  The first time they actually got people to believe that the
    father was a bad-enough person that he "deserved" to die.
     
    Unfortunately for them, the only rationale for killing the mother was
    still that she was a witness to the father's murder.

    I find it rather suspicious that the psychiatrist (who eventually
    reported the brothers to the authorities because HE was scared
    witless) said nothing ever came up about sexual abuse during years
    of therapy.  The sexual abuse "defense" materialized after the
    brothers spent months in jail (no doubt listening to the jailhouse
    lawyers talking about what defenses were working at the moment).
    
    Let's face it, Erik was away at school (Princeton); an entire conti-
    enent away.  If he was so afraid for his life, why did he return
    home when school was not in session?  If it were me, I'd make tracks
    and also make sure my Father could not find me EVER!!  It's only my
    opinion, but I think Erik put the plan together because he wanted
    old Dad's money NOW and he didn't want to answer to Dad or work for it.
    I think Lyle got roped into the whole mess because he couldn't/wouldn't
    cross Erik.
    
    If there is any truth to the verbal/mental abuse charges, then the
    actions of the parents was reprehensible.  However, the brothers
    planned and carried out the murders in cold blood.  If the abuse
    charges could be proved, that information should be used to mitigate
    the sentence, but murder is murder and there should be some conse-
    quences for committing it in cold blood.
    
    

    Not to say he's innocent, but an abused person tends to regard the
    abuser as extremely powerful.  They're often not entirely rational
    about it; the abuser evokes an emotional response that gets in the way
    of any rational analysis.  So I can see someone not trying to run away
    and hide from an abuser.
    
    But hiding abuse during years of therapy is a bit of a stretch.

    
    George -- there was no abuse.  That was a lie Menendez boys cooked up
    to save themselves. 
    
    I never saw any "pole" such that 50% of those "poled" believed the
    abuse story.  A few morons on the jury believed it -- perhaps having
    watched too much talk show nonsense.

    Let's be gentle with out comments. After all, they are orphans now.

Poor fellows!

    re 8
    
    yeah, they made themselves orphans.....let's hope they get convicted
    the next time around!
    
    

If he's telling a terrible story,
He shall die by a death that is gory.

    He's telling a terrible story
    But it doesn't diminish his glory
    For they would have taken his daughters
    Over the billowy waters
    It's easy in elegant diction
    To call it an innocent fiction
    But it comes in the same category
    As telling a regular terrible story.

    Another thought comes to mind; if the father was so cruel and
    abusive WHY did he pay for that psychiatrist for years?  From what
    we've been told by the experts, abusers will go to great lengths
    to conceal the abuse.  Why would a father pay for therapy that
    could have exposed him (if it were true)?
    
    

  Whooo, talk about memories. I played Major General Stanley once in a high
school play.

  Oh men of dark and cruel fate
  For go your cruel employ
  Have pity on my lonely fate
  I am, and orphan boy

    An orphan boy, and orphan boy
    How sad, an orphan boy

  These children whom you see are all that I can call my own.

    Poor fellow

  Take them away from me and I shall be indeed alone.

    Poor fellow

  If pity you can feel leave me my sole remaining joy.
  Se at your feet I kneel, my heart you can not steal
  Against the sad sad tail of the lonely orphan boy.

                                Major General Stanley

>>                -< Do jurors check their common sense at door? >-

	Apparently.  What you brought up is a good question.  There
	were _so_ many things that didn't add up in that trial, it
	wasn't even funny.  And then there was the performance by Erik
	on the stand.  No Oscars for this boy.  

RE    <<< Note 303.5 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    I find it rather suspicious that the psychiatrist (who eventually
>    reported the brothers to the authorities because HE was scared
>    witless) said nothing ever came up about sexual abuse during years
>    of therapy.  

  In their defense the brothers claimed that they were too ashamed to bring
it up in earlier discussions. The defense put on expert witnesses to say that
this was common among victims of abuse.

