Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 26, 2024 - Lionel Nation

01:32:37

Menendez Brothers Soros Prosecutor Facing Reelection Announces Resentencing After Netflix Doc

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The storm is coming.
	Markets are crashing.
	Banks are closing.
	When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
	You need a plan.
	Cash, gold, bitcoin, dirty man safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
	Don't wait for disaster to strike.
	Get your Dirty Man safe today.
	Use promo code DIRTY10 for 10% off your order.
	When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
	Dirty Man underground safes protects what matters most.
	Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
	Be ready for anything.
	Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today.
	And take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
	Dirty Man Safe.
	Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
	Disaster can strike when least expected.
	Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
	They can instantly turn your world upside down.
	Dirty Man Underground Safes is a safeguard against chaos.
	Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
	Prepare for the unexpected.
	Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
	Dirty man safe.
	When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
	Hey viewers, welcome.
	We are about to have one of the biggest decisions in the history of true crime coming in four minutes.
	And we have got Matthew Steeples of the Steeple Times who's been reporting on this for years.
	We have got Lionel of Lionel Media, who knows all things about the law from his vast experience, prosecutorial and otherwise.
	You've seen him on his channel.
	You've seen him here recently talking about Diddy.
	Matthew and Lionel are both larger-than-life characters, and we are going to dissect the decision, which is imminent.
	I'll let the guys introduce themselves now to any viewers who are not familiar.
	Matthew, first, do you want to say a little bit?
	Good evening.
	My name is Matthew Steeples.
	I'm a writer and I'm involved in programs on Talk TV and all sorts of other things.
	But the Menendez Brothers has been a very big case that I've been involved in for many years.
	And I happen to know one of the jurors who was on the first case, a lady called Hazel Thornton.
	Robert Rand, who is one of the main journalists who has been involved in the story from the very, very beginning.
	So that's my involvement in this matter.
	And Lionel, how have you been following?
	Well, my name is Lionel, one name like God, and I am a former prosecutor, licensed trial lawyer, criminal, American liberal criminal, let me try this in English, new teeth, an American criminal.
	The prediction is, ultimately, credit for time served.
	Get him out of there.
	Nobody wants him.
	Remember, Gascon is looking at re-election.
	This is about election.
	It's nothing to do with justice.
	These two kids killed their parents.
	There's no defense.
	However, the case is about this.
	We killed them however they abused me.
	Could you have left?
	Yes.
	Were you insane?
	No.
	This is learned helplessness.
	This is a fascinating case.
	They have no defense.
	I don't care how many letters they get.
	I don't care how many times they say they were abused.
	Normally, the law will say, get out.
	Call the police.
	Don't blow your father away with a shotgun.
	Go to the car.
	Get more bullets or shells to blow your mother's head off.
	But with me as a human being, oh, I think they should be released instanter.
	Crank for time served.
	Enough!
	Well, my response to that would be, you are making very valid points, but these two young men should have been found guilty of manslaughter, not murder, in the first instance.
	Their parents abused them.
	Both their parents are guilty of what they did to those children because the mother admitted to them That she knew.
	And they were told, if you don't do as you're told, we will kill you.
	And they were fire or flight.
	And they had to fire back.
	And that's what they did.
	And what they did was incredibly wrong and they should have served time for manslaughter.
	Some of the other things that they did in their lives, like stealing, were terribly wrong.
	But they were brought up in a monstrous environment.
	Now, that does not mean they were the monsters.
	I would say that the mother and father were the monsters.
	The mother and father, especially the father, who abused other people, who happily had affairs and abused lots of people.
	He was a nasty piece of work and a scumbag.
	A terrible piece of work.
	Don't hold back!
	No, I won't hold back.
	I have spoken with so many people.
	Yeah, but there we go.
	That's my view.
	The problem with that, that's no defense.
	Manslaughter, second degree, heat of passion, depraved mind, reckless indifference, maybe.
	There was so much time, so much cooling up.
	I'm not saying this.
	Personally, I think they did the world of benefit.
	By offing the father.
	The mother, I'm not so sure about, but that's moot.
	But there is no defense.
	There is no defense.
	As a prosecutor, this is easy.
	Premeditated, they thought about it.
	They planned it.
	They went out.
	We're going to get the shelves.
	They had so much time.
	There wasn't this, oh my God, I flipped.
	Flipped.
	This is the most slow motion flip anybody's ever seen.
	That doesn't mean I agree with it.
	But let us not confuse the law with what we wish or what we think should have happened.
	I think those kids and others, like you say...
	Now, this is L.A. code.
	Test 1-2 means they're going to, this is a code, Sean, this means they're going to reverse the conviction, credit for time served.
	That's the way we do it here in the States.
	We always speak in code.
	But I digress.
	Okay, well, let's wait and see what this gentleman or lady has to say.
	What I would say to you is these two young men, as they were, had been treated appallingly.
	One of them had written a letter to his own cousin expressing what had happened to him.
	This was not made up.
	This aunt, his aunt and uncle, everybody came.
	Fifty people testified at this trial.
