CA - Court upholds Menendez brothers' convictions

[flourish]

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

Uh oh, friend... I'm on the fence but leaning heavily on the side of the boys... I don't want to buy any bridges today though

 

[Noirdame79]

From Ebay:

 

[Noirdame79]

Uh oh, friend... I'm on the fence but leaning heavily on the side of the boys... I don't want to buy any bridges today though

I always believed that they were abused in some way, having grown up in a similar situation, I can spot the signs in both victims and abusers. The sexual abuse allegations had me on the fence for quite a while too, but the more I've researched (and not based just on what the brothers themselves have said) the more apparent it has become that Jose Menendez was a known sexual predator within the entertainment industry and the police and DA's Office, at the very least, were aware of these accusations but ignored them. Because the other people he victimized don't wish to come forward publicly, for fear of being stigmatized and ruining their careers, it's a very sad but very common fact, especially when the perpetrator is a famous and/or powerful person.

 

[karmaskiss01]

I believe the brothers not only because of what has been said officially, but because of what some others have said about their parents. Like that KM was "strange" and stared into space. Sounding to me like a woman who had become highly delusional and obsessed with keeping up the image of a perfect family. That JM was "someone to fear". Obviously very controlling and powerful. No one ever said no to him. These descriptions not made by the brothers alone but by neighbors I believe remind me of a highly dysfunctional family I once knew where there was abuse of all kinds. Their family dynamic is very similar even the money part(not to that extent of being rich but yeah).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Noirdame79]

I believe the brothers not only because of what has been said officially, but because of what some others have said about their parents. Like that KM was "strange" and stared into space. Sounding to me like a woman who had become highly delusional and obsessed with keeping up the image of a perfect family. That JM was "someone to fear". Obviously very controlling and powerful. No one ever said no to him. These descriptions not made by the brothers alone but by neighbors I believe remind me of a highly dysfunctional family I once knew where there was abuse of all kinds. Their family dynamic is very similar even the money part(not to that extent of being rich but yeah).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, that is very telling as well. It was also clear that Kitty's top priority was keeping her husband, not her sons' happiness and well-being. She even told her sister-in-law, Marta Cano (in front of Lyle) that she wished Lyle and Erik had never been born because they took Jose away from her. And Jose was the classic narcissistic abuser - controlling, demeaning, and sadistic - he didn't care who he stepped on or hurt. Here is how he was often described - Strict. Sarcastic. Belittling. Ridiculing. Humiliating. Image-conscious. Intimidating. Cruel. Controlling. Angry. Strong-willed. Competitive. Arrogant. Intense. Demanding. Stern. Obnoxious. Abusive. Unfair. Confrontational. Belligerent. Rude. Nasty. Frightening. Dominating. Dictatorial. Sadistic. Unrealistic. Harshly critical. Emotionally harsh. If this is how he appeared to some outside the family, imagine what he was like in private!

Of course, he could turn on the charm when needed. But his need to control and his thirst for power was prominent. I think the main reason why so many are quick to dismiss the brothers' claims of abuse is because their father was wealthy, as if that means they had "everything" and couldn't have had any problems. What people don't realize is that Jose's wealth was a perfect cover for the abuse - he could give his sons lavish gifts and money and no one would bat an eye, when in fact he used that to control and manipulate his sons - the grooming process can't be discounted either. I've seen people try to excuse his dominance over pretty much ever aspect of his sons' lives as being a "Latin custom", but come on, you don't need to shower with your sons, much less on a regular basis (and more importantly, why would you want to?), you don't need to drill a hole to spy on your son in his bedroom, nor do you need to encourage your children to bottle up their emotions.

As I've stated, he exhibited the psychological traits of an incestuous father. People don't seem to understand that sexual abusers do tend to very controlling and abusive and don't respect boundaries or personal space. It appears that there was no such thing as "privacy" in the Menendez household, at least for Lyle and Erik. They weren't entitled to any in Jose's mind.

 

[karmaskiss01]

Yes, that is very telling as well. It was also clear that Kitty's top priority was keeping her husband, not her sons' happiness and well-being. She even told her sister-in-law, Marta Cano (in front of Lyle) that she wished Lyle and Erik had never been born because they took Jose away from her. And Jose was the classic narcissistic abuser - controlling, demeaning, and sadistic - he didn't care who he stepped on or hurt. Here is how he was often described - Strict. Sarcastic. Belittling. Ridiculing. Humiliating. Image-conscious. Intimidating. Cruel. Controlling. Angry. Strong-willed. Competitive. Arrogant. Intense. Demanding. Stern. Obnoxious. Abusive. Unfair. Confrontational. Belligerent. Rude. Nasty. Frightening. Dominating. Dictatorial. Sadistic. Unrealistic. Harshly critical. Emotionally harsh. If this is how he appeared to some outside the family, imagine what he was like in private!

