CA - Court upholds Menendez brothers' convictions

[Noirdame79]

What is Sexual Abuse?

Sexual Abuse Definition. Sexual abuse is any sort of non-consensual sexual contact. Sexual abuse can happen to men or women of any age. Sexual abuse by a partner/intimate can include derogatory name calling, refusal to use contraception, deliberately causing unwanted physical pain during sex, deliberately passing on sexual diseases or infections and using objects, toys, or other items (e.g. baby oil or lubricants) without consent and to cause pain or humiliation.

Child Sexual Abuse. Medem defines child sexual abuse as "any sexual act with a child performed by an adult or an older child." Child sexual abuse could include a number of acts, including but not limited to:

Sexual touching of any part of the body, clothed or unclothed;
Penetrative sex, including penetration of the mouth;
Encouraging a child to engage in sexual activity, including masturbation;
Intentionally engaging in sexual activity in front of a child;
Showing children *advertiser censored*, or using children to create *advertiser censored*;
Encouraging a child to engage in prostitution.

 

[Noirdame79]

Is Spanking Your Children Sexual Assault?

It's a provocative question, but it's one that needs to be addressed.
TOMMY CHRISTOPHERSEP 18, 2014

The child abuse allegations against Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson continue to raise important, unanswered questions, and Slate columnist Jillian Keenan asks an interesting one, albeit indirectly: Is spanking your children a form of sexual assault? Her Slate article makes the case that spanking is sexual, just a day after I made the case that it's assault.

In Keenan's column, entitled "Spanking Is Great for Sex; Which is why it’s grotesque for parenting," she courageously shares her own spanking fetish, and relates surprisingly vociferous and frequent condemnation by others, who, she says, refer to her sexual preference as "pedophilic," among other things. I say it's surprising because I've always been under the impression, based on what I've heard, that spanking is a fairly pedestrian expression of kink even for people who just want to feel kinky. I'd be willing to bet that attached to many of those wagging fingers are quite a few bodies with redder keisters than they'd care to admit.

That descriptor, though, led Keenan to wonder what those same people think of performing the same act on a non-consenting (by definition) child. "I realize that many well-meaning parents will disagree with me, but spanking kids is gross" she writes, because, among other reasons, "Butts are sexual. That’s why the area is one of the few “private” parts that, along with breasts and genitals, we feel the need to cover with a swimsuit."

That's a cute equivalency, to be sure, but what elevates Keenan's argument beyond mere cleverness is this:

And butts aren’t just culturally sexualized; they’re biologically sexual, too. Nerve tracts that pass through the lower spine carry sensory information to and from both the butt and genitals. Some scientists speculate that these nerves can stimulate one region when the other is provoked. There’s also a blood vessel in the pelvic region called the common iliac artery. When blood rushes to a child’s butt—because, say, you’re spanking him—blood rushes down that artery. But the artery splits. Some of it directs blood to the genitals. So when you cause blood to rush to a child’s butt, you’re also causing it to rush to his or her other sex organs. The other time this kind of genital blood engorgement happens is during erection or arousal.

This sort of muddies up the whole chicken-or-egg question that child-spanking apologists might rely on to assert that spanking itself isn't sexual, it's just twisted perverts like Jillian Keenan (and pretty much everyone else who actually has sex for fun) who make it that way. This suggests that even without the taboo psychological allure of spanking, the act itself would still be arousing.

Keenan also points to research showing increased levels of oxytocin as a response to stress in kids who have been spanked regularly. The hormone is normally associated with, among other things, sexual arousal.

All of this puts Roy Lessin, whom Keenan calls out in her article, and his 8 Step Spanking Plan, in a whole new light (excerpted):

1) Use the Right Instrument: "God has instructed parents to use a stick, not a hand, when they need lovingly correct their children with a spanking. (A rod is a flexible branch or twig or stick.) The hand is a part of the parent and should be used for purposes of expressing affection and loving service..."

2) Spank Promptly: "A spanking should be given as soon as possible after a child has done something that needs correction. A spanking shouldn't be put off by a mother 'until Daddy gets home.'..."

3) Find a Private Place: "...Before a spanking is given a parent should take the child to a place where privacy can be insured."

4) Clarify the Issue: "Before a spanking is given, it is important to make sure the child understands the reason for the spanking..."

5) Get Into a Good Position: "...it is better to have older children simply bend over a chair or a bed."

6) Spank The Proper Area: "God has given parents the perfect area on which to administer a spanking - the child's bottom. It is a safe place because it is well cushioned, yet it is highly sensitive area. In order for a spanking to be effective, good contact is important. Parents, however, need to use practical wisdom regarding how much clothing to remove when spanking an older child."

7) Wait For The Proper Cry: "...A parent will be able to discern in a child's cry when he or she has broken and come to repentance over an issue. A repentant cry is different from a cry of anger or protest, which usually occurs at the beginning of a spanking. Exactly how long and how hard a spanking needs to be in order to bring a repentant cry is a matter for the parent to determine. It can vary, depending on the sensitivity of the child's will."

8) Have A Period Of Reconciliation: "...The period of reconciliation after a spanking provides a special time of love and intimacy to take place between a parent and a child."

Then again, maybe it was already pretty creepy in the old light.

Keenan's article is provocative, and obviously intended to get people to stop hitting their kids. Unfortunately, Keenan doesn't know how these idiots think. Another study on corporal punishment found that many parents share Lessin's belief that hitting children with their hands sends the wrong message, that "hitting with hands (i)s an acceptable way to solve problems," but their genius solution to this is to hit them with a weapon, instead. If Keenan succeeds in persuading parents not to hit children on the *advertiser censored*, they're likely to just find some other spot to go to town on. Spanking isn't just gross, it's an assault, or it would be if it were performed on any person other than a child.

The exception, as Keenan noted in pointed fashion on Twitter, is consenting adults. If spanking is a sex act, and children are by definition unable to consent to such an act, then what does that mean for spanking?

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/09/spanking-children-sexual-assault/

It should be mentioned that sexual humiliation is considered sexual abuse too, such as forcing a child/teenager to strip, threatening to tear their clothes off or do things to the child's body parts, calling them derogatory sexual names, disregarding privacy and personal boundaries.

 

[Noirdame79]

THE SEXUAL DANGERS
OF SPANKING CHILDREN

By TOM JOHNSON


Spanking, defined as slapping of the buttocks, is a form of hitting and thus of physical violence. That fact alone should make the spanking of children unacceptable by the same standards that protect adults, who are not as vulnerable. However, there is more to spanking than simply hitting: spanking also trespasses on one of the body’s most private and sexual areas—the buttocks. To fully address the wrongness of spanking children, therefore, we must consider not only the issue of physical violence, but also the issue of sexual trespass. While the harm of spanking’s physical violence has been thoroughly explained and demonstrated over the past century in a vast body of academic literature, scientific research, legal treatises, and relatively recently in the popular media, it is quite rare that the sexual consequences of spanking are openly and seriously discussed. This pamphlet aims to raise public awareness about the sexual aspects which make spanking an especially inappropriate and even dangerous way of disciplining children, whether it is done by parents, educators or other caretakers. While this pamphlet focuses on “spanking,” the most seemingly benign form of physical punishment, the arguments raised herein apply equally to paddling, switching, caning, strapping, or any other mode of forcible buttock-beating.