	Speak to Robert Rand, a brilliant journalist who understands this case.
	Speak to Hazel Thornton.
	They experienced it.
	I wasn't there.
	You weren't there.
	They know more about it than we do.
	And I have to say that these two...
	Spoiled brats, and they were that, for sure.
	And they behaved appallingly, and they robbed people's houses and did silly things.
	That does not mean that they should have been abused by their parents.
	But that doesn't mean...
	Okay, but devil's advocate, you're right about that.
	But as far as the law goes, the law says, that's no defense.
	That's no defense.
	Now, there should be...
	There should be.
	For example, we've seen later on the abused spouse defense, which might later on, depending upon the jurisdiction, lead to a diminished capacity.
	They weren't insane.
	I think we need...
	Maybe their mental health was very bad.
	And because they were two young men, people at the time, in the 1990s...
	They didn't like to talk about male abuse.
	We talk about female abuse, and I know on Sean's channel I cannot talk specifically about the word beginning with R, for example.
	But at that time, male abuse was very much something nobody talked about.
	That's true.
	And that is something that is very...
	Much changed now.
	And look what's happening currently with the Abercrombie and Fitch case, for example.
	We're starting to talk about what happens to male victims of such crimes.
	But in that stage, nobody talked about male victims.
	And by the way, gentlemen, remember this, and Sean, especially for you, my friend.
	The Abercrombie and Fitch dude was given or granted.
	Bail!
	Now what is that?
	No!
	But his partner was not.
	He's considered a flight risk.
	And the photographer's got out.
	Right.
	The partner was British.
	This is different than the Diddy case.
	I wonder what that's about.
	I don't know that much about that case, but I know a lot about Mr. Wexner, and I know a lot about all those people.
	Again, we can't talk about that on Sean's channel, because I've been told in the past not to.
	We speak in code.
	We speak in code, sir.
	And by the way, Sean, one thing.
	Rumors have it that Beyonce is going to be appearing.
	On behalf of Kemala, for all my Spanish friends out there, Kemala, all of a sudden, she now is going to appear.
	You don't think, by any chance, Mr. Atwood, that somebody might have said, you know, we found something that might be of interest to Mr. Jay-Z, and derivatively, you might assist the matter by helping us up.
	Just saying, my friend.
	Just saying.
	All right, come on, Cork, get on with it.
	This is fascinating.
	Riveting.
	Now, one more thing, if I could, while we're doing this, and I agree with you, sir.
	The argument could be made, this is not classic insanity, but under the McNaughton rule, the standard, which pretty much is across the board in our jurisdictions, if you can show that their ability to tell the difference between right and wrong...
	Was significantly impaired.
	That qualifies as the quote, as a not guilty by reason of insanity.
	Not psychosis, not medical insanity, but legal.
	And I would believe that the amount of torment and abuse and trauma that they went through over such a period of time was so intellectually, spiritually debilitating.
	That they could not anymore differentiate between right and wrong, and that's why they did it.
	That's a little bit of a stretch, but I think something could be made of that.
	That would apply.
	I don't disagree with you.
	I think that they were subjected to huge mental torture.
	PTSD!
	Think about it.
	That does not mean what they did was right.
	It was totally wrong.
	Good sir.
	They should have been convicted of manslaughter because they had been so abused by that evil father.
	And this evil father, you know, he tortured his own wife to the point that she said, I'd rather my children be abused than me being abused.
	She went to see psychiatrists and she talked about this to psychiatrists.
	She said, my family, we have horrible secrets.
	Now, I don't believe in all this.
	I haven't watched this Netflix thing because I don't have Netflix.
	I don't watch TV.
	I read books.
	I'm in the south of France and nothing works anyway.
	So I read books and I meet people.
	Wonderful people down here, you know, a wonderful man, Sir Chris Bonington I was with yesterday, who is the only person to have climbed Everest four times.
	I spend time with people like that.
	I don't have time to watch Netflix.
	But this Netflix thing, Robert Rand has told me that it's awful, it's appalling, the producer has betrayed them.
	I've had, you know, lots of messages about this.
	He sent me an updated copy of his book, which I'm trying to read, but it's on my computer, and I hate technology.
	But irrespective of that, I saw it, and let me tell you something, it might have been bad, but the reason why we are here, sir, is because of that lousy Netflix documentary.
	Well, no, no, there was also a thing called Peacock.
	Which was about the pop stars that the father also allegedly approved.
	Right.
	But the reason why we are here today is not because of a book, not because of justice, not because of jurisprudence, it's because of that documentary and the fact that Gascon is running for re-election.
	I agree this politician would like to stir the pot, yes.
	That's what happens with every politician.
	What do you think that Keir Starmer is doing in Britain right now?
	What do you think that Donald Trump, Kamala Harris is doing in Britain?
	Donald Trump is ready to win re-election very shortly.
	But aside from that...
	Understand, though, if I were to go to a jury and say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I want you to find these two gentlemen guilty of manslaughter because they were abused, that doesn't in any way affect the intent aspect of it.
	Murder won as I intended to do it.