Of course, he could turn on the charm when needed. But his need to control and his thirst for power was prominent. I think the main reason why so many are quick to dismiss the brothers' claims of abuse is because their father was wealthy, as if that means they had "everything" and couldn't have had any problems. What people don't realize is that Jose's wealth was a perfect cover for the abuse - he could give his sons lavish gifts and money and no one would bat an eye, when in fact he used that to control and manipulate his sons - the grooming process can't be discounted either. I've seen people try to excuse his dominance over pretty much ever aspect of his sons' lives as being a "Latin custom", but come on, you don't need to shower with your sons, much less on a regular basis (and more importantly, why would you want to?), you don't need to drill a hole to spy on your son in his bedroom, nor do you need to encourage your children to bottle up their emotions.

As I've stated, he exhibited the psychological traits of an incestuous father. People don't seem to understand that sexual abusers do tend to very controlling and abusive and don't respect boundaries or personal space. It appears that there was no such thing as "privacy" in the Menendez household, at least for Lyle and Erik. They weren't entitled to any in Jose's mind.

Perfectly put! Their sons were like their possessions. Their toys. Once they realized they were going to have their own girlfriends/lives..they freaked out. Like how Kitty would make one of them(I think Lyle?) eat in the den with paper plates because she said his girlfriend was *insert all these names* who contracted AIDS. No amount of money in the world could make up for living like that. That's all they knew, too.

I don't remember if it was on the ABC special but I remember Erik stating that one day Kitty admitted to him or to them that she always knew what their father did to him(sexual abuse). Her reaction to Lyle was "you ruined this family".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Swarley]

I don't remember if it was on the ABC special but I remember Erik stating that one day Kitty admitted to him or to them that she always knew what their father did to him(sexual abuse). Her reaction to Erik was "you ruined this family". Disgusting.

Erik claims that on the Thursday before the Sunday killings, that he came home after Lyle had confronted Jose about the sexual abuse of Erik. Jose was not happy about Erik having told Lyle about the abuse and came to Erik's room. Erik escaped from his room, and on the way to the guesthouse (where Lyle was) he went through the den where Kitty was watching TV. Erik was upset and Kitty noticed and said, "What's the matter with you?" Erik replied, "Nothing, you wouldn't understand." To which Kitty responded, "I know. I've always know, you think I'm stupid." Erik yelled that he hated her and continued on to the guesthouse.

The "you ruined this family" statement on Sunday night was made by Kitty to Lyle after the final confrontation and just immediately before the shootings. Jose had told Erik to go to his room, which in Erik's mind meant he would be molested and killed. Lyle turned to Kitty and said, "Are you going to let this happen?" To which Kitty responded with the ruined the family comment.

Please note that this is according to the brothers. I don't believe any of it happened.

 

[karmaskiss01]

Erik claims that on the Thursday before the Sunday killings, that he came home after Lyle had confronted Jose about the sexual abuse of Erik. Jose was not happy about Erik having told Lyle about the abuse and came to Erik's room. Erik escaped from his room, and on the way to the guesthouse (where Lyle was) he went through the den where Kitty was watching TV. Erik was upset and Kitty noticed and said, "What's the matter with you?" Erik replied, "Nothing, you wouldn't understand." To which Kitty responded, "I know. I've always know, you think I'm stupid." Erik yelled that he hated her and continued on to the guesthouse.

The "you ruined this family" statement on Sunday night was made by Kitty to Lyle after the final confrontation and just immediately before the shootings. Jose had told Erik to go to his room, which in Erik's mind meant he would be molested and killed. Lyle turned to Kitty and said, "Are you going to let this happen?" To which Kitty responded with the ruined the family comment.

Please note that this is according to the brothers. I don't believe any of it happened.

Thanks for the correction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Swarley]

Thanks for the correction.

You're welcome. I'm a mine of useless info.

 

[Noirdame79]

Erik claims that on the Thursday before the Sunday killings, that he came home after Lyle had confronted Jose about the sexual abuse of Erik. Jose was not happy about Erik having told Lyle about the abuse and came to Erik's room. Erik escaped from his room, and on the way to the guesthouse (where Lyle was) he went through the den where Kitty was watching TV. Erik was upset and Kitty noticed and said, "What's the matter with you?" Erik replied, "Nothing, you wouldn't understand." To which Kitty responded, "I know. I've always know, you think I'm stupid." Erik yelled that he hated her and continued on to the guesthouse.