Buttocks are a sexual zone
Like women’s breasts, the buttocks are a sexual or erogenous part of the human anatomy, even though they are not actually sex organs. This is why baring one’s buttocks in public is considered indecent as well as unlawful and why their exposure in movies or on television constitutes nudity. It is also why someone who uninvitedly fondles another person’s buttocks is treated by law as a sexual offender. The sexual nature of the buttocks is explained not only by their proximity to the genitals, but also by their high concentration of nerve endings which lead directly to sexual nerve centers. Hence, the buttocks are a major locus of sexual signals.

Children are sexual beings
The sexuality of the buttocks is significant not just to adults, but to children as well. Even though they are sexually immature and without an active sex drive, children are from birth neurologically complete sexual beings who are capable of experiencing erotic sensation. The existence of pedophiles, furthermore, means that children can also become the targets of sexual intentions. As much as we might like to imagine childhood as an innocent, carefree world beyond the influence of sexuality, we do children a disservice if we fail to recognize that they too have erogenous zones which deserve consideration and respect.

Spanking as sexual violation
Since children are sexual beings and since the buttocks are a sexual region of the body, we should question the propriety of slapping children’s buttocks. We generally understand that fondling or caressing a child’s buttocks is a sexual offense (even if the child does not understand it to be so). We also know that slapping an adult’s buttocks is a sexual offense (even if the offender does not get sexual pleasure from doing so).

The question, then, is why slapping a child’s buttocks is not considered a sexual offense. Is it because spanking, unlike fondling, is physically painful and used to punish misbehavior? No, or painfully spanking a misbehaving adult would not be a sexual offense. Is it because children are less likely to be sexual targets than adults, less likely to feel violated, and therefore protected less strictly? No, or fondling an adult would be a far more serious crime than fondling a child. A more plausible explanation for this breach of logic is simply that the majority of people are unable or unwilling to believe there could be anything indecent about a practice as old, common and accepted as the spanking of children—something which nearly everyone has received, given or witnessed at least once. And since spankings typically come from esteemed or even beloved authority figures, many people are loath to question this behavior.

In any case, freedom from sexual violation is one of the basic tenets of liberty most revered by Americans and by most of the free world. As this principle of inviolacy applies to adults, it should apply equally, if not especially, to children, who are below the age of consent. Spanking children may be a time-honored tradition, but any tradition that so gratuitously disregards their inviolacy deserves to be discontinued.

Some argue that spanking is justified or even commanded by the Bible, specifically the Book of Proverbs. There is a distinction, however, which should be of key interest to fundamentalists, between the practice in King Solomon’s day of beating people on the back and the modern American habit of buttocks-hitting: the latter is not prescribed anywhere in the Bible. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that the Old Testament contains passages which could be (and in some cases have been) construed as divine endorsements of wife-beating, racial warfare, slavery, the stoning to death of rebellious children and other behaviors that are outrageous by today’s standards. As Shakespeare once wrote, “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”

Spanking as sexual abuse
As in ages past, there are people today who are sexually excited by spanking. This trait, which is often expressed in *advertiser censored* and associated with sadomasochism, is known in scientific literature as flagellantism. While many flagellants seek to engage in consensual spanking between adults, some find the spanking of minors to be either more arousing or more opportune.

Since children in this country up to eighteen years old can still be legally and forcibly spanked by parents, guardians, teachers, school principals and other child care professionals, it is often easy for flagellants to obtain positions where they can sexually abuse children with little or no fear of repercussions. As long as society sees spanking as a legitimate act of discipline, and as long as the spanked youths are presumed to have “deserved” it, sexually abusive spankers have an effective moralistic disguise for their true motives. History, court records and current events contain numerous cases of flagellant sexual abuse against defenseless victims, and there is no telling how many instances have gone unreported.

Some adults might rationalize: “Well, I know my intentions are purely nonsexual, so there’s nothing wrong with my spanking a child.” The main problem with this rationale is that it fails to consider all the children who are at the mercy of other adults, among whom there will always be some with motives that are not so pure – and not necessarily obvious. Even spankings that have no sexual motive contribute to the cover that sexually abusive spankers depend on, affirming the old alibi: “Hey, lots of people spank their kids. So what’s the big deal?”

Spanking and psychosexual development
Even without sexual motives on the part of the punisher, spanking can interfere with a child’s normal sexual and psychological development. Because the buttocks are so close to the genitals and so multiply linked to sexual nerve centers, slapping them can trigger powerful and involuntary sensations of sexual pleasure. This can happen even in very young children, and even in spite of great, clearly upsetting pain.

This kind of sexual stimulation, which undermines any disciplinary purpose and which most people would agree is unsuitable for children in any context, can cause a child to impressionably attach his or her sexuality to the idea of spanking. This fixation may endure to cause problems in adult life. Or, on the other hand, the child might react against these unseemly feelings of pleasure by repressing his or her sexuality, so much perhaps that as an adult, he or she has difficulty experiencing sexual pleasure and intimacy.

An additional danger is that the confusing mixture of pleasure with pain will become the basis for permanent sadomasochistic tendencies. Sadomasochism, in which a person takes pleasure in inflicting or receiving pain, drives behavior that is destructive to oneself and to others, and therefore to society at large. While the intensity and background of individuals’ sadomasochism varies widely, the great majority of studied cases point to the same primary cause: childhood whippings, usually on the buttocks.

The odds that spanking a child will lead to psychosexual aberrations would be difficult to calculate. However, the fact that there is any chance of these problems occurring should be reason enough to abandon the practice. (It is important to note that even children who are never spanked themselves can be negatively impacted by seeing other children punished this way.) The risks are completely unnecessary.

Spanking and modesty
Imagine your reaction if an authority figure, having discovered some misdeed of yours, pinned you across his lap and began slapping your buttocks. Painfulness aside, most people would consider this a rude, inexcusable assault on their modesty, no matter what they had done to “deserve” it.

Many people might assume that children, especially very young children, are too ignorant or naive to feel such indignity, or perhaps too impressed by the physical pain of spanking to care about much else. The truth is, however, that spanking can seriously injure a child’s sense of modesty. When a child is old enough to be told by adults to act modestly (which is not merely a social requirement, but also a wise precaution against potential child molesters), that child is likely to internalize and develop modesty as a personal value that will increase with age. This value persists even though the child might lapse into immodest behavior from time to time, as most children do. Consequently, the child whose buttocks are slapped may experience deep and lasting sexual shame, especially if the punishment is done in front of others or involves a state of undress. Actually, there are some adults who consciously emphasize this humiliation as part of the punishment (and some, for that matter, who do not limit spanking to younger children or even to preteens). But just as inflicting sexual shame is an unthinkable punishment for adults in any civilized society, it is surely an outrageous way to treat children.