	Manslaughter is more of a negligent.
	Second degree is more of a heat of passion.
	It's still murder.
	You miss out the point of the fact that the parents had threatened to murder them.
	Well then, but here's the problem.
	That's self-defense.
	Why didn't they leave?
	And I'm with you.
	But as a prosecutor, the first thing I'm going to do...
	But one brother had left, and he said, could I take the other brother with me?
	And they said no.
	And there was a huge row.
	And over a week...
	There was a huge series of rows, and I have spoken a lot about this in the past.
	There have been a whole series of rows over a period of a week, and that was the key detail.
	Well, here we are.
	We may get a revelation.
	She just came on and addressed the audience again, and she's gone, so not yet.
	Not yet.
	But no, there was a whole series of rows over a period of a week, I believe.
	I understand something.
	My conversation with various people involved, it took over a week, and it got more and more intense, and there was a ride on a boat, and on the boat there were big arguments, and then there'd been more big arguments, and then those two brothers...
	Try to be clever and go to the cinema and all the rest of it.
	I do know a lot about the whole timescale, but we can't go into that all right now.
	But honestly, the whole thing became a volcano and it exploded.
	And the whole...
	Mental family with the mental mother who was high as a kite on every drug on the planet and the evil father who was just deranged and these two boys who were abused and they were off their skulls crazy as well and just cared about money and stealing things.
	The whole lot of them went a bit bonkers.
	That is the timeline of what happened.
	There was a week where they all went mad.
	And it was bound to end in disaster.
	A very good point in terms of the psychological aspect.
	I am telling you, though, as a lawyer, if I were to try to present this to a jury...
	They would say, we don't know of a defense.
	You're right.
	We hate these victims.
	They're terrible.
	Give us a defense.
	There is no defense.
	However, there could have been, and by the way, Leslie Abramson, their initial lawyer at trial, who was very, very good.
	You're right about this.
	The zeitgeist, the way they thought about this at the time.
	Let me give you an example of something.
	We have had cases.
	Where Vietnam veterans, war veterans, have come home, snapped, diminished capacity.
	There have been cases where women who have been abused and beaten by husbands over a period of time, one night just snapped, went behind the husband who was watching TV, blew his brains out.
	She could have fled too.
	What I'm saying is that the system of law and defenses for using mental health...
	As an affirmative defense, has got to be overworked.
	Has to be revamped.
	They're not insane.
	They're not hearing voices.
	When you put somebody in a position where they don't know right from wrong anymore, and you have been the subject of a series of sexual abuse from your father, who was supposedly your best friend, who was charged with taking care of you, your sense of right and wrong and rationality goes out the window.
	Now, does the law take that into account?
	Unfortunately, no.
	Well, I will say, you know, I don't disagree with you.
	Right and wrong is a very important thing.
	But these people were talking about a different era.
	This was the 1990s, you know, and people don't understand that Male abuse at that time was considered so differently.
	And I think that's very, very important.
	And they didn't want to talk about it.
	No, no, I understand.
	We have here, for example, I'm very familiar with a number of cases where we had in the Catholic Church in the United States, cases where men just said, I don't want to talk about this.
	I'm embarrassed.
	Whereas, by virtue of our system...
	Women feel more, not entitled, but are more understanding.
	I understand that.
	These are different times right now.
	And I hope, by the way, that people realize this.
	Sean, have you ever noticed, do you remember at any time in your life when so much of our news cycle was spent on...
	Braved, disgusting, vile, sexual predators like this, trafficking, blackmail, that Epstein dude, Diddy, Abercrombie& Fitch, it goes down, that Nygaard, it just goes on and on and on.
	Well, these are the cases that I'm mostly involved in.
	The particular one, which I don't believe Sean likes to talk about on his channel, they are the people who I have known more about, but they involved mostly female victims in the ones that I've been involved in.
	But in this particular case, these were two young men who were...
	Terribly treated.
	I'm trying to be diplomatic in my use of language here.
	By their own parents, and that included mother and father.
	I've just been speaking with a Daily Mail journalist about this matter, and she said to me, you know, the mother was just as bad as the father because she enabled it.
	She was a wicked, wicked woman.
	And she didn't do anything to protect her children.
	Her own sister tried to help her children.
	We have something in our country called misprision, which is unfortunately never used enough.
	And this is where you are held criminally liable for not stopping something, where you had a duty to do something.
	Doctors can be held liable, nurses, teachers.
	But the psychiatrist, you know, he...
	He was very devious in this case also.
	Throw him into the matter.
	The wicked psychiatrist, Oziel, a horrible man.
	Never horrible.
	And his horrible girlfriend.
	Dreadful people.
	People are asking, guys, how old Menendez brothers are now and how long they have been in prison for.
	33 years?
	33, 34 years.
	And they are now in the same prison, which was something that I was very involved in campaigning about myself, because Gavin Newsom, who I happen to know, I said to him, you know, these two brothers should be in the same prison.
	They've had the victims, and they are in the same prison.
	Well, who knows what's going to happen now?
	Maybe they get out of prison.
	They have had a very weird life.