The "you ruined this family" statement on Sunday night was made by Kitty to Lyle after the final confrontation and just immediately before the shootings. Jose had told Erik to go to his room, which in Erik's mind meant he would be molested and killed. Lyle turned to Kitty and said, "Are you going to let this happen?" To which Kitty responded with the ruined the family comment.

Excerpt from the book, Bad Blood by Don Davis, published in 1994:

After Lyle confronted Jose, Erik said that he had a physical fight with his father, escaped his grasp, and ran downstairs to tell his mother.

Erik: She said, "I know. I've always known. Do you think I'm stupid?" She was real snide and I think . . . . . she had been drinking., she was real . . . . .
Leslie Abramson: Sarcastic?
Erik: Yes.
Abramson: So what did you say, when she said she knew all along, she wasn't stupid?
Erik: I didn't know what to say. I just said, "I hate you".
Abramson: What did you do?
Erik: I ran out the back door.
Abramson: And what did your mother do?
Erik: She immediately got up and started chasing me outside.
Abramson: Was she saying anything?
Erik: Yes. She was saying, "Get back here, you *advertiser censored*. Don't ever say that to me, how dare you say that to me?"
Abramson: Had you ever heard your mother tell you or your brother, "I hate you, I hate you," over the course of your life?
Erik. Yeah.
Abramson: Had she said it once, twice?
Erik: No, she said it often.
Abramson: Had you said it to your mother before?
Erik: No.
Abramson: Did you hate your mother, Mr. Menendez?
Erik: No, I didn't hate my mother.
Abramson: Had there also been discussions about your mother poisoning the family?
Erik: There had never been too much discussion about it, but that's what she had said.
Abramson: She said that?
Erik: Yeah.
Abramson: Did that develop any sense of fear about your mother?
Erik: Sort of. I had a lot of fear about my mother.

 

[Swarley]

Excerpt from the book, Bad Blood by Don Davis, published in 1994:

After Lyle confronted Jose, Erik said that he had a physical fight with his father, escaped his grasp, and ran downstairs to tell his mother.

Erik didn't say he went downstairs to tell his mother. He said he was going to the guesthouse to talk to Lyle, and didn't even know Kitty was in the den.
But it's an interesting point with respect to a major flaw in the defense's story. Erik said he never saw Jose again that night. So, what happened to Jose? He'd just tried to assault Erik because he had done the one thing for which Jose had always sworn he would kill him i.e. tell others about the sexual abuse, yet this powerful man who would chase Erik to the ends of the earth couldn't find his way to the guesthouse on his own property?

Abramson: Had there also been discussions about your mother poisoning the family?
Erik: There had never been too much discussion about it, but that's what she had said.
Abramson: She said that?
Erik: Yeah.
Abramson: Did that develop any sense of fear about your mother?
Erik: Sort of. I had a lot of fear about my mother.

Blood Brothers, page 335:

The defense was about to move into phase two of its case, when it would try to give a context to the abuses Erik and Lyle said they had endured. A series of therapists would show how a lifetime of abuse could lead to the explosion of gunfire on August 20, 1989.
But first the defense had a couple of final witnesses to talk about bizarre goings-on in the home. The first was Traci Baker, a twenty-four-year-old college student with dark hair who worked as a waitress and had a lilt in her voice that smacked of Val-talk.
She had dated Lyle for three months in 1988 and spent an uncomfortable Thanksgiving at the Beverly Hills mansion. She was having dinner one night when Jose stood up from the table and pushed his plate away. "He said something to [Kitty] like, 'what did you do to this food?' "
Then Lyle, Erik, Jose, and Traci went out to eat at a Hamburger Hamlet. No residue of anger remained at dinner, and Traci Baker found Jose to be an extremely charming man. He inspired her to go to college, she said.
Erik had referred to this incident during his testimony as a case where his mother might have been trying to poison the family. "I would normally eat the food unless I thought there was something wrong with my mother," he said.
From the way Erik described it, the family must have constantly been feeling as if their lives were in danger, wondering if today was the day Kitty would poison them all. And Jose's reaction to the threat of poisoning seemed mild. He meekly got up and went out to eat, then, after narrowly cheating death, entertained a guest with charming stories.
An alternate explanation was that Jose was being an insensitive boor by showing up his wife, known to be a lousy cook, in front of a guest and walking out on her. This kind of behavior was entirely consistent with him.
Thanksgiving was a turning point in Baker's relationship with Lyle. She and Lyle had been having sex in the mansion, and Kitty didn't like it. After dinner, when Lyle left to take a friend home, Traci stayed around and dozed on the couch. Lyle had asked her to wait for him, but Kitty came in and confronted her.
"Are you having sexual relations with my son?" she asked.
"Yes," said the startled young woman. She didn't think there was anything particular outrageous about the admission; Lyle was an adult now. Kitty's face contorted in rage.
"I've seen girls like you," she sneered. Then she told her if she thought she was going to get her hands on Lyle's money, she should forget it. Eager to leave, Baker began to rise. Kitty shoved her back onto the couch, peppering her with more questions.
Finally Traci got up, ran to the guest house, and got her things, then cried all the way home. "To this day," she said, "my self-esteem is affected."
Under cross-examination, Baker admitted she was not too humiliated to call back to the mansion later on to see if Jose could get her concert tickets to see the Who.