It is a strange inconsistency, furthermore, for adults to exhort children to modesty while punishing them in a way that aggressively denies their modesty and privacy. Such mixed messages tend to confuse children or make them skeptical toward adult authority. Especially if adults hope to instill children with strong values of modesty, self-respect, and respect for others — values that become very important through the trials of puberty and adolescence — adults should teach by example and refrain from the disrespectful practice of bottom-slapping.

Conclusion
It is not disputed that spanking has a sexual side as well as a punitive side. Indeed, our popular culture and media suggest there is wide awareness of this fact, however unspoken. Society has nonetheless failed to squarely address the serious implications of spanking’s punitive/sexual duality. Considering the power of sex to corrupt, along with the coercive nature of punishment, we should be alarmed at the very idea of discipline through spanking – all the more so when it is directed at a group of people as powerless, fragile and unsuspecting as children.

http://nospank.net/sexdngrs.htm

 

[Swarley]

Here is the prosecution's motion to exclude the nude photos taken of Lyle and Erik as children from the second trial. (I should also point out that Stanley Weisberg, who presided over both Menendez trials, was also the judge of the second McMartin Preschool trial, of which Pamela Bozanich was one of the prosecutors. Hmm. The plot thickens). It's obvious that David Conn knew that these photos would be detrimental to the prosecution's case had the jury been allowed to see them.

The jury in the second trial did see those photos. Conn's closing argument echoed what he said in his motion; that the photos were taken by a child playing with a camera.

 

[Noirdame79]

The jury in the second trial did see those photos. Conn's closing argument echoed what he said in his motion; that the photos were taken by a child playing with a camera.

That wasn't his only "reasoning" if you read the entire document. Seriously, are you going to justify everything that Conn did? Because many things he did wouldn't be permitted today, such as insinuating that Erik couldn't have been traumatized by sexual abuse if he had homosexual encounters when he was a teenager. Obviously, Conn either didn't know or refused to recognize that confusion over sexual identity is a sign of sexual abuse, or that some who were sexually abused as children become sexualized and promiscuous because they feel that it's all they're good for and are seeking attention and affection anyway they can. Keeping out defense witnesses who could corroborate abuse and testify as to the family dysfunction - that would be a big issue in today's court system. Taunting someone about their sexuality, much less in a court of law - shame on all the prosecutors in this case. Claiming that Jose was going to disown Erik because he "feared" that his son was gay. It also, once again, sheds light on the predatory and abusive nature of Jose Menendez - expressing homophobia, using homophobic slurs - that is considered sexual abuse also; if it happened in a workplace it would be sexual harassment. He was obviously preoccupied with his son's sexuality and that is not normal for a parent. And once again, sexual abuse, like rape, is an act of violence and aggression, not of sex or desire. It would be the same as using a rape victim's sexual history against them or bringing up consensual sexual relationships to try and claim that they couldn't have been traumatized by sexual assault.

 

[Swarley]

Cignarelli's credibility was damaged by his changing of the dates where Erik confessed the murders to him. The version he gave police in 1989 differed from what he claimed under oath at the first trial, hence why he wasn't called to testify in the first phase of the second trial.

The Jamie Pisarcik story (where Lyle asked her to claim that Jose had assaulted her) was brought up in the first trial, by the defense, and Lyle did admit to doing this. So Conn's argument (at least the one he gave American Justice) is invalid because Lyle's jury from the first trial did hear about it. The "friend" that he wrote to, asking him to testify that Lyle tried to buy a gun from him, Lyle did not go through with it. As for the Norma Novelli stuff, she's not particularly credible either, she couldn't wait to sell that "book" after Lyle dropped her (it's obvious that she was infatuated with him and published the book out of revenge), there's still a question whether Lyle consented to her recording the conversations or not. What I find hilarious is that she claims to have been manipulated by Lyle, when she stated that she never believed that Lyle and Erik were abused from the start, and you'll notice that Lyle does almost all of the talking. Who manipulated who? She has the nerve to refer to him as evil, yet she had no problem visiting him in the L.A. County Jail and performing tasks for him.

Regarding Oziel, don't you find it telling that he wasn't even called to testify? He was found to be so evasive and so untrustworthy that he never even appeared in the second trial. Don't forget that Judalon Smith recanted her confession to police and appeared as a defense witness in the first trial, or that Oziel ultimately surrendered his license after being accused of violating the doctor/patient privilege and having sex with his female patients.

Second-degree murder might have been an option open for the jury in Jose's death, but not Kitty's. Denying the defense the right to call witnesses to corroborate the abuse issues and the family history is why the brothers can now appeal for a new trial.

It's also very telling that the prosecution called a different expert witness to talk about the crime scene and how it appeared the murders had happened, because the coroner who had performed the autopsies on Jose and Kitty, Dr. Irwin Golden, was unable to determine how many shots were fired and the sequence in which they were fired; he was also heavily criticized for the errors he made in the autopsies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Instead, Conn used Roger McCarthy of Failure Analysis Associates, who admitted under cross-examination that he had never visited a crime scene, never witnessed an autopsy, nor had he ever seen the impact of a gunshot wound on a human body. So, his computer "re-construction" of how the shots were fired, etc., is questionable at best. The defense called Ron Linhart, the assistant director of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department's crime lab, who testified that his blood-splatter analysis which contradicted McCarthy's version, and that his analysis showed that Jose and Kitty were both standing at some point when the shots were fired.

The prosecution used a lot of tactics (particularly in the cross-examinations of both defendants) that would not fly today. The homosexuality argument that prosecutors used against Erik in both trials, for one. Not only was it homophobic, but it actually was insulting and demeaning as confusion over sexual identity is often a sign of sexual abuse also (in case anyone else in this thread is wondering, this user and I have had debates on youtube over this case). David Conn had his own motive for wanting to convict the brothers; he wanted to be promoted as head District Attorney and believed that convicting the Menendez brothers would accomplish that for him. After the conclusion of the second trial, Conn was angry and humiliated when he was passed over for promotion, and when he was removed as acting head deputy of the major crimes unit.

Pamela Bozanich made comments on the ABC 20/20 special that Jose was abusive to his sons (especially) and his wife. Pretty much every other time she is interviewed she claims that she knows 100% that there was no abuse. Which is it? Given her role in the infamous McMartin Preschool trial, her credibility is questionable at best.

With respect to Craig Cignarelli; Craig may not remember the exact date of the conversation when he testified almost four years later, but Erik didn't deny having had a conversation with Craig wherein he (Erik) said "I did it." Their accounts differ dramatically as to what else Erik said, but that a conversation took place is a fact, and I'm not particularly troubled by the fact that a witness can get dates confused given the long passage of time since his initial police contact and his testimony at trial.