>    Let's face it, Erik was away at school (Princeton); an entire conti-
>    enent away.  

  You've got Erik and Lyle mixed up. Lyle was the older brother that was
away at school. Erik never left home.

>If he was so afraid for his life, why did he return
>    home when school was not in session?  If it were me, I'd make tracks
>    and also make sure my Father could not find me EVER!!  

  In their defense the brothers claimed that it would be impossible for them to
run away from their parents. In fact they used this to soften the blow of the
"Kitty Factor" and bring their mother into what they felt was a conspiracy.
They told of several instances in which their father had pursued them or others
at great lengths and they told of an occasion of how their mother had done
extensive detective work on her own to track down one of their father's lovers.
This, they claim, made them believe it was impossible to run away.

>    If there is any truth to the verbal/mental abuse charges, then the
>    actions of the parents was reprehensible.  However, the brothers
>    planned and carried out the murders in cold blood.  

  That's not what the brothers testified to. They never said they murdered
their parents because they were angry over abuse. They used the abuse to
provide the background for their claim of self defense and their claim of
"unreasonable but honest fear for their lives" which would be manslaughter
under California Law. 

  George

	Right, it was an "unreasonable but honest fear for their lives"
	that made Lyle put a shotgun to his mother's cheek and blow
	half her face off, when she was nearly dead.  

	Hoho.

RE            <<< Note 303.18 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" >>>

>	Right, it was an "unreasonable but honest fear for their lives"
>	that made Lyle put a shotgun to his mother's cheek and blow
>	half her face off, when she was nearly dead.  

  That's the "kitty factor" and it's probably the strongest argument for
murder. Why did the brothers go back outside after shooting their parents,
reload, go back into the house, and shoot their mother? 

  The brothers claimed that they were still caught up in the fear for their
lives that had driven them to shoot their parents in the 1st place and they
were afraid that their mother would kill them. The state claims they were
eliminating a key witness. The jury was split and couldn't decide.

  Personally I would have pushed for one count of 2nd degree murder (Kitty) and
one count of Manslaughter for each brother. While I think they are probably
lying, there is a gaping hole in the state's case for premeditated murder.
They have no evidence of a conspiracy.

  If someone had overheard them talking about the killing in a bar or if
someone had overheard them discussing it on the front of that boat the day or
so before then the case would have been complete but that was missing. The
state never proved that when the brothers initially burst into their parent's
den they didn't have an "unreasonable but honest" fear for their lives.

  I do think, however, they proved 2nd degree murder which under California
law is "malice aforethought without premeditation". I think the state proved
that at the very least with no fear but no planning either they reacted to what
had happened by shooting their mother. 

  Lyle's jury came within one vote of that compromise,
  George

	Then again, driving a long distance and buying Mossbergs
	with a fake ID could be considered premeditation, by some.

	I think it would be justified for Lyle killing his father, as he made
him wear that awful wig....

  But premeditation of what?

  They claimed they bought the guns to defend themselves.

  People buy shotguns every day, are they all planning murder?

  George

>>  People buy shotguns every day, are they all planning murder?

	No, but perhaps the ones who then go and commit murder were.

    People who don't have nefarious aims don't travel to distant places to
    buy guns with fake IDs. They go to the local discount gun shop.

  Their story on the shotguns was that they attempted to buy handguns at a
store near where they lived but were not able to buy them because of a waiting
period. 

  Not knowing what to do they started driving. When they got to San Diego they
changed their plan and decided to buy shotguns for their defense. 

  Experts testified that this "unreasonable" and desperate behavior was not
uncommon in victims of abuse. 

  George

    
    Re: .25
    
    how do you explain Erik and Lyle's behavior and all that fake
    grief when parents dead bodies were discovered? 

| <<< Note 303.26 by ICS::VERMA >>>



| how do you explain Erik and Lyle's behavior and all that fake
| grief when parents dead bodies were discovered?