Here is a letter sent to Traci Baker:
http://menendezcase.mysite.com/tbakerletter.html

It is a partial, not complete, document. One or more pages are missing. The letter emerged after the first trial, and the prosecution wanted to use it in the retrial. Judge Weisberg ruled that the letter wouldn't be admissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief, but rather was material that could be used in impeachment of Lyle if he testified.

It's my firm belief that wanting to avoid being confronted with this letter, along with other known instances of attempting to suborn perjury, is the real reason Lyle didn't take the stand. IMO, it had nothing to do with not wanting to "relive the abuse," or because it would be "duplicative" of Erik's testimony.

 

[Noirdame79]

Erik didn't say he went downstairs to tell his mother. He said he was going to the guesthouse to talk to Lyle, and didn't even know Kitty was in the den.
But it's an interesting point with respect to a major flaw in the defense's story. Erik said he never saw Jose again that night. So, what happened to Jose? He'd just tried to assault Erik because he had done the one thing for which Jose had always sworn he would kill him i.e. tell others about the sexual abuse, yet this powerful man who would chase Erik to the ends of the earth couldn't find his way to the guesthouse on his own property?




Blood Brothers, page 335:

The defense was about to move into phase two of its case, when it would try to give a context to the abuses Erik and Lyle said they had endured. A series of therapists would show how a lifetime of abuse could lead to the explosion of gunfire on August 20, 1989.
But first the defense had a couple of final witnesses to talk about bizarre goings-on in the home. The first was Traci Baker, a twenty-four-year-old college student with dark hair who worked as a waitress and had a lilt in her voice that smacked of Val-talk.
She had dated Lyle for three months in 1988 and spent an uncomfortable Thanksgiving at the Beverly Hills mansion. She was having dinner one night when Jose stood up from the table and pushed his plate away. "He said something to [Kitty] like, 'what did you do to this food?' "
Then Lyle, Erik, Jose, and Traci went out to eat at a Hamburger Hamlet. No residue of anger remained at dinner, and Traci Baker found Jose to be an extremely charming man. He inspired her to go to college, she said.
Erik had referred to this incident during his testimony as a case where his mother might have been trying to poison the family. "I would normally eat the food unless I thought there was something wrong with my mother," he said.
From the way Erik described it, the family must have constantly been feeling as if their lives were in danger, wondering if today was the day Kitty would poison them all. And Jose's reaction to the threat of poisoning seemed mild. He meekly got up and went out to eat, then, after narrowly cheating death, entertained a guest with charming stories.
An alternate explanation was that Jose was being an insensitive boor by showing up his wife, known to be a lousy cook, in front of a guest and walking out on her. This kind of behavior was entirely consistent with him.
Thanksgiving was a turning point in Baker's relationship with Lyle. She and Lyle had been having sex in the mansion, and Kitty didn't like it. After dinner, when Lyle left to take a friend home, Traci stayed around and dozed on the couch. Lyle had asked her to wait for him, but Kitty came in and confronted her.
"Are you having sexual relations with my son?" she asked.
"Yes," said the startled young woman. She didn't think there was anything particular outrageous about the admission; Lyle was an adult now. Kitty's face contorted in rage.
"I've seen girls like you," she sneered. Then she told her if she thought she was going to get her hands on Lyle's money, she should forget it. Eager to leave, Baker began to rise. Kitty shoved her back onto the couch, peppering her with more questions.
Finally Traci got up, ran to the guest house, and got her things, then cried all the way home. "To this day," she said, "my self-esteem is affected."
Under cross-examination, Baker admitted she was not too humiliated to call back to the mansion later on to see if Jose could get her concert tickets to see the Who.


Here is a letter sent to Traci Baker:
http://menendezcase.mysite.com/tbakerletter.html

It is a partial, not complete, document. One or more pages are missing. The letter emerged after the first trial, and the prosecution wanted to use it in the retrial. Judge Weisberg ruled that the letter wouldn't be admissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief, but rather was material that could be used in impeachment of Lyle if he testified.