	But you and I...
	He's worthless.
	He's a worthless human being and a worthless politician and a worthless governor.
	And he's of no use to me.
	The bottom line is...
	Okay, well, you don't have to dislike...
	Well, I don't have a problem with Gavin, but...
	Well, that makes one of us.
	He's despicable.
	He's despicable.
	He's ruined his state.
	That notwithstanding, the question is simply this.
	How would society be in any way harmed if these two gentlemen were to leave and make room in a crowded prison system for murderers, for people who have actually done harm?
	Is this justice?
	No!
	That's the bottom line.
	But they have committed a crime.
	We know that.
	I think they've served enough time.
	That is what I say.
	But the issue also, sir, is justice.
	The idea of justice.
	I've always said that those two should be in prison for mansport.
	Well, again, I know you say that as a layperson.
	It's maybe perhaps second.
	Anyway, I'm not going to belabor the point.
	You can't tailor charges in order to accommodate a situation that the charges don't contemplate.
	That notwithstanding.
	That notwithstanding, the bottom line is simply this.
	We live in a society, our America right now, where we've got this moron, Gamala, who wanted at one point to defund the police.
	One minute we don't like the police.
	Cash bails.
	People who do despicable things are not held accountable.
	Then we have these two individuals who pose no threat to anybody.
	My God, if the extenuating circumstances is enough, don't speak to their, not their innocence, but their release.
	Put them under some type of a house arrest.
	Put them under some type of some initial, you know, ankle monitoring or something.
	But there's no need for this, is what I'm saying.
	Yes, they're guilty.
	That's not the issue.
	The issue is not their guilt.
	It's the severity and the propriety of the punishment.
	Is this justice?
	Nobody's saying they didn't do anything wrong.
	But I have never said they did nothing wrong.
	Never said you did.
	You should never, I've always said to them that they should never have done this.
	But equally, you know, the letter to the cousin who sadly is dead, and that is going to be Yes.
	That's a good reason.
	However...
	The letter that he has, that they found, and Robert Rand, who is a friend of mine, has this letter.
	This letter is a groundbreaking changer in it because it shows that they talked about the abuse long, long before.
	Yes, it corroborates.
	You're a lawyer.
	I'm a layperson, I admit.
	But I'm just explaining to you what I know from talking to a juror and a journalist.
	This letter is very, very important.
	Because it shows that before this, this happened before and it corroborates the claims that he had been abused.
	Now, the fact that the addressee...
	It's not alive.
	It's not going to be a problem because they have to authenticate it.
	That's all they have to do.
	Mr. Menendez, did you write this?
	Yes.
	Is this your handwriting?
	Yes.
	When did you send it?
	Eight months before this happened.
	Thank you.
	I don't need anybody else.
	This goes to show you corroboration.
	That's not the issue.
	I don't think anybody on the planet is questioning whether these two brothers were abused by that father.
	Do you?
	Do you think anybody within the sound of our voice questions?
	From my following, and I have a lot of following on the internet, they said nothing excuses what those two did.
	That's not what we're saying.
	No, I get a lot of people writing to me saying you shouldn't be supporting them.
	No, no, they really don't like them.
	There's a lot of people out there who really think they're bad.
	Well, Kitty Menendez's brother, for example, does not understand it.
	Obviously, he's his brother.
	I understand it.
	But the question is very simple.
	Listen to me.
	Is there anybody here on the planet who questions whether they were abused by the father?
	Do you think this was this contrived, manufactured...
	Fantasy that these brothers came up with because all of a sudden one night because they thought, okay, we're rich and we're wild, we're going to basically decapitate our parents with a shotgun and then after the fact, now let's see.
	Let's come up with a story.
	It's preposterous.
	Everybody feels for them.
	The question is, gentlemen, very simple.
	It's not guilt.
	It's at this point, 33, 34 years later.
	Has justice been served?
	Should they be released?
	Credit for time served.
	A re-sentencing.
	Not a re-litigation.
	Not a new trial.
	They're guilty.
	That train has left the station.
	The issue is sentencing.
	And sentencing involves justice.
	That's the sole issue.
	Have they suffered enough?
	That's it.
	I don't disagree with you on your final point.
	I think they have suffered enough.
	And I think it's time to let the Menendez brothers out of prison.
	I think it is time they were let free and they were able to have something of a civilized life.
	And if Gavin Newsom, your friend, had a hair on his ass, what he would do is he would say, I'm going to commute this sentence and we wouldn't have to go through this.
	But he has no guts.
	He has no balls.
	He is an implicit, feckless invertebrate.
	He should have done this.
	Nobody would have held it.
	Nobody would have given him a hard time for that.
	I've listened to him many times about this.
	That's what I'm saying.
	This is unnecessary.
	And you're going to give it to Gascon?
	This creep to look like a hero?
	I don't know this Gascon man.
	I do.
	No, I live mostly in England, and I'm in the south of France.
	I didn't know that, where there's no light because of the mistrust.
	Just kidding.
	Well, all we have down here is rosé.
	In France, if nothing goes right, you ask for a glass of rosé.