	That they attended the William Shatner school of Over-acting

RE                        <<< Note 303.26 by ICS::VERMA >>>

>    how do you explain Erik and Lyle's behavior and all that fake
>    grief when parents dead bodies were discovered? 

  The state never proved that their grief was fake. They may have lied to the
cops while expressing grief but the grief may or may not have been real. 

  George

    George,
    
    I sincerely hope you and I don't ever wind up on the same jury :-)
    
    Some nits (you knew I'd have them):
    
    *	I can understand someone not discussing abuse with friends or
    	other family members, but not to EVER discuss with the shrink,
    	puleeeeeze!!  A friend (also psychiatrist) says although it's
    	not uncommon for a patient to not *initially* discuss sexual
    	abuse, trained professionals know the signs and what to look for.
    	Their doctor said there was never any indications of sexual abuse;
    	conflict with the father yes, but sexual abuse, no.  Remember,
    	the father was paying for the therapy; if he had dirty secrets to
    	hide he probably wouldn't have sent the kid to the shrink to
    	begin with.
    
    *	Last time I looked, it was not acceptable to shoot 2 people for
    	what they "might" do to you in the future.  The boys were NOT
    	in imminent danger.  The parents were watching TV when the boys
    	ambushed them.
    
    *	Again, Lyle had gotten away to school.  He was not a child any
    	longer; there was nothing forcing him to return home (except
    	perhaps the possibility that he might have to work a little to
    	live in the style to which he had become accustomed).
    
    	Anecdotal aside:  My ex had a very turbulent relationship with
    	his father; he commented many times that it was a good thing
    	his father didn't keep guns in the house or he might have been
    	tempted to use one.  Note:  although he thought about harming
    	his father he never went out and purchased a weapon to do so.
    	Also, he was guaranteed 4 years at Penn State at a time when 
    	a lot of others were shipping out to Viet Nam.  Penn State would
    	have meant bending to his father's demands; he passed on college
    	and enlisted the day after he graduated from high school.  He
    	got the h*ll outta Dodge and as far away from his father as he
    	could.
    
    There was plenty of indications that the father was a stern and de-
    manding taskmaster; I would agree that some of the situations des-
    cribed (if they can be substantiated) probably were some form of
    emotional abuse.  I'm sorry, this is cause to get away from the
    parents, it will never be an acceptable excuse for killing them, IMO.
    
    If the killings had erupted out of a conflict that had excalated to
    violence, i.e. the father had a weapon and the boys got it away from
    him and retaliated their story might make a little more sense.  As
    it stands their story just doesn't wash.
    
    I'll repeat again, if the abuse could be substantiated I believe it
    should be used in determining the jail sentence.  It would be a rea-
    sonable explanation of what they did; it shouldn't be allowed as an
    excuse to let them walk.
    
    

RE    <<< Note 303.29 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    *	I can understand someone not discussing abuse with friends or
>    	other family members, but not to EVER discuss with the shrink,
>    	puleeeeeze!!  

  There is a big difference between deciding you have a problem and going to
a shrink as apposed to being forced as a kid to go to a shrink by your parents
or law enforcement officials. In the former case you are much more likely to
be honest and open. The Menendez were the latter case.

>Remember,
>    	the father was paying for the therapy; if he had dirty secrets to
>    	hide he probably wouldn't have sent the kid to the shrink to
>    	begin with.

  I'm not sure he had a choice. I believe they were sent there partly as the
result of a deal with the cops not to prosecute the burglary.

>    *	Last time I looked, it was not acceptable to shoot 2 people for
>    	what they "might" do to you in the future.  The boys were NOT
>    	in imminent danger.  The parents were watching TV when the boys
>    	ambushed them.

  The brothers claimed that they thought the parents had gone into the den
specifically to "load up" and that they were going to come out shooting. They
claim to have been of the opinion that their only chance to live was to start
shooting at their parents themselves as soon as possible.