It's my firm belief that wanting to avoid being confronted with this letter, along with other known instances of attempting to suborn perjury, is the real reason Lyle didn't take the stand. IMO, it had nothing to do with not wanting to "relive the abuse," or because it would be "duplicative" of Erik's testimony.

Blood Brothers, page 325:

Abramson then moved into the final days before the killings, covering much of the same ground that Lyle had discussed, focusing on Erik's view. For instance, Erik said that after Lyle and Jose had their first confrontation Thursday night, he ran into the den and found his mother watching television,
"What's the matter with you?" she asked.
"No, nothing, you wouldn't understand," Erik said he replied.
"I understand a lot more than you think," Kitty replied. "I know, I've always known, You think I'm stupid?
"I hate you," he said, and ran out the back door.

Kitty chased him up to Lyle's guest room, where Erik cowered behind his older brother while Lyle argued with Kitty. This was nothing new. "I used to stand behind Lyle a lot," Erik said. "He was braver than me."

Lyle asked Kitty why she never helped Erik stop the abuse. "No one ever helped me in my life," she said.


Page 316

Lyle was now convinced his father would kill them. A short time later, Lyle said Erik came running to him, yelling that his mother knew "about Dad and I". Then Lyle in turn began screaming at Kitty, "How could you not have done anything?"

Erik told Lyle that Jose had barged into his room after meeting with Lyle and accused Erik of betraying him. Erik was "screaming that Dad was going to kill us."

As for the letter to Traci Baker, it is incomplete, as you said. Lyle didn't deny that he tried to elicit perjury, if he felt it would help him. Whatever reason he didn't testify at the re-trial, the fact remains that he did not. But it also doesn't change the fact that the District Attorney's Office was desperate to win a case after so many embarrassing losses, or that the prosecutors and police were aware that other sexual abuse allegations had been made against Jose Menendez but chose to ignore it in order to present their own agenda. An agenda that included blocking defense witnesses and experts that could have corroborated the abuse or the defendants' state of mind. And your efforts on youtube to explain away indications of abuse are disturbing, to say the least. Jose's expressed homophobia does not mean that he was not a incest aggressor/pedophile. In fact, it is more proof that he was, since he was so preoccupied with his son's sexuality that he drilled a hole in the ceiling of Erik's bedroom (obviously Erik would have been changing clothes and getting undressed), he clearly wanted to see his son in private moments. He used homophobic slurs toward his son (today this is considered sexual harassment), showered with Lyle and Erik for years, all of these things are signs of sexual abuse/assault, regardless if the perpetrator gets sexual gratification out of it or not.

As for the "hole" in the defense story, Erik didn't tell anyone outside of the family; he told his brother, who also claimed to have been molested by their father. Jose had power over his sons, and he knew it. He may have feared that they would tell, but his wealth and success would have made it hard for some to believe. The brothers stated that they didn't call the police because they felt that they would not be believed. As it turns out, they weren't wrong. Human nature is not exact, so your "reasoning" doesn't necessarily prove that this situation did not happen or did not happen the way the brothers said it did. Obviously, there are some things that we will never know.

 

[Swarley]

With respect to the Thursday events, and pretty much everything the brothers claim happened in the "week in crisis" beginning August 13 with Jose supposedly telling Erik he would have to sleep at home and culminating with the killings a week later, I reckon we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't believe their story. I believe they made it up while spending three years in jail awaiting trial, by working around what the prosecution could prove and then come up with what needs to be filled in between. It was a carefully contrived story, an elaborate one, filled with a lot of details. Just like in the letters Lyle wrote to suborn perjury.

I agree with what you say about the D.A. wanting to win the retrial at all costs. It seems to me that oftentimes trials in the US become political in nature.
I think if your liberty and even life is at stake, that you deserve to have the jury hear all the facts, and not just those that confusing law rules allow to be heard.

I don't agree that my reasoning on YouTube is "disturbing". Facts can be interpreted differently. For instance, I interpret the purchasing of the shotguns in San Diego, paying with cash and using false ID, as a clear sign of premeditation, as opposed to a response to fear. Other people might find it perfectly rational that the brothers drove to San Diego.

 

[Noirdame79]

With respect to the Thursday events, and pretty much everything the brothers claim happened in the "week in crisis" beginning August 13 with Jose supposedly telling Erik he would have to sleep at home and culminating with the killings a week later, I reckon we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't believe their story. I believe they made it up while spending three years in jail awaiting trial, by working around what the prosecution could prove and then come up with what needs to be filled in between. It was a carefully contrived story, an elaborate one, filled with a lot of details. Just like in the letters Lyle wrote to suborn perjury.