	Everyone says yes to a glass of rosé, but you can't get much else.
	But, no, I have to say, look, Mr Newsome, I have tried to write to him over the years, and I'm very involved with Robert Rand, and I think you should try and look up Robert Rand, myself, and Hazel Thornton.
	Because they are the two key people who I've had involvement with.
	I don't know what's going on with this silly room of stupid people who look like they're standing around waiting for a cocktail party, but they don't look very attractive.
	But honestly, the Menendez brothers have been treated badly enough.
	Enough is enough.
	It is time for change.
	And it's time to accept that these two victims of male abuse by their father were abused.
	Appalling.
	Absolutely disgraceful.
	And it's time to let them out.
	We've got some viewer questions.
	Yes, viewer questions.
	Wonderful.
	Two top questions are, who are these old people sat on the front row, is one question.
	And the other question is whether there has been a leak on the decision.
	These two at the front, the grey, her, and the guy.
	The grey-haired lady, I don't know.
	She could be a relative, she could be a lawyer, she could be anybody.
	I think these might be from the Kitty Menendez family.
	The Kitty...
	Menendez.
	This is...
	I can't really tell because I can't go on my computer because I don't know how to use my computer.
	So I can't look.
	No Netflix, no computer, just a book and a quill pen in your garret.
	I have books.
	I have, you know, my friend, you know, Ian Rebus, Ian Rankin, his books, Rebus.
	I have my friend Chris Bonington.
	His book covers with Chris Bonington last night, Climbing a Mountain.
	You know, that's what we do.
	We don't do computers when we're in the south of France.
	We go on boat.
	We climb mountains and drink rosé.
	Can you get mini cheddars in the south of France, Matthew?
	No.
	And I'm bloody pissed off about it.
	I love some mini cheddars.
	Matthew does a wonderful monologue on mini cheddars.
	I've done that on Radio 4. BBC Radio 4 and I, we do mini cheddars all the time.
	I've got my book about pâté.
	I do books.
	I love books.
	I love the South of France.
	When you're on holiday, we have books.
	We climb mountains.
	We do things.
	We wander around.
	I met a witch yesterday.
	I want a party with you.
	I want a party with you.
	You're definitely coming to party with me.
	I don't believe in these newfangled electricity.
	When I go out, when I out there, and we have to defecate, I squat like we did in the 19th centuries.
	I wear a peruke and a powdered wig.
	So I don't have your television.
	I'm beyond that.
	The viewers are saying Lionel needs to catch up with Matthew and have a wine.
	Well, I've got famous crouse.
	There you are.
	Proof.
	I've got the famous grouse.
	I can buy that in the local supermarket.
	I can get beefies for chin, but I can't get much else that I want.
	No, I miss a tramp.
	He lives in the woods, and he has a donkey.
	He's lovely, and he came and helped us with all the handiwork yesterday.
	Who lives in the woods on a donkey and he's lovely?
	This sounds like some fable, some grim...
	You wouldn't believe it, but it's true.
	And we walked out and there was an imp, and all of a sudden I...
	No, and then I met a witch.
	And I said, get back!
	Get back, you imp!
	Here we go, here we go.
	I think you better get ready for this program.
	There's a door opening.
	There she was.
	It was Brunhilde.
	There I say to you, unhold my soul.
	In the background, there you are, Robert Rand.
	That is Robert Rand standing up.
	The man standing up is Robert Rand.
	He's someone who I know.
	And he's saying...
	He's a journalist.
	The lady in the blue, she was a juror in the case.
	So they're both two people involved in the case.
	Yeah, well, thanks for those jurors.
	We're here.
	That's all I can tell you.
	I can't tell you any more about that.
	But, you know, I met a witch.
	Here we go.
	A good witch or a bad witch?
	Well, she was very nice.
	She said, I boil nice things in my cauldron.
	I said, oh, as opposed to bad things?
	Not mini cheddars.
	You didn't have any mini cheddars, no.
	In case you've just tuned in, welcome to Unhinged Psychosis with your host, Sean Atwood.
	Today we're talking about mini cheddars and witches in the woods.
	We return now to a man who lives in pitch darkness in Saint-Tropez.
	We've got a strange man in America somewhere.
	I don't know where in America you are, but you're a lovely gentleman.
	Do not adjust yourself.
	Anyway, here we are.
	You've got Robert Rand walking into the room.
	Matthew goes on some mad adventures.
	All of a sudden, there was a Zephyr.
	That I heard from the sprite.
	Well, at least we enjoy life.
	I am a great broadcaster.
	That's very kind of you to say, whoever you are.
	Gotta love it.
	You're a wizard, Lionel.
	Okay, Lionel, where are you coming from, Lionel?
	New York City.
	New York City.
	New York, New York, a town so nice they named it.
	Twice, yes.
	Cheers to Lionel.
	A lot of cheers here.
	I thought we should have a cheers bell.
	Ding!
	Cheers.
	And we should also have a blood alcohol content meter on the corner.
	Right now we're looking at 0.18 grams of ethyl alcohol per 100 deciliters.