>    *	Again, Lyle had gotten away to school.  He was not a child any
>    	longer; there was nothing forcing him to return home 

  The brothers testified that they felt their parents would pursue them if
they ran.

>    	Anecdotal aside:  My ex had a very turbulent relationship with
>    	his father; he commented many times that it was a good thing
>    	his father didn't keep guns in the house or he might have been
>    	tempted to use one.  Note:  although he thought about harming
>    	his father he never went out and purchased a weapon to do so.

  Did there ever come a time when he thought his father was going to kill him?
The Menendez brothers never claimed they shot their parents because of the
abuse, they claimed they shot their parents out of fear that their parents
were going to kill them at any moment.

>    I'll repeat again, if the abuse could be substantiated I believe it
>    should be used in determining the jail sentence.  It would be a rea-
>    sonable explanation of what they did; it shouldn't be allowed as an
>    excuse to let them walk.

  The abuse is being used as a reason why the brother's judgment would have
been clouded such that they believed they were going to be killed. Remember
the defense didn't ask the jury to decide it was a "reasonable but honest
fear of death" which would have been an acquittal based on self defense. Rather
they asked the jury to decide it was an "unreasonable but honest fear of death" 
which would be manslaughter.

  Of course Leslie wanted to ask for self defense but the judge didn't allow
it. Still the point is that the abuse was never held up as the reason the
brothers killed the parents. The reason was that they feared for their lives
(or so they said). 

  George

	So it has been decided - one trial, one jury this time.
	Good move by Weisberg.  Court TV guys speculating that if
	anyone will be helped by that, it'll probably be the prosecution.

  Well it works both ways. As another expert said briefly, it can help the
defense as well because a lot of the evidence that is not allowed for one
defendant can not be used against the other. 

  Another possibility to consider is that a jury in which some are for Murder 1
while others are for lighter sentences might be willing to trade off a stiff
verdict for Lyle for a lesser verdict for Eric since Lyle seems to have been
the one to mastermind the whole thing. 

  George

>>... a lesser verdict for Eric since Lyle seems to have been
>>the one to mastermind the whole thing. 

	Er, just checking here - are you saying that _you_ think it
	seems as though Lyle masterminded the whole thing or that you
	think it will seem to the _jury_ as though he did?  (Or both?)
	

RE    <<< Note 303.33 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>

>	Er, just checking here - are you saying that _you_ think it
>	seems as though Lyle masterminded the whole thing or that you
>	think it will seem to the _jury_ as though he did?  (Or both?)
	
  I watched almost the entire trial and probably saw things the jury was not
allowed to see and _I_ think that Lyle masterminded the whole thing.

  It is my guess that if the jury is split as they were last time they will
be more likely to compromise since they will have the added choice of trading
votes to throw the book at Lyle while easing off on Eric.

  Maybe not, you never know. Maybe they will convict both, maybe they will
acquit both, maybe they will end up hung like last time, I'm just guessing.

  George's prediction for Menendez II

    Lyle - 1 Count of Murder 1, 1 Count of Murder 2
    Eric - 2 Counts of Voluntary Manslaughter

  George

	
>>  I watched almost the entire trial and probably saw things the jury was not
>>allowed to see and _I_ think that Lyle masterminded the whole thing.

	Same here. 

>>    Lyle - 1 Count of Murder 1, 1 Count of Murder 2
>>    Eric - 2 Counts of Voluntary Manslaughter

	These sound like reasonable predictions to moi.

  We agree?

  No, we must have done something wrong.

  George

>>  We agree?
>>  No, we must have done something wrong.

	I disagree.  ;>   I gather I'm one of the people you have 
	labeled "conservative", "right wing wacko", blah, blah, blah,
	but you'd probably be surprised.

    A neighbor who lives in my condo complex used to work for Menendez
    and said he was a tyrant to work for.

 that seems to be the general consensus.