I agree with what you say about the D.A. wanting to win the retrial at all costs. It seems to me that oftentimes trials in the US become political in nature.
I think if your liberty and even life is at stake, that you deserve to have the jury hear all the facts, and not just those that confusing law rules allow to be heard.

I don't agree that my reasoning on YouTube is "disturbing". Facts can be interpreted differently. For instance, I interpret the purchasing of the shotguns in San Diego, paying with cash and using false ID, as a clear sign of premeditation, as opposed to a response to fear. Other people might find it perfectly rational that the brothers drove to San Diego.

You're entitled to your opinion of course. But I wasn't talking about the purchase of the shotguns (although they claimed that they bought the guns to protect themselves, so it could be interpreted either way), but the abuse stuff is disturbing, especially given the fact that voyeurism, spending time alone with a child/teen without interruptions (often behind a closed or a locked door), being overly interested or preoccupied with the sexuality of a child or teen, not respecting boundaries or personal spaces, using degrading or sexual nicknames - are all signs of sexual abuse. I don't see how anyone (other than the perpetrator) would try to normalize it or explain it away. Jose's lack of respect for his sons' personal space and privacy and his controlling nature is highly indicative of an incest aggressor. When I see people clinging to myths that child molesters/incest aggressors are sexually deprived, are motivated by sexual desire or easy to spot, research indicates otherwise, and it disturbs me that people are still so uninformed about sexual abuse and how perpetrators operate. It's vital that we know so that we can protect others and hopefully report the perpetrators. You also can't ignore that Jose has been accused of molesting other young boys as well, and this information came from other sources, not his sons or other family members. It just amazes me how some people choose to overlook this. I do not condone the murder of Jose and Kitty Menendez, but I don't think that the case was as simple as it seemed to some, or how the authorities and prosecution tried to make it appear. They didn't care about the truth, they cared about winning.

 

[Noirdame79]

Traits And Characteristics Of Incestuous Families

We see that these families are characterized by a shifting reality used to maintain family integrity and to avoid dissolution. Here are some traits most often used by incestuous families to maintain the integrity and homeostasis of the family unit:

(1) Collective denial and shared secrets about a multitude of problems, not just the incest. These include problems such as alcoholism and other addictions, major illnesses, family illegitimacies , previous marriages, etc.

(2) Duplicity and deceit between family members. The family goes to great lengths to protect itself and develops protective myths as defense mechanisms.

(3) Social isolation, which is generally enforced by the parents.

(4) Parents who are expert at manipulating the context of a situation and shifting reality. As an example, abuse, alcoholism, or other family problems are denied while their reality is, in fact, obvious.

(5) Role confusion and boundary diffusion both within and outside of the family.

(6) A child who is triangulated into the parents' marriage, which is often characterized by a failed sexual relationship. The child is used to defuse the situation and to keep the family intact.

(7) Poor tolerance for differences from the family norm and for anger and conflict.

(8) Overly moralistic. In some families, religious beliefs are quite rigid and intolerant and are used to cover transgressions. For example, the child is often faced with strong moral injunctions about sex outside of marriage and evils of sexual temptation even while he/she is being sexually used and stimulated.

(9) No touch except for bad touch. Being abused comes to be equated with love.

(10) Inadequate parenting. Children grow up too quickly by having to attend to their parents' needs. Their own needs are unmet and their development compromised.

(11) Low humor and high sarcasm. Emotional abuse may characterize the interactions in these families. Children may be consistently criticized and belittled, with little or no encouragement. Praise or reward is lacking. These families are said to be "character and initiative-assassinating".

(12) Dead, missing, or part-time parent(s). The job of parenting may be abandoned in favor of other activities (work, drinking, etc).

(13) Children may be unwanted and treated that way.

(14) Unpredictability and intermittent reinforcement. Like physically abusive families, many incestuous families are inconsistent towards children, who may be loved one day and abused the next for the same behavior. The child learns to "expect the unexpected" and thus deprived of basic security. These families may also be insconstant in other ways. Family life may be chaotic and characterized by interchangeable family members (sequential live-in lovers and their families, stepsiblings, or members of the extended family who move in and out), and frequent geographic moves (as in military families or evicted families).

(15) Violence and the threat of violence. The threat of violence may be always present even if violence is not exercised. In some families, actual violence is the norm and in the most extreme cases reaches the level of being torturous.

(16) No time for recovery and no one to turn to. The child may be so isolated and the abuse so pervasive that he/she has no opportunity to process it. Consequently, the child contains it and copes with as best as he or she can. The most extreme form of such non-integration is multiple personality disorder, where experiences are split off in to various personalities.