	Well, I'd love to meet you at the Metropolitan Club one day for a drink.
	Indeed, sir.
	Or the Plaza Hotel, because that's another place to be.
	Spend time.
	The viewers are loving the chemistry between you guys.
	Yes, chemistry indeed.
	Well, I think you're a bit of a modern-day Dominic Dunn, which was also involved.
	Dominic was very involved in the case.
	Did you know how much Dominic and Robert Rand, who is my friend, who is the one in the video here, they did not like one another, but there was a dialogue, you see.
	By the way, I'm going to read this one thing while we're waiting.
	This is from an MSNBC opinion piece, which is very interesting, by Alexander Nazarian, and he says, to his credit, Gascon, the DA, has overseen 14 exonerations of unjustly convicted people.
	Only I don't think that's happening here.
	Instead, a politician in trouble is exploiting a tragedy.
	And make no mistake, Gascon is in big trouble, trailing law and order candidate Nathan Hockman by 30%, according to a recent poll conducted by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.
	And the Los Angeles Times.
	So he's 30 points behind, and the timing, they say, is incredibly suspicious.
	So isn't that something?
	He's doing the best he can to save his own political arse.
	But if that's what it takes, great, I'll take it.
	I totally agree with you.
	A politician is always going to be a scammer.
	A politician is always going to be a creep.
	Politicians do things only for one reason.
	They're selfish interests.
	So I don't agree with you.
	I don't disagree with you.
	You are bang on the nail.
	Thank you.
	In fact, this particular piece, in their writ of habeas corpus, their motion to be released, in which they claim the murder was an active quote, and I like this, Imperfect self-defense after a lifetime of physical and sexual abuse from their parents.
	They also submitted new evidence, including a letter by Eric, then 13 years old, 13, who wrote to a cousin every night.
	It was a cousin that was unfortunately dead, which is a bit of a...
	Yes, we know that.
	Thank you very much.
	We know that.
	But he said, nonetheless...
	You keep correcting me, but...
	I'm not correcting you.
	I'm saying irrespective.
	Sean, help me.
	Don't just sit there with that look on your face.
	Help me here.
	Anyway.
	I like you very much.
	I think you're a bit bonkers, but, you know, so am I. Well, coming from you as an expert witness, I take the compliment.
	I know.
	I like you.
	I think you're great.
	Please remember, children, inebriety is nothing to mock.
	You need to catch up with Matthew, Lionel.
	No, I don't.
	Mr. T-Total.
	I'm going to snort some hand sanitizer to see if perhaps maybe I can get a leg up.
	So, viewers, the links for Lionel and Matthew are in the description box if you want to follow them or stalk them or message them.
	Look at George Garagos.
	Always there.
	There he is.
	There he is.
	White-haired dude with the black specks.
	Here he is.
	30 points behind.
	30 points.
	Watch what he does.
	This is one of the most despicable DAs in the history of American juridicature.
	He's destroyed that city along with Gavin Newsom.
	Let's see if he does the right thing.
	Well, we may differ in our opinions, but there we go.
	And you always wonder, who are these people standing behind them?
	They're stragglers, professional stragglers.
	Good afternoon, everyone.
	And before I begin speaking, I want to also introduce some other people that are here with me.
	And I hope I'm pronouncing the names right because I think I've been part of it.
	But I have Ana Maria, Beran, Jose Menendez, and niece Karen Bender-Molen.
	And Katie's niece.
	They're all here with us.
	Also with us here is Brock Lunsford.
	He's the Assistant Head Deputy for the Post-Litigation Conviction Unit.
	And Nancy Servier, who is the Deputy District Attorney in Charge of the Resentencing Unit.
	Let me begin by telling you that this is a case where we've had many people in this office spend a great deal of time reviewing the case.
	I have to tell you unequivocally that we don't have a universal agreement.
	There are people in the office that strongly believe that the Menendez brothers should stay in prison the rest of their life.
	and they do not believe that they were molested.
	And?
	And there are people in the office that strongly believe that they should be released immediately and that they were in fact molested.
	I have to tell you that after a very careful review of all the arguments that were made for people on both sides of this equation, I came to a place where I believe that under the law, resentencing is appropriate, and I am going to recommend that to a court tomorrow.
	What that means in this particular case, Is that we're going to recommend to the court that the life without the possibility of parole be removed and that they will be sentenced for murder.
	Which, because there are two murders involved, there will be 50 years to life.
	However, because of their age, under the law, since they were under 26 years of age, at the time that these crimes occurred, there will be The teams that have worked on this on the resentencing side of it have spent literally probably hundreds of hours by now looking at this case.
	These cases were originally presented on the habeas side of it, which I'll explain in a moment what that is, last year, and then the request for it Prosecutor-initiated resentencing occurred earlier this year.
	And there have been people in this office working in these cases from the very beginning, as well as many other cases that we have.
	The reason why I'm here today and why I came in front of all of you about 10 days ago is because there was a more recent documentary about the case.
	That again brought a tremendous amount of public attention.