As for Oziel not being called in the second trial; I don't fault the prosecution for wanting to avoid the Oziel-Smyth circus of the first trial. Pam Bozanich has called Oziel a "nightmare", and maybe the new prosecution team felt that way too. That doesn't mean they don't believe he's telling the truth about his interaction with the brothers. Making tactical decisions about which witnesses to call is what attorneys do all the time. And neither side owns a witness. If the defense wanted to, they could have called Oziel and attacked him vigorously to try to destroy his credibility, but they made the decision not to. If I had prosecuted the retrial, I probably wouldn't have called Oziel either. But I still believe his version of the events over that of the brothers.

Second-degree murder was as option as to both victims, not just Jose. That's in the jury instructions. Leslie Abramson told Larry King in May of 1996 that, despite all the judge's rulings against them, the defense thought the brothers would be found guilty of second-degree murder and were stunned by the first-degree murder verdicts.

I think the whole McCarthy reconstruction thing in the second trial was a waste of time. A juror said later that those three weeks of testimony occupied "about five minutes" of the deliberations. I don't think that expert testimony, whether from a prosecution or defense witness, can conclusively tell us whether Jose and Kitty were standing or sitting.

As to Pam Bozanich's abuse comments; I can't speak for her, but when she says she's 100% convinced they fabricated the abuse story, maybe she's referring to sexual abuse. For instance, lead investigator Les Zoeller doesn't believe the sexual abuse allegations, but he acknowledges there was mental abuse. Maybe Bozanich is of the same view and refers to Jose mentally abusing his sons.

 

[Noirdame79]

With respect to Craig Cignarelli; Craig may not remember the exact date of the conversation when he testified almost four years later, but Erik didn't deny having had a conversation with Craig wherein he (Erik) said "I did it." Their accounts differ dramatically as to what else Erik said, but that a conversation took place is a fact, and I'm not particularly troubled by the fact that a witness can get dates confused given the long passage of time since his initial police contact and his testimony at trial.

As for Oziel not being called in the second trial; I don't fault the prosecution for wanting to avoid the Oziel-Smyth circus of the first trial. Pam Bozanich has called Oziel a "nightmare", and maybe the new prosecution team felt that way too. That doesn't mean they don't believe he's telling the truth about his interaction with the brothers. Making tactical decisions about which witnesses to call is what attorneys do all the time. And neither side owns a witness. If the defense wanted to, they could have called Oziel and attacked him vigorously to try to destroy his credibility, but they made the decision not to. If I had prosecuted the retrial, I probably wouldn't have called Oziel either. But I still believe his version of the events over that of the brothers.

Second-degree murder was as option as to both victims, not just Jose. That's in the jury instructions. Leslie Abramson told Larry King in May of 1996 that, despite all the judge's rulings against them, the defense thought the brothers would be found guilty of second-degree murder and were stunned by the first-degree murder verdicts.

I think the whole McCarthy reconstruction thing in the second trial was a waste of time. A juror said later that those three weeks of testimony occupied "about five minutes" of the deliberations. I don't think that expert testimony, whether from a prosecution or defense witness, can conclusively tell us whether Jose and Kitty were standing or sitting.

As to Pam Bozanich's abuse comments; I can't speak for her, but when she says she's 100% convinced they fabricated the abuse story, maybe she's referring to sexual abuse. For instance, lead investigator Les Zoeller doesn't believe the sexual abuse allegations, but he acknowledges there was mental abuse. Maybe Bozanich is of the same view and refers to Jose mentally abusing his sons.

We don't know which version that Judalon Smith claimed was the truth, and that's my point. She changed her story. Oziel claimed that he never asked her to eavesdrop on his session with the brothers. Smith, before the first trial began, accused Oziel of drugging and raping her. Oziel also claimed Smith was infatuated with him and sought him out, yet phone records revealed that he had called her on a number of occasions. He was not reliable. The jurors felt that he was incapable of giving a straight answer. Yes, the soap operaish quality was likely part of the reason he was not called to testify, but not the only one. It was also a credibility issue.

Les Zoeller and Bozanich also claimed that there was an investigation into the sexual abuse claims, but where is the supposed "evidence" of this investigation? That's what I find suspicious. And Pamela Bozanich being one of the prosecutors of the McMartin Preschool trial, who conveniently never brings up her involvement in it (taking her husband's name has helped with that, no doubt). Mental, physical and verbal abuse often goes hand in hand with sexual abuse. That's another area in which they fail to justify their bias against the brothers. Abuse is abuse, and it comes in many different forms. They see them as spoiled rich kids, never mind the fact that there has to be an authority figure, a parent, to enable that and allow it to happen.

I was just pointing out (regarding the use of McCarthy) that the prosecution decided not to use the coroner who testified in the first trial because Conn knew that with the OJ Simpson travesty and with Golden's involvement in that, it wouldn't make the prosecution's case look very good and would subject it to criticism. That and Golden wasn't able to determine how the shots were fired, the sequence, how many. Choosing someone who had no direct knowledge of crime scenes etc, showed the prosecution's desperation. How could he know how the shots were fired, etc, and the position of the victims if he'd never visited the crime scene (or any crime scene for that matter), had no knowledge of autopsies, or the impact of a gunshot wound on a human body?

Cignarelli's credibility issues were mentioned just as a correction to your assumption as to what I was referring to.

 

[Noirdame79]

Kitty Menendez Called Confused, Strange : Trial: Witness says she 'kept staring' into space in visit three weeks before she was killed. The defense also has three others testify about slain couple

Kitty Menendez, who over the years was needy, pathetic, athletic, disorganized, suspicious and spacey, "all kinds of contradictory things," simply seemed strange three weeks before her sons killed her, a former neighbor testified Monday.

Called by the defense as Lyle and Erik Menendez's murder trial resumed after a four-day recess, Alicia Hercz said Kitty Menendez "kept staring" into space when they met Aug. 1, 1989, at the Menendez home in Beverly Hills.

Odder still, Hercz said, Kitty Menendez kept referring to an impending trip she was taking to visit family in South America--although she had no relatives there and apparently was confusing the nonexistent town of Quito, Peru, with Kalamazoo, Mich., where she was headed for a tennis tournament.

"It was the strangest I had ever seen her," Hercz said.

The testimony was offered as part of the defense strategy to paint for jurors a psychological profile of Kitty Menendez, 47, and Jose Menendez, 45, a wealthy entertainment executive. Their sons shot both to death on Aug. 20, 1989, in the family's Beverly Hills mansion.

Lyle Menendez, 25, and Erik Menendez, 22, are charged with first-degree murder in the shotgun slayings and could face the death penalty if convicted. The Van Nuys Superior Court trial is in its seventh week.

The trial resumed Monday after a break because of a death in the family of defense lawyer Leslie Abramson. Abramson was not in court Monday, and Judge Stanley M. Weisberg ordered court closed today so she can return from the East Coast. The trial is to resume Wednesday.

Prosecutors contend that the brothers killed out of hatred and greed. The defense concedes the killings but contends they were acts of self-defense after years of physical, mental and sexual abuse.