    Ummmm, if we allowed folks to murder other folks because they have
    obnoxious personalites, a LOT of folks would be in very big trouble.
    

	right.  it seems to be the general consensus that he was
	tyrannical, but in my opinion, that has little to no bearing
	on the case.

>	if we allowed folks to murder other folks because they have
>    obnoxious personalites, a LOT of folks would be in very big trouble.

And, some prominent 'boxers mightn't be with us anymore.
    
:^)

    Shssssh, DelBlasto.  I didn't want to say that; people are getting
    PO'd and leaving da 'box ;-}
    

{sorry.}

>    if we allowed folks to murder other folks because they have
>    obnoxious personalites, a LOT of folks would be in very big trouble.
    
    Chances are good I would never have seen adulthood! :-) :-)
    
    (And of course, some believe I haven't :-)
    
    -b

    <smirk>

	Things are lookin' a little dicey for the boiiiiiize, as
	Judge Weisberg ruled in favor of the prosecution on the
	admissibility of taped phone conversations between Lyle and
	who-knows-whom, during which he apparently said some pretty 
	schtoopid stuff incriminating himself.


 

    Di,
    
    Wonder if we'll having dueling trials?  Isn't the Menendez re-trial
    set to begin sometime this summer?
    
    Maybe Lyle's using too much toupee glue?
    

    The subject came up in the OJ topic, but this appears to be the
    place to ask.  If I understand correctly, the second Menendez saga has 
    begun.  I haven't heard much about it except that this time,
    the "boys"??? will be tried together.  Has the jury been picked
    yet, or has the trial actually started?
    
    

	i thought they were working on the jury selection last week,
	but i haven't heard anything further.

    
    "This fall's lineup on Court Tv..." blech.

    Segue from one sleazy circus to another while the Great
    American Couch Potato sucks it all in. It really makes
    me proud to be an American to know that we even give
    a bucket of weasel piss what happens to the Menendez
    brothers.

    -b

  .51  oh, i'm so filled with self-loathing after reading
       that note, knowing that i'm interested in seeing how
       the judicial system handles these two murderers.
       i'll have to slap myself silly and swear never to watch
       another criminal proceeding as long as i live.  amen.

    
    RE: .51  ....i'll have to slap myself silly and swear..... 
    
    Um, can we watch?

    
    Now go forth and sin no more, M'Lady.....

    
>>    Um, can we watch?

	why soit'nly.  ;>

    RE: .51
    
    Well, not that I'm about to stop a good self-mutilation, especially
    if I'm allowed to watch, but I wuz just waxing philosophical about
    the You Ass of A in general... such moods are never to be taken
    seriously, let alone personally...
    
    Perhaps you thought I was giving you a whuppin' 'cause my note
    followed another of yours, but that was not the case. I still
    think you're a peach of a humin bean.
    
    -b

    
>>    Perhaps you thought I was giving you a whuppin' 'cause my note
>>    followed another of yours, but that was not the case.

	No, I dint think that.  But I do plan to watch some of the
	trial, so the shoe seemed to fit.

>>    I still
>>    think you're a peach of a humin bean.

	And you - you are a fine judge of character, I've always
	said that. ;>  

    Well, we Canadians know how to prevent a media circus. I just wish we
    could prevent more taxes. 8^/

    I was just kind of curious on this since it seems that certain
    restrictions are in place since the last trials, main one being
    the boys get tried together.
    
    The first trials really demonstrated an alarming trend, IMO of the
    "excuse defense" working and working exceedingly well.
    
    I still can't figure out whether this is something unique to
    S. California juries or something that is spreading out.  Something
    seems to be "broken" with the system when young men can commit such
    a crime and almost get away with it (and who is to say they won't
    get away with it totally).
    
    I found it most unusual that a psychiatrist cooperates with the police
    because he is afraid of his client(s) and thinks his life is in danger
    at their hands.
    