	And we know there have been other documentaries, so this is not the first.
	This is the more recent one.
	And frankly, our office got flooded with requests for information.
	And even though this case was already scheduled to be heard in late November, I decided to move this forward because, quite frankly, We do not have enough resources to handle all the requests, and one of the things that I thrive to do in this office is to be very transparent in everything that we do.
	In this case, we review the prison files.
	You have to understand that the way the process works, when you're talking about a sentencing, a resentencing under the law, Not necessarily in what the original crimes were, but it focuses on has the person been rehabilitated, number one, and number two, can they be released safely into their community?
	Under that rubric, since I've been in office, we have resentenced over 300 people, including 28 for murder.
	Only four have re-offended.
	If that was a regular recidivism rate in this country, we would be the safest nation in the world.
	But we know that it's not.
	In fact, somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of the people that go to prison re-offend and get re-arrested.
	And that's why we have so many problems.
	However, when you look at the case of the Menendez brothers, you see two very young One was 19 and the other one was 21 when they committed these horrible acts.
	And I want to underline, they were horrible acts.
	There is no excuse for murder.
	And I will never imply that what we're doing here is to excuse that behavior.
	Because even if you get abused, the right path is to call the police, seek help.
	But I understand also how sometimes people get desperate.
	We often see women, for instance, that have been battered for years, and sometimes they will murder their abuser out of desperation.
	And I do believe that the brothers were subjected to a tremendous amount of dysfunction in the home and molestation.
	But they went to prison for life.
	Without the possibility of parole.
	Which meant that certainly under the law at that time, they had no hopes of ever getting out.
	They could have done what many other people do, which is basically said, you know what, I'm here for the rest of my life, so I'm going to do whatever.
	I'm going to misbehave, I'm going to join gangs, I'm going to live the life of a person.
	But they never did that.
	To the contrary, even though they didn't think that they would ever be left free, they engaged in a different journey.
	A journey of redemption and a journey of rehabilitation.
	And often the people that begin their journey of rehabilitation and redemption in prison is often very internal.
	And what they do, and one of our lawyers pointed out this today, is usually the path is people try to further their education, do things for self-improvement, which the brothers have done, by the way.
	But it's more unique or more less usual, I guess, when people not only do that, but they also begin to engage in ways to make life for others better.
	Have been doing so for a very long time.
	Creating groups to deal with how to address untreated trauma.
	Creating groups to deal with other inmates that have physical disabilities and may be treated differently.
	Even in one case, Lyle negotiating For other inmates as to the conditions that they live under during prison.
	And all this was done by two young people.
	Now they're not as young.
	They had no hopes of ever getting out of prison.
	They have been in prison for nearly 35 years.
	I believe That they have paid their debt to society.
	And the system provides a vehicle for their case to be reviewed by a parole board.
	And if the parole concurs with my assessment, and it will be their decision, they will be released accordingly.
	I must underline, however, this case will be filed.
	In court tomorrow.
	The final decision will be made by the judge.
	Court has to agree with my conclusion that they deserve to be resentenced.
	It is very possible that there may be members of this office that will be present in court opposing the resentencing.
	And they have a right to do so.
	And we encourage those that disagree with us to speak, and the court is the appropriate place to do it.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	We certainly feel very, we're very sure not only that the brothers have rehabilitated and that they will be safe to be reintegrated in our society, but that they have paid their dues not only for the crimes that they committed, but because of all the other things they have done to improve the life of so many others.
	So, again, we will be filing for resentencing tomorrow.
	We're seeking that they would be sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, as opposed to life without the possibility of parole, which is there currently half.
	That means that they would...
	They have 50 years to life because there were two murders, but because of the age upon which they were convicted under 26, under current law, that means they're eligible for youthful parole.
	I think it's also important to have some introspection today because I think that often, for cultural reasons, we don't believe victims of sexual assault.
	Whether they're women, whether they're men.
	We saw in our first trial, which by the way, they were tried twice.
	The first trial, one.
	I mean, the jury could not come to a conclusion.
	And in fact, about half of the jury wanted to convict them of manslaughter, which if that were have been the case, they would have been off prison a long time ago.
	And then there was a second trial, and then they were convicted of murder with special circumstances, which led to the life without the possibility of parole.
	But it's salient to understand that our own implicit and sometimes explicit bias around sexual abuse and sexual assaults often leads us to severe injustices in our community.
	And I want to speak to those that are victims of sexual assault, not whether you're a man or a woman.
	Know that we're here for you.
	If you're a victim of sexual assault in this community, and by that we're talking about L.A. County, not just L.A. City, you can come for help.
	Whether you're prepared to prosecute or not, we will be here for you.
	We have services for you.
	And if you're prepared to move forward with the prosecution, we will evaluate it as we do any other case.
	And if we believe that the evidence is there to present a credible case in front of a jury that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we will proceed accordingly.
	You do not have to suffer alone.
	You don't have to keep it to yourself.
	And help is here unconditionally.
	I'm going to say a few words in Spanish because I know there's a tremendous amount of interest from the Spanish media, and I know that there are going to be other speakers today, and then we're going to open it up for questions.