Hercz was a neighbor when the Menendez family lived in New Jersey. She taught Spanish to ninth-grader Lyle Menendez at an exclusive Princeton-area college prep school. But she said she also socialized with the family and visited them after they moved to California--including the trip weeks before the slayings.

Also called to the stand by the defense Monday were a tennis coach, another teacher and a school nurse.

Each of the four offered anecdotes much like those produced over the past two weeks by 13 other witnesses--neighbors, teachers, coaches and relatives--who have characterized Jose Menendez as domineering and Kitty Menendez as a secretive enigma.

The testimony is part of the defense strategy to lay a framework for the testimony of Lyle and Erik Menendez and a slew of experts in child abuse who will follow each to the stand.

One brother is likely to testify next week, although it is not clear who will go first, defense lawyers said.

Hercz, 48, who now lives in Washington, D.C., called Jose Menendez cruel, controlling, destructive and sarcastic.

She said Lyle Menendez was a sad, pathetic, morose loner.

Sandra Robinson Sharp, who taught Spanish to both brothers at the Princeton Day School, called Erik Menendez needy, vulnerable, sensitive, caring and very fragile.

Sharp, 46, said that Kitty Menendez always came to parent-teacher conferences in sweat suits. "Her hair was messy and needed a bleach job," Sharp said, adding that Kitty Menendez "had a noticeable smell I was never able to identify."

After 13 prior witnesses, prosecutors seemed Monday to have heard enough.

William Kurtain, 39, the tennis coach, testified that Jose Menendez barked orders to his sons and that a pet ferret had the run of the Menendez home. That drew mocking questions from Deputy Dist. Atty. Lester Kuriyama.

"How would you characterize the barking?" he asked the witness. "More like a dog? More like a ferret?"

Weisberg upheld defense objections to the questions.

By the end of the day, Deputy Dist. Atty. Pamela Bozanich said prosecutors would object to any more testimony from teachers or coaches, saying it was "terrain that has already been well-explored by the defense."

Weisberg agreed, saying such evidence "was becoming cumulative." Defense lawyers promised that they had called their last teacher or coach.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-31/local/me-29658_1_kitty-menendez

 

[Swarley]

That wasn't his only "reasoning" if you read the entire document. Seriously, are you going to justify everything that Conn did? Because many things he did wouldn't be permitted today, such as insinuating that Erik couldn't have been traumatized by sexual abuse if he had homosexual encounters when he was a teenager. Obviously, Conn either didn't know or refused to recognize that confusion over sexual identity is a sign of sexual abuse, or that some who were sexually abused as children become sexualized and promiscuous because they feel that it's all they're good for and are seeking attention and affection anyway they can. Keeping out defense witnesses who could corroborate abuse and testify as to the family dysfunction - that would be a big issue in today's court system. Taunting someone about their sexuality, much less in a court of law - shame on all the prosecutors in this case. Claiming that Jose was going to disown Erik because he "feared" that his son was gay. It also, once again, sheds light on the predatory and abusive nature of Jose Menendez - expressing homophobia, using homophobic slurs - that is considered sexual abuse also; if it happened in a workplace it would be sexual harassment. He was obviously preoccupied with his son's sexuality and that is not normal for a parent. And once again, sexual abuse, like rape, is an act of violence and aggression, not of sex or desire. It would be the same as using a rape victim's sexual history against them or bringing up consensual sexual relationships to try and claim that they couldn't have been traumatized by sexual assault.

I don't approve of everything Conn did. I don't like that he suggested in front of the jury that Barry Levin concocted a PTSD defense in conspiracy with Erik and the one expert Erik was allowed to call. (I'm not saying I believe Erik suffered from PTSD, I'm saying Conn shouldn't have included defense counsel in the conspiracy.)
Nor do I like the way he objected to exclude testimony from 30+ defense witnesses and then got up in closing argument and criticized the defense for not putting on evidence of abuse. I'm all for giving both sides in a trial wide latitude to put on their cases. Judge Weisberg clearly wanted a first-degree murder conviction, likely for the reasons you've stated earlier in the thread. I also wonder whether his defeat in a somewhat similar case in his prosecutor days had an effect on how he viewed the Menendez case.
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-12-02/local/me-589_1_prowler

 

[Noirdame79]

I don't approve of everything Conn did. I don't like that he suggested in front of the jury that Barry Levin concocted a PTSD defense in conspiracy with Erik and the one expert Erik was allowed to call. (I'm not saying I believe Erik suffered from PTSD, I'm saying Conn shouldn't have included defense counsel in the conspiracy.)
Nor do I like the way he objected to exclude testimony from 30+ defense witnesses and then got up in closing argument and criticized the defense for not putting on evidence of abuse. I'm all for giving both sides in a trial wide latitude to put on their cases. Judge Weisberg clearly wanted a first-degree murder conviction, likely for the reasons you've stated earlier in the thread. I also wonder whether his defeat in a somewhat similar case in his prosecutor days had an effect on how he viewed the Menendez case.
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-12-02/local/me-589_1_prowler

That's good to know. I also heard that Conn passed away after suffering from ALS, a horrible disease that I wouldn't wish on anyone. But I don't like what he did at all. Thanks for the info about his earlier case.

As to whether or not Erik suffered from PTSD, we can agree to disagree.

 

[Swarley]

We don't know which version that Judalon Smith claimed was the truth, and that's my point. She changed her story. Oziel claimed that he never asked her to eavesdrop on his session with the brothers. Smith, before the first trial began, accused Oziel of drugging and raping her. Oziel also claimed Smith was infatuated with him and sought him out, yet phone records revealed that he had called her on a number of occasions. He was not reliable. The jurors felt that he was incapable of giving a straight answer. Yes, the soap operaish quality was likely part of the reason he was not called to testify, but not the only one. It was also a credibility issue.

Les Zoeller and Bozanich also claimed that there was an investigation into the sexual abuse claims, but where is the supposed "evidence" of this investigation? That's what I find suspicious. And Pamela Bozanich being one of the prosecutors of the McMartin Preschool trial, who conveniently never brings up her involvement in it (taking her husband's name has helped with that, no doubt). Mental, physical and verbal abuse often goes hand in hand with sexual abuse. That's another area in which they fail to justify their bias against the brothers. Abuse is abuse, and it comes in many different forms. They see them as spoiled rich kids, never mind the fact that there has to be an authority figure, a parent, to enable that and allow it to happen.

I was just pointing out (regarding the use of McCarthy) that the prosecution decided not to use the coroner who testified in the first trial because Conn knew that with the OJ Simpson travesty and with Golden's involvement in that, it wouldn't make the prosecution's case look very good and would subject it to criticism. That and Golden wasn't able to determine how the shots were fired, the sequence, how many. Choosing someone who had no direct knowledge of crime scenes etc, showed the prosecution's desperation. How could he know how the shots were fired, etc, and the position of the victims if he'd never visited the crime scene (or any crime scene for that matter), had no knowledge of autopsies, or the impact of a gunshot wound on a human body?