    

    Karen, it's my prediction that the Menendez infants (or does Leslie
    call them 'the boyz') will have a more difficult time in this trial.
    
    They gave their best (weepy) performances last time and not everyone
    on the jury bought it.  Most everyone else saw or heard about it on 
    TV - I doubt their story will have much of an impact in 'warmed over' 
    form this time.

    >The first trials really demonstrated an alarming trend, IMO of the
    >"excuse defense" working and working exceedingly well.
    
    >I still can't figure out whether this is something unique to
    >S. California juries or something that is spreading out. 
    
     Obviously it's not unique to Kaliph, what with the Lorena Bobbitt and
    John Bobbitt acquittals and the Susan Smith jury squeamishness. Whine
    and cry enough and softies on the jury let you go.

	I heard on the news this morning that the new angle for the brothers is
that not only were they abused throughout their lives, but that they thought
their parents possessed evil powers. 



Glen

 Hey, now there's an idea!

  .62  yes, Jose and Kitty were responsible for several curses that have
       been put on the American public, including a taste for White
       Zinfandel, but you don't hear much about that.

    Oooooo, they _were_ evil.

	I thought the curse was for the box-o-wine......

    Glen:
    
    I know of children in similar circumstances who had the insight to get
    out of their situation.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    The new prosecutor is using just that argument.  These were adult
    males; the eldest had been attending Princeton.  Nothing (except
    lust for Daddy's money) could MAKE him return to California if he
    didn't want to.
    
    I just find it very odd the a father who allegedly had been abusing
    and sodomizing his son would spend the megabucks to send that same
    son to a psychiatrist, a professional trained to elicit just this
    sort of information from a patient.  Seems it would have been an
    enormous risk for the father.  Psychiatrist treated both brothers
    for a period of several years, yet never found any indicators that
    there were problems that might possibly be tied to molestation.
    
    Just discovered yesterday that a book called "The Abuse Excuse" was
    written by Allen Dershowitz!!!!  Dershowitz had the chutzpah to call
    Geraldo's show last night and say that sexual abuse definitely did not
    apply to the Menendez brothers and never should have been allowed
    into evidence.
    
    

    Goodnight... :-)

    I admit to knowing very little about the ways of law, but everytime I
    read about the judge disallowing the defendents' theory, it strikes me 
    as giving extra points to the prosecution.  Isn't the judge supposed to
    be impartial in a jury trial?  I'm not saying that the outcome of the
    trial was wrong, but shouldn't the defence have been allowed to present
    whatever theory they thought was best and let the jury decide?

>           <<< Note 303.71 by TROOA::BUTKOVICH "stop the madness!" >>>
>    I admit to knowing very little about the ways of law, but everytime I
>    read about the judge disallowing the defendents' theory, it strikes me 
>    as giving extra points to the prosecution.  Isn't the judge supposed to
>    be impartial in a jury trial?  I'm not saying that the outcome of the

Yah, and how about the judge disallowing the jury to consider certain
evidence? Since when is the judge allowed to order THE JURY to do anything at
all besides come up with a verdict?

This concerns me directly - jury duty at the end of May. Mass. sent a nice
little "your duties as a juror" pamphlet, which totally glossed over the
above, which is what I really wanted to know!

>Yah, and how about the judge disallowing the jury to consider certain
>evidence? 
    
    What's wrong with that? When evidence tends to be prejudicial and does
    not have probative value, the judge should step in.
    
>Since when is the judge allowed to order THE JURY to do anything at
>all besides come up with a verdict?
    
     In that case, why have a judge at all? 

    
    
    Hmmmm.. isn't that what the word "judge" is supposed to mean??
    

    .73 et al.
    
    The word "judge" comes from the Latin iudex (noun) or iudico (verb),
    which ultimately harkens back to the Indo-European root deik- .  The
    essential meaning of this root, from which we also get our English word
    "teach," is to show or instruct.  A iudex, in Latin, is an arbiter or
    umpire, i.e., one who umpires a court case and instructs on the law to
    ensure that the trial is fair.