Source: Healing The Incest Wound by Christine A. Courtios



August came to a close with the testimony of Alicia Hercz, an old family friend from Princeton, who had little good to say about the deceased, although she had taught Lyle at Princeton Day School, attended parties at the Menendez house, played cards with Jose and Kitty, and visited them in Beverly Hills.

She described her pal and neighbor Kitty as "pathetic, kind of suspicious of people, disorganized, spacey." Jose was "abusive and cruel. I found him destructive at times.:

In her English and Spanish classes, Lyle was a quiet student who would arrive late for class, still wearing tennis togs, and who several times sat in her office, silent and staring, for half an hour. "Lyle was a robot. Very much like a robot. "

The family as a unit was secretive and "hermetically sealed."

If she felt that way, the prosecution asked in cross-examination, why party with them? "They were attractive in the sense that we talked about them. They were going somewhere. They had this quality of power like movie stars or something, they had this aura."

And if young Lyle was so troubled, why did the Princeton Day School teachers not intervene? Hercz said everyone was fearful of a confrontation. "Kitty could be fierce," she said. "You knew your job could be at stake. They were intimidating people. They intimidated all of us."

Source: Bad Blood by Don Davis

 

[Noirdame79]

http://calio.org/images/reference-list-common-myths.pdf

 

[Noirdame79]

Facts can be interpreted differently.

Not where sexual abuse is concerned. There is no rational, reasonable explanation for a father showering with his sons, especially when they are well past the age where they need to be supervised while bathing. What kind of father "wants" to shower with his sons? Or wants to drill a hole in the ceiling in order to spy on his son in his bedroom? Your argument was, "I think Jose spied on his son because he hated gays." So he wanted to see his son in private moments, and to "catch him in the act" or "make sure that he wasn't gay"? Again, another sign of sexual abuse; the voyeurism, the obvious obsession with Erik's sexuality, is no different than a father obsessing over his daughter's sexuality and spying on her to make sure she isn't having sex. The obvious preoccupation suggests an aggression, anger and maybe even jealousy, all of which is a classic sign of sexual abuse, whether it involves direct touching or is covert. (And sexual assault is an act of aggression and violence, not affection or lust). Covert sexual abuse, which involves invasion of privacy, the use of sexually suggestive or derogatory remarks and/or names; masturbating in front of a child, photographing them in a sexual manner or in sexually suggestive poses, exposing them to adult sexual situations without concern or *advertiser censored*, allowing them to become sexual with other kids, frequently walking in on them in bedrooms and/or bathrooms, is all considered sexual abuse, regardless if the perpetrator is a parent or not, and whether the perpetrator gets sexual gratification or not is irrelevant; the act is still the same and affects the victim in the same way. And it makes no difference where it happens, whether it be in a workplace, at school, or at home.

As for the information I have posted about sexual abuse (assuming you read any of it), its different forms, the dynamic associated with it, its affects and the psychological traits of perpetrators, I didn't pull it out of nowhere. It comes from research, statistics, experts in the field, who obviously know far more than you or I. There are sources to back it up, which I have provided, via links and or books. I'm going by what experts say, rather than looking the other way or denying that these obvious signs were indicative of sexual abuse.

 

[Noirdame79]

A Definition of Sexual Abuse

Whenever one person dominates and exploits another person through sexual activity or suggestion, using sexual feelings and behavior to degrade, humiliate, control, injure or or misuse, this qualifies as sexual abuse. In The Sexual Healing Journey: A Guide for Survivors of Sexual Abuse , author and educator Wendy Maltz equates sexual abuse with a violation of a position of trust, power and protection, “an act on a child who lacks emotional & intellectual maturation.” It promotes sexual secrecy among its victims, so that even their own sexual drives, libido, orientation and desires become secrets to themselves.

Overt sexual abuse involves direct touching, fondling and intercourse, against a person’s will. A few examples include French kissing, fellatio, sodomy, penetration with objects, genitals and fingers, and masturbation. Use of force is typically involved—often physical, but more often psychological or emotional, such as difference in status or experience, as in employee/employer, adult/child, older boy/younger boy.

Covert sexual abuse is more subtle and indirect. Examples of this include prolonged hugs, sexual stares, inappropriate comments about body parts such as buttocks or genitals, shaming someone for the kind of man they are, (or more frequently, homophobic name-calling), or treating a child as an adult or even a partner for emotional support. Books like Pat Love’s Emotional Incest Syndrome: What to Do When A Parent’s Love Rules Your Life and Kenneth M. Adams’s Silently Seduced: When Parents Make Their Children Partners: Understanding Covert Incest do a great job in reviewing and detailing covert sexual abuse’s negative effects.