Cignarelli's credibility issues were mentioned just as a correction to your assumption as to what I was referring to.

I reckon it is unusual in a homicide case that the coroner who conducted the autopsy isn't called to testify. But I don't think the prosecution was in any way desperate. They had an exceedingly strong case even without McCarthy's reconstruction.


I don't know how Zoeller and/or Bozanich investigated the abuse claims. In the chapter devoted to the Menendez case in "The Murderer Hunters" book it says, "Les Zoeller was convinced the boys had committed the crime, and his investigations had uncovered 'absolutely no physical abuse and absolutely no sexual abuse. Mental abuse, I'll give them - Jose was pretty tough on the brothers.'" But nothing about what he had specifically investigated.

Pierce O'Donnell, who wrote the Conclusion in the Novelli book, was hired as an independent special counsel to investigate the murders. He writes on page 256: "During our investigation for the LIVE Board of Directors, we conducted hundreds of interviews, including sessions with close family and friends. At no time did any of the interviewees give the slightest hint of the dark secrets of the Menendez family that would form the core of the defense."

Anyway, I would be more interested to know more about the investigation that Dr.
Vicary referred to on Larry King Live in 2003:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/20/lkl.00.html
CALLER: Good evening, Larry. My question is for the panel. I wanted to know if anyone is familiar with the rumor that Jose Menendez was an alleged serial child molester and I just wanted to know if anyone has ever come forward to substantiate those....

KING: Dr. Vicary.

VICARY: Yes, that's actually a fact.

KING: That is a fact?

VICARY: There were people...

KING: Oh, you mean allegations -- the fact is there were allegations.

VICARY: There were allegations and they were investigated. They were followed up. People were interviewed and admitted that they had been either molested or approached by the father sexually. However, because of their position -- some of these people were in the entertainment business. They did not wish to make this a public statement, and so this information, thus far, has not come out publicly.

GRACE: Wait a minute. With these guys facing the death penalty, Larry? They wouldn't come forward? I find that a little tough to swallow.

CONN: We saw no reliable evidence during the trial that was true. We heard about that rumor and I don't think that was substantiated.

 

[Swirlz]

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-12-02/local/me-589_1_prowler

Thanks. I'd been looking for this article but I couldn't find it.

 

[Noirdame79]

I reckon it is unusual in a homicide case that the coroner who conducted the autopsy isn't called to testify. But I don't think the prosecution was in any way desperate. They had an exceedingly strong case even without McCarthy's reconstruction.


I don't know how Zoeller and/or Bozanich investigated the abuse claims. In the chapter devoted to the Menendez case in "The Murderer Hunters" book it says, "Les Zoeller was convinced the boys had committed the crime, and his investigations had uncovered 'absolutely no physical abuse and absolutely no sexual abuse. Mental abuse, I'll give them - Jose was pretty tough on the brothers.'" But nothing about what he had specifically investigated.

Pierce O'Donnell, who wrote the Conclusion in the Novelli book, was hired as an independent special counsel to investigate the murders. He writes on page 256: "During our investigation for the LIVE Board of Directors, we conducted hundreds of interviews, including sessions with close family and friends. At no time did any of the interviewees give the slightest hint of the dark secrets of the Menendez family that would form the core of the defense."

Anyway, I would be more interested to know more about the investigation that Dr.
Vicary referred to on Larry King Live in 2003:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/20/lkl.00.html
CALLER: Good evening, Larry. My question is for the panel. I wanted to know if anyone is familiar with the rumor that Jose Menendez was an alleged serial child molester and I just wanted to know if anyone has ever come forward to substantiate those....

KING: Dr. Vicary.

VICARY: Yes, that's actually a fact.

KING: That is a fact?

VICARY: There were people...

KING: Oh, you mean allegations -- the fact is there were allegations.

VICARY: There were allegations and they were investigated. They were followed up. People were interviewed and admitted that they had been either molested or approached by the father sexually. However, because of their position -- some of these people were in the entertainment business. They did not wish to make this a public statement, and so this information, thus far, has not come out publicly.

GRACE: Wait a minute. With these guys facing the death penalty, Larry? They wouldn't come forward? I find that a little tough to swallow.

CONN: We saw no reliable evidence during the trial that was true. We heard about that rumor and I don't think that was substantiated.

I don't know details about the "investigation" that both Zoeller and Bozanich alluded to. It's just been mentioned. However, what Vicary referred to could have something to do with the Menudo allegations or possibly something else. I'm suspicious of Bozanich and Lester Kuryiama as they both have talked about prosecuting child molesters. I don't think some of the information at the trials, even some the prosecution used against the defendants (I'm referring to the insinuation that Erik's sexuality was the "real problem" in the family) went over their heads. I think Bozanich, in particular, knows more than she's admitting to. So Conn was aware of these other allegations? But he wanted a conviction and a promotion. Hmmm. Since most abuse happens in private, that can often account as to why there often is very little evidence.

Jose's sister, Marta Cano, revealed in her testimony during the first trial that she had deliberately withheld information about the Menendez family dynamic because of the pressure of relatives when she was interviewed by the police. At the time, she didn't know that Lyle and Erik had killed their parents either. A lot of people might have wanted to maintain the facade out of respect for the dead, especially given the nature of the deaths.

 

[Noirdame79]

Dr. Susan Forward, from the books, "Toxic Parents: Overcoming Their Hurtful Legacy And Reclaiming Your Life" and "Betrayal Of Innocence: Incest And Its Devastation"

Myth: Incest is a rare occurance

Reality: All responsible studies and data, including those from the US Department of Human Services, show that at least one out of every ten children is molested by a trusted family member before the age of 18.

Myth: Incest only happens in poor or uneducated families, or in isolated, backward communities.

Reality: Incest is ruthlessly democratic. It cuts across all socio-economic levels. Incest can occur as easily in your family as in the back hills of Appalachia.

Myth: Incest aggressors are sexual and social deviants

Reality: The typical incest aggressor can be anybody. There is no common denominator or profile. They are often hard-working, respectable, church-going, seemingly average men and women. I've seen aggressors who were police officers, schoolteachers, captains of industry, society matrons, bricklayers, doctors, alcoholics, and clergymen. The traits they possess in common are psychological rather than social, cultural, racial or economic.

Myth: Incest is a reaction to sexual deprivation

Reality: Most aggressors have active sex lives, within marriage, and often through extra-marital affairs as well. They turn to children either for feelings of power and control or for the unconditional, nonthreatening love that only children can provide. Although these needs and drives become sexualized, sexual deprivation is rarely the trigger.

Myth: Children, - especially teenage girls - are seductive and at least partially responsible for being molested

Reality: Most children try out their sexual feelings and impulses in innocent, exploratory ways with people with whom they are bonded. Little girls flirt with their fathers and little boys with their mothers. Some teenagers are openly provactive. However, it is always 100% the adult's responsibility to exercise appropriate control in these situations and not act on those impulses.

Myth: Children are molested more often by strangers than by someone they know.