You tell me...
This jury duty ought to be enlightening, if they pick me. I'm betting they
won't.

	if my understanding is correct, part of Weisberg's job was 
	deciding whether or not there was sufficient evidence to warrant
	the presentation of a sexual abuse defense.  no?  there certainly
	didn't seem to be enough evidence of abuse, in the first trial.

    Heard an interesting one on the John & Ken show (604am, KFI out of LA). 
    (All quotes are approximates.)

    It would seem that Ms Leslie Abramson (sp?) is potentially going to be
    charged with jury tampering.  

    One of the prosecutors was cross-examining Eric's shrink when he asked
    the shrink "Do you remember ...".  The shrink said "no", and the
    prosecutor pressed the issue.  "Please turn to page xx in your notes. 
    What does it say on the issue?"  The shrink said that it wasn't in his
    notes on that page.  Ms Abramson said that it wasn't in her notes
    either, and another person (don't remember who) also said it wasn't
    in their notes.

    The prosecutor looked a little startled and asked the shrink if he had
    rewritten that page.  "Yes, I did," he replied, "... on the direction
    of defense counsel."  ... "Which defense counsel?"  ... "Ms Abramson."

    When the judge questioned Ms Abramson about it she took the fifth.

    And they wonder why people don't trust lawyers :^)

    -- Dave

    I don't think the charge is going to be jury tampering. There is,
    however, an issue about suppression of evidence.
    
    Apparently, the flamboyant and outspoken Ms. Abramson directed the
    boys' therapist/psychologist/psychiatrist/whatever to remove some of
    his comments that she considered to be unfavorable to the defense.
    Thus the redacted notes were of substantively differing content than
    the raw notes. The prosecution got the redacted notes during discovery.
    
    From what I understand, the prosecution wanted the notes for some
    reason but didn't have their copy handy. So they asked the defense for
    their copy. Someone on the defense handed over the originals. Whoops!
    Someone on the prosecution discovered that the two sets of notes were
    not identical, and that's when the fit hit the shan for Ms Abramson.
    
    For anybody who watched her criticize the Simpson lawyers, this is
    nearly amusing. To hear her talk, everybody on both sides of the aisle
    were constantly making mistakes. She really set herself up as a big
    shot expert. Now she's lost her case (guilty of 1st degree murder) and
    been exposed as a cheater in front of the jury (and now, the world.)
    The jury, in my estimation, will be more likely than before to return a
    death penalty. According to courtroom observers, the jury "looked
    angry" when Abramson took the 5th.
    
    This is a big story. We're looking at possible criminal prosecution of
    Abramson and disbarment.

    After I got home I began to wonder if I had said "jury tampering" when
    I had meant "evidence tampering".  Really shouldn't enter notes that
    late at night.

    -- Dave

     
              yo!  eric and lyle
              no fools second time around,
              toast to your future!

    I wonder what exactly you have to do to get a jury to sentence you to
    death. Lying in wait and gunning your parents down, pretending you
    didn't until you get bagged, and spending all their money in the
    meantime apparently doesn't do it. Strapping your children into their
    car seats and driving them into a lake so you can run off with a
    boyfriend doesn't do it.
    
    I think the next time I get pulled over for speeding I'll contest the
    ticket and claim that my father always abused me as a child when I was
    tardy, and burst into tears...

The jury took into account their clean records prior to the murders.

>The jury took into account their clean records prior to the murders.

	but not the burglaries?

    They were "such nice boys".

	I was watching the Today show this morning, and I couldn't help but
crack up laughing. They were talking to the duo team of one of the brothers and
Bryant asked how they might fair in prison. The guy responded:

	I think that the brothers have a lot to offer others in prison



	I didn't think I would stop laughing! The guy had paused, and then
clarified it by saying they could teach others to read, how they are very
personable, etc. 