Both gays and straights make the mistake of connecting sexual abuse with homosexuality. Their main rationale is that gays and lesbians must have been sexually abused; and that being “homosexual,” means you are a pedophile. This derives from the old psychoanalytic theory that one’s sexual orientation is created in the first few years of development, and that if any trauma or negative influences “impair” it, then adolescence offers a second chance at correcting one’s heterosexuality gone wrong. Sexual abuse was assumed to be one of the primary reasons that one could get “confused” and turn away from innate heterosexuality.

Too many of today’s therapists still consider this true. Some therapists, even gay and lesbian therapists, still see adolescence as a time to help homosexual teenagers re-learn “how to be heterosexual.” Many insist that homosexual clients must have been sexually abused. I have many gay and lesbian clients who still believe this, telling me they must have been sexually abused in their past, even if they have no memory of such a thing. And those who were sexually abused assume that the abuse explains why they’re gay. So the myth persists, and confusion continues over sexual abuse and its effects on gays and lesbians.

Contrary to what so many psychotherapists would like to believe, there is no evidence that sexual abuse can shape, much less create, anyone’s sexual orientation: The only thing it can do is confuse young people about what their sexual orientation really is. However, with good therapy and healing, the sexually abused can come to know their true sexual and romantic orientation, be it gay or straight.

Disclosing Your Sexual Abuse

Male survivors of sexual abuse often worry that in seeking help, they’ll be perceived as “less of a man.” They worry they will be seen as less masculine. Of course the male survivor of sexual abuse fears what others will think of him because, as Maltz says, “our society gives boys the message that men should be able to stand up for themselves and fight off danger. They’re also told that if a man gets hurt, he should go it alone instead of seeking help.”

Many people already believe the old stereotype that gay men are “more like women.” Even gay men themselves will discriminate against effeminate men, saying, “If I wanted women, I’d have been straight,” and many gay personal ads specify, “No fems.” This all creates the mindset that being gay—or at least, not a macho man—makes you less than masculine. So for gay men to tell others about their abuse would only add to the insult that they are less of a man. Imagine the profound double bind of being gay and having been sexually abused! “Because most abuse of males is perpetrated by other males,” writes Maltz, “heterosexual male victims may worry that they will be seen as homosexual if others hear the details of what occurred. Gay men,” he continues, “may wonder if the abuse made them gay.”

On the other hand, women are more inclined to go to therapy. They may not initially realize that they’ve been sexually abused, but should they discover it during therapy, they are more willing to deal with it head-on than their male counterparts. Lesbians are concerned that their therapist will try to insist that this abuse is what “turned them into” lesbians and/or might worry that this is in fact the case. Gay men also get this type of feedback and can worry about this. It’s important to arm yourself with as much information about sexual abuse as you can. Learn—for yourself,—where you stand as a sexual abuse survivor. Do not accept how your perpetrator, therapists, family or anyone else want to define you. You need to belong to yourself, as you really have all along!

http://www.joekort.com/articles.htm/Sexual_Abuse/articles55.htm

 

[Noirdame79]

Overt sexual abuse involves actual touching; examples include inappropriate holding, kissing, sexual fondling, masturbation, oral sex and forced sexual activity. But sexual abuse and sexual addiction don’t necessarily involve physical contact. In Don't Call It Love , Carnes talks about forms of abuse in which there’s no touching of any kind, sexual or otherwise. He gives the example of a father becoming turned on while talking to his daughter about her developing breasts. The daughter, feeling violated, vainly tries to change the subject. Even though physical touching is never involved, Carnes still considers the father guilty of sexual abuse.

Covert sex does not involve physical touch; Carnes gives the examples of flirtations and suggestive language, propositioning, household voyeurism/exhibitionism, sexualizing language and preoccupation with sexual development. I believe the gay male community is the victim of indirect, covert abuse, and that some individuals develop sexual addiction as a result.

One definition of sexual abuse in general is when any person dominates and exploits another sexually—violating trust and the implicit promise of protection. Typically, someone who sees himself as “in control” uses his status to control, misuse, degrade, humiliate, or even hurt others—who, by inference, are always inferior. Indeed, many studies confirm that in cases of rape, the basic motive is not sex, but power. The abuser's ideal target is a child who's still naive, lacking the “immune system” of emotional and intellectual experience that tells him when he's being violated—and when he should resist and say no!

http://www.joekort.com/articles.htm/Sexual_Abuse/news9.htm

 

[Noirdame79]

[video=youtube;N8gedj9BWu4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8gedj9BWu4[/video]