Reality: The majority of sexual crimes committed against children are perpetrated by trusted members of the family.

Incest develops in troubled families. Rather than causing a breakdown within a family, incest is the result of such a breakdown. Family members are often emotionally isolated from each other and there is usually a great deal of stress, secrecy, emotional isolation, lack of respect, and confusion of individual boundaries and family roles, which sets the stage for incest.

There is also a wide range of experiences that are forced on children that may never involve actual body contact, but which, nevertheless, create a climate in which the child feels unsafe and bewildered. These are the behaviors I have termed "psychological incest" and include voyeurism (I have several clients whose fathers demanded that they leave their doors open while they undressed, or drilled holes in the bathroom and bedroom doors in order to spy on them), exhibitionism,
masturbating in front of a child, showing a child *advertiser censored*, have the child pose for nude often in sexually suggestive poses, and repetitive suggestive and seductive remarks.

The great common denominators among all these behaviors - whether they involve direct assault on the child's body or emotional well-being - is secrecy. Anything that needs to be kept secret is not in the child's best interest and can run the gamut from inappropriate to criminal behavior.

As with physical abusers, most incest families look normal to the outside world. The parents may even be community or religious leaders, with reputations for high moral standards. It's amazing how people can change behind closed doors.

The incestuous father is the most baffling sex criminal in our society. He is rarely a freak, deviant, dangerous criminal or a psychotic. But while many aggressors may look and function as perfectly normal citizens, they have significant deficits in their character structure. There are certain character traits that I saw on a consistent basis among these men.

The most striking of these traits are the inability to recognize that such behavior has consequences, an almost incomprehensible lack of compassion and empathy for the victim, and a strong impulsiveness to act out internal conflicts rather than confront them in any mature fashion.

One type of aggressor defends against his feelings of inadequacy by gaining power and control over a helpless, dependant child.
Just as we know that rape is not a sexual act , but one of power, control, degradation and hostility against women, we now know that incest is motivated by similar impulses. This type of aggressor is often violent. Many victims report having been physically brutalized in a variety of ways along with sexual abuse. Terror is piled upon terror as the aggressor attempts to assert is manhood by tyrannizing his family. Aggressors engage in a series of coercive behaviors in order to both initiate the child into incest and in order to ensure his or her silence. Threats of physical harm are common ("if you don't do what I want or if you tell, I'll hit you, beat you, kill you"). Equally common, and often even more effective, are threats involving abandonment and shifting responsibility on the child for the possible break up of the family. There is nothing that can seal a child's mouth more completely than the fear that all children have of either being left, sent away or being blamed for tearing the family apart. ("if you tell, people will think you're crazy", "if you tell, nobody will believe you and you will be punished", "if you tell, I will be sent to prison and there will be no one to supprt the family").

 

[Noirdame79]

Healing The Incest Wound by Christine A. Courtois

The "normal-appearing" family, as the name implies, is just that. From the outside, the family appears to be solid and well-functioning, The parents are usually established in a long-term marriage, are socially and financially stable, and seem well-integrated into the community. Typically, the family follows the traditional model of the husband as "head of the household" and the wife as subordinate.

The family is not as stable internally as it appears on the outside. The parents often lack the emotional energy to adequately nurture one another, much less their children. Over time, they become estranged from one another, emotionally and sexually. Not infrequently, they have developed work and social schedules which allow them to avoid interacting with one another on much more than a superficial level. (Alicia Hercz, neighbor to the Menendez family, stated on the ABC 20/20 documentary that Jose and Kitty "didn't particularly show affection; I don't think they touched each other"). Alcoholism or other shame-based behaviors are often in evidence and contribute to the barren emotional family climate. Children are left to cope as they can and over time both parents engage them in caretaking functions (Jose once wrote home while on a business trip to his young sons, confidant that Lyle was "taking good care of Mama", and Erik became Kitty's emotional caretaker in his father's physical and emotional absence).

Father-Son Incest

The available case descriptions suggest that father-son incest may result from intraspsychic conflict or a psychological breakdown in the father, family difficulties, or some combination of the two. The father's conflicts about latent homosexuality, feelings of inadequacy, anger or revenge, a distant, powerless, or sexualized relationship with his own mother, alcoholism, unresolved past sexual abuse, sociopathy and violence towards family members all are mentioned as causes, as are marital strain and distress.
The father is often intelligent, successfully employed, and without a history of severe psychological disorder. Half of the causes in the literature report simultaneous physical and sexual abuse of the child.

As in other forms of incest, mothers may be aware of the abuse but unable to directly acknowledge it and/or protect the child. Disclosure of same-sex incest between father and son or multiple incest with children of both sexes may have two quite opposite consequences. It could be more outrageous to the mother, making it more difficult to deny and easier to report, or its very outrageousness may lead her to disbelieve and/or repress what she has seen or learned.

Besides the general effects associate with incest, some are mentioned as specific to father-son abuse. Intense anger and homicidal feelings towards the father have been noted. The popular press has recently carried stories of sons (like some daughters) who have killed or attempted to kill their fathers to prevent them from further physically or sexually assaulting themselves and their siblings.

Sexual identity problems may result from being homosexually assaulted. The boy may question whether he is homosexual and be confused about any sexual arousal he may have experienced. He may have suffered acute threat to his masculinity due to the stress of finding himself in a role reversal of the expected male role - helpless rather than in control. As a consequence, he may feel extremely shamed and uncertain about his masculinity and be ineffective in his attempted relationships. (This really sums up Erik's struggles, which was routinely used against him in both trials).

Mother-Child Incest/ Mother-Son Incest

Until recently, reports of mother-child incest have been quite rare, leading to a widespread belief that its occurrence is similarly rare; however, new research and clinical evidence indicates that mothers, in larger numbers than previously estimated, may be accomplices or co-offenders in father-child incest or may be the sole perpetrators with children of either sex.

Early investigations of mother-initiated incest with a son almost universally reported a gross pathology on the part of the mother. It now appears that the severely disturbed or psychotic mother is but one type. Alcoholism and other types of character problems have also been identified, as have loneliness, neediness and role reversal. The son has been infrequently described as disturbed at the time of the mother-initiated incest, although any later disturbances he exhibits has typically been attributed to its occurrence.

Mother initiated incest with a son ordinarily involves an absent partner, the father. Two family variations have been documented: an intact family where the father is absent or unavailable due to work commitments or other reasons, and the single-parent family with no father/husband. In either case, the son may be expected and even directed to be "the man of the house" and to take care of his mother. The mother seeks from her son what she would normally expect from her husband, with the incest developing from this role reversal, which becomes eroticized and sexualized over time.