Glen

    fare. /hth

    Let us pray that Lyle's first student isn't Gentle Ben!

    
    	I'm still trying to figure out what a "considerable human being"
    	is.
    
    

    
    	Well, a "considerable amount of time" is a relatively great
    	length of time, so maybe a "considerable human being" is a
    	relatively tall person.
    

    
    	So they both get "life without parole".
    
    	2 consecutive sentences each.  ??
    
    	An extra 25+ years each for conspiracy.  ???
    
    	And credit for 3,400 days already served.  ????
    

If'n I read it right, they gotta pull 25 years or whenever D.E.C. quits
reorganizing, whichever comes sooner...

    
    so, now we get to support them for the rest of their lives as they have
    3 meals a day, a roof over their heads, and get an education...
    
    yeah...
    
    

    I believe that once married, they'll will receive conjugal visits
    with their spouses too.
    
    Amazing, isn't it?

>    Amazing, isn't it?

I haven't seen the lucky lady. Maybe she's part of the punishment.

    
    	Why would she want to marry a guy she's not even going to be
    	able to live with?
    

    true love knows no boundaries.

maybe she's into the bar scene?

    
    	>Why would she want to marry a guy she's not even going to be
    	>able to live with?
    
    Never lived with a husband, have ya, Shawn 8^).
           

    
    	Ummm, no, and I've never been to a Turkish prison either.
    

>    Never lived with a husband, have ya, Shawn 8^).

Hey, let's value diversity:

	Never lived with a spouse, have ya Shawn 8*]

    
    Thank you, sweetie 8^).
    

>    so, now we get to support them for the rest of their lives as they have
>    3 meals a day, a roof over their heads, and get an education...

What happens to the remains of the $14 million?

| <<< Note 303.104 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| What happens to the remains of the $14 million?

	Their parents bodies are worth that much??? My guess is they will
remain 6' under.

    
    The 14 mill. is long gone. Da "boys" are indigent.

    >What happens to the remains of the $14 million?
    
    Maybe *that* has something to do with their interest in marriage?

    
    	I don't think the boys get ANY of that in this situation.
    

>    	I don't think the boys get ANY of that in this situation.

So you're saying conjugal visits are out?

    
    	No, it appears that they can get some of THAT.
    

>maybe she's into the bar scene?


Hah!

I'm sure handsome boyz like that will get plenty of "conjugal visits."

    Hmmmm.  The murders happened on 4/10/89.  That is a little over 7 years
    ago.  3,400 days = ~9.3 years.  If they've been in jail since before
    the murders, how could they have been the ones that did it???????
    
    Bob

    The served some of the days concurrently.
    

    Get TWO!  TWO!  TWO days in ONE!

    >What's wrong with this picture???? The murders happened on 4/10/89. 
    >That is a little over 7 years ago.  3,400 days = ~9.3 years.
    
     It's called "credit for good behavior."
    
     re: the money
    
     The boys claim all the money has been spent and that nothing remains
    of the original $14M estate (less real estate, of course.) That's why
    they asked for public defenders for the 2nd trial, and Leslie Abramson
    got "stuck" defending Erik for a second time.

 Those poor boys...

    They could have saved all the cost of those trials if they had just put
    'em both in a locked room with shotguns and plenty of ammo and the
    $14million...

    This Leslie Abramson makes me sick.  She whines & moans about everyone
    judging those two.  "They're really nice boys.." , "They really are not
    dangerous..".THEY'RE MURDERERS!!!  I thought they would make a nice
    example for the death penalty. I know they would never kill again.
    -ss

at one time rumor had it that Ms. Abramson and Eric were quite,
er, ummm... close (in the Biblical sense). i haven't heard anything
about this for quite some time, however. 

Mr. Goodwin, it would appear that you would condone the boys 
killing each other, but are against death by legal process.

seems a position of obvious conflict, from a moral perpsective
that is. or did i miss something?