Whether intercourse occurs or not, a son seduced by his mother may be overcome by conflicting emotions, especially guilt, desire,
confusion, anger, love and hate. He may exhibit low self-esteem and poor social skills, and be mistrustful, insecure, isolated, and uncomfortable with peers and particularly with women. One possible consequence of this is resentment - "the seduction of a boy by his mother, mother surrogate or significant adult female in his life is detrimental to a boy's psychosocial development. Even things that may seem mundane on the surface, such as a mother and son sleeping in the same bed, actually can cause problems in psychosocial development as well. (Kitty's niece, Diane Vander Molen, testified that during the three summers she lived with the Menendez family in the 1970s, Lyle and Erik would take turns sleeping in their mother's bed while Jose was away on business).

 

[Noirdame79]

June 15, 1999|JOSE LAMBIET SOUTH FLORIDA INSIDER

As questions about Miami heartthrob Ricky Martin's sexuality continue to swirl, the new issue of Globe contends that Martin was once molested by Jose Menendez, the Left Coast music exec gunned down by his sons Lyle and Erik.

The tab features interviews with a tour promoter for Martin's old teeny-bopper group, Menudo, and a L.A. deputy district attorney. Both say that during the investigation of the '93 murder, police heard that Menendez spent way too much time with the group, and that he molested his favorite, Martin, on a trip to Disneyland.

Martin's L.A. publicist, Kim Jackworth, didn't return my calls.



http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1999-06-15/news/9906140663_1_ricky-martin-jose-menendez-white-house

 

[Noirdame79]

Excerpt from Blood Brothers: The Inside Story Of The Menendez Murders by Ron Soble and John Johnson, originally published in January, 1994

Menudo had even less integrity than the Monkees because its membership changed whenever the performers reached age 16, considered too old to appeal to the pre-teens that made up the core of the group's audience.

After signing Menudo, Menendez arranged a lavish press party to introduce the band to the American music establishment, The Plaza Hotel event was attended by seven hundred and fifty people, recalled Carlos Barba, president of a Latin television station at the time. After the press conference everyone retired to the ballroom, where Jose and Kitty danced.

Menendez watched over the band's every move. He attended concerts with his sons to chart fan reaction and worked hard to spoon-feed the group's pop pablum to American kids. He also tried to Americanize them. They played the Jerry Lewis telethon, performed the music on a string of B movies, and went on a thirty-five-city tour of the United States.

But Menudo flopped. The generation of young Latins in America might listen to the group on the radio, but they didn't rush out to the record stores to buy their albums. The band's reputation was later sullied by news accounts in New York and Puerto Rico alleging that several members of Menudo had been sexually abused and plied with drugs and alcohol.

Steve Wax, Jose's West Coast Consultant, said Jose "would joke about" the abuse allegations connected with Menudo.

 

[Noirdame79]

The tab features interviews with a tour promoter for Martin's old teeny-bopper group, Menudo, and a L.A. deputy district attorney. Both say that during the investigation of the '93 murder, police heard that Menendez spent way too much time with the group, and that he molested his favorite, Martin, on a trip to Disneyland.

Why they refer to it as a 1993 murder, I don't know. Maybe because the first trial took place in 1993?

 

[Noirdame79]

Two Boys Raped and Sent to Prison for Life!!!!!

Personal emotional difficulties, such as anxiety or depression, are often related to difficult stresses of a current situation, or they may have stem from unresolved past events. Whatever the source, emotional states have a strong impact on sexuality. The essential conditions for a mutually enjoyable sexual interaction—legal age, consent, equality, respect, trust, and safety—are absent in sexual abuse. Boys and girls, who are sexually abused, experience sexual behavior and stimulation that are overwhelming for their level of physical and social development.

Joseph Lyle Menendez (born 10 January 1968) and Erik Galen Menendez (born 27 November 1970) are brothers who grew up in Princeton, New Jersey. The parents of Lyle and Erik where Jose Menendez, who was a corporate executive for The Hertz Corporation, and an immigrant from Cuba, and their mother was Kitty Menendez, a school teacher, who quit her job to manage her home and family fulltime. After their father got the CEO position of LIVE Entertainment, the family moved to Beverly Hills, California, where the boys spent their adolescence.

However, the boys, Lyle and Erik, were robbed of the opportunity to explore and develop their sexuality at their own age appropriate pace. The family was very wealthy and Jose Menendez, the father used to buy the boys gifts and be really nice to them and buy them food and let them eat candy, and them he would tell Erik and Lyle to keep a secret, and Jose started off by touching the boys and telling them it was a game and to keep it a secret. So they let him, but were apprehensive.

Later on, the father, Jose Menendez got more physical with the boys, he would make them have anal sex with each other and himself. The boys experienced depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem and poor grades. In addition, people who are sexually abused by their father are often suicidal, and commonly report never experiencing an orgasm. The boys sued to have flashbacks, sudden images of the smells, sounds, sights, feelings and sexual acts. It was a traumatic experience.

Cold and nakedness are evils introduced by luxury and custom. On August 20, 1989, Lyle and Erik were 21 and 18 years old, respectively. Lyle and Erik’s parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, were found shot to death in their Beverly Hills home, at 722 North Elm Drive. Lyle had been the one to call 911 to report the murders. After the death of their parents, the Menendez brothers did not act like children in mourning, however. They soon started spending some of the family’s fortune. They probably feel good to be out of the prison of sexual abuse their father had created.

The brutal family killings had gripped the nation. Erik Menendez confessed to the killings to his therapist, and Lyle later met with Erik and the therapist to discuss the situation. Lyle reportedly threatened to kill the therapist if he even told anyone what the brothers did. Erik’s therapist did break patient/doctor confidentially by telling a friend what happened, and that friend later alerted authorities.

The Menendez brothers, Lyle and Erik, were eventually arrested in 1990 for the killings of their parents. They claimed that they had survived years of psychological and sexual abuse. In July 1993, Lyle and Erik were tried by different juries, each claiming self-defense for the murders. In March 1996, Lyle and Erik were both found guilty of first-degree murder. They avoided the death penalty, and were both sentenced to life in prison without parole.

I really feel sad for the boys because Erik and Lyle Menendez are the victims. Often times, the authorities find out about these cases of abuse, but does nothing to help the victims because of who the potential defendant is. In retrospect, these young men have talked about how the incest experiences still govern and pattern their sexuality. The men have reported a diminished sexual appetite, with little curiosity or interest. Erik and Lyle found it difficult to anticipate, enjoy, express, and receive love in a sexual or physical form. And that a wall of avoidance, fear, and dread is what they face when presented with sexual situation.

Now that they have been in prison for 20 years, Erik and Lyle turned their lives over to God and lead prayer groups. They feel bad about what they did to defend themselves. So many people are hung up on what the Menendez brothers did, but no one takes into account that they were abused, sexually, and held prison, as children, by their father., and the effects of sexual assault can be long-lasting; 60 percent of rape victims had sexual problems for more than three years after the assault—unresolved resentments, a lack of trust or respect, dislike of a partner, are just a few. Apprehension about intimacy or one who experiences intimacy as threatening may have considerable sexual difficulty.

https://randolphharris3508.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/raped-and-sent-to-prison-for-life/

 

[seattlechiquita]

If anyone out there believes half a word of what these two say, I have a bridge to sell them.