	First of all, I want to thank you all for being here today.
	Go ahead, Sean.
	We're talking about the case of the brothers Menendez.
	First of all, I want to thank you all for being here today.
	The reason why we're looking for the court reevaluate the original sentence is the following: "Bajo the California law, when a person is accused of a crime, Yeah, he's still speaking in Spanish.
	Are they getting out right, Lionel?
	Yep.
	He's talking about you, by the way.
	Me.
	He's talking about you, Sean, specifically.
	Ah.
	Hold on a second.
	Let me see if this will go in.
	Yep, still speaking in Spanish.
	All right.
	So are you happy, Matthew?
	Well, I'm here.
	Yes.
	Well, I think it's a very good decision.
	Yes.
	Now, do you dig what happened?
	Did you catch what happened?
	Remember, he was...
	They were tried originally.
	It was a hung jury.
	And then there was a second trial.
	Yes, I know a lot about this because my friend was on the first trial.
	I'm not talking to you.
	I'm speaking in to our listeners and bringing them in.
	A little background.
	I don't know what this man is saying.
	It's not about me.
	I don't care about me.
	These people have finally been treated properly, and I think that's wonderful.
	We're going to go back to the court, viewers, as soon as he stops speaking in Spanish.
	He's still speaking in Spanish right now.
	It's wonderful that the court is...
	It's wonderful that this man has done something...
	Slightly good.
	I don't know if it's perfectly good.
	34 and a half years later, he decides, I think it's a good idea after the Netflix special.
	But he wasn't in charge, this individual man, you know, 10 years ago when I first got involved.
	So it doesn't really...
	Now, Sean, I wanted to bring something up.
	The first trial did hear evidence of the sexual abuse.
	That's important.
	We heard 50 witnesses of sexual abuse, actually.
	50. 50!
	50 witnesses, and most of them are now dead.
	You see, that's the problem.
	They can't have a retrial because...
	As I was saying, as I was saying...
	Most of these people are dead.
	I like you very much, my friend, but...
	I don't know what...
	Still speaking, Spanish viewers, we'll be back in the court in a minute.
	Sean, work with me on this.
	The first trial allowed this in.
	It was a mistrial, meaning it was a split verdict.
	Some wanted to vote for a manslaughter, others, what have you.
	On the retrial, the judge said, I don't want to allow this in because I don't believe it.
	Even though it was for the jury to hear.
	On the second time, it was kept out.
	That's what's critical.
	It came in once, and it was a split verdict.
	Somebody at least bought it.
	At least somebody either had a split verdict or not guilty.
	When it was retried, that same judge said, I don't want to hear this.
	I don't believe it.
	And that was the part.
	Good afternoon.
	My name is Ana Maria Baralt, and I'm the niece of Jose Menendez.
	Eric and Menendez are my cousins.
	I would also like to acknowledge the other family members here, some standing, some seated.
	Joan Vandermolen is here, Kitty's sister, as well as Diane Vandermolen-Hernandez, Kitty's niece.
	Thank you for joining me, everyone.
	Today is a day filled with hope for our family.
	We are here because District Attorney Gascon has taken a brave and necessary step forward by recommending a resentencing for Lyle and Eric.
	The DA's decision reflects the truth that has been hidden for so long, and I am grateful for his leadership in making this choice.
	We stand united in our hope and gratitude.
	Together, we can make sure that Eric and Lyle receive the justice they deserve and finally come home.
	Thank you to District Attorney George Gascon for his courage and leadership.
	This step gives us all hope that the truth will finally be heard and that Lyle and Eric can begin to heal from the trauma of their past.
	Thank you so much for your time.
	Thank you.
	Yeah.
	This is Anissa Kidding and a Miss, Joan Vandermolen.
	Yeah.
	Hi, thank you for coming.
	We are here today because District Attorney Gascon has taken a brave and compassionate step forward by recommending resentencing for my cousins, Eric and Lyle.
	We wish to offer our deepest gratitude to D.A. Gascon.
	This decision is not just a legal matter.
	It is a recognition of the abuse my cousins endured, and we are grateful for the DA's leadership in putting justice over politics.
	We know this wasn't an easy decision, but is the right one.
	This is about truth, justice, and healing.
	It is time for Lyle and Eric to come home.
	And I ask all of you to join us in this fight for justice.
	We stand united in our hope and in our gratitude.
	Together we can make sure that Eric and Lyle receive the justice they deserve and finally come home.
	Thank you again to District Attorney George Gascon.
	For his courage and leadership.
	This step gives us all hope that truth will finally be heard and Eric and Lyle can begin to heal from the horrors of their past.
	We hope this will also shed light and increase awareness and help others who have been victimized by sexual violence.
	Thank you all so much for being here today.
	We are grateful for everyone's support.
	Is anyone else speaking?
	Okay.
	Okay, and I apologize.
	I'm reading notes here, and I'm trying to understand all the notes.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Can you explain to you, go tomorrow, you file a case for re-sentencing, then what happens after?
	Are the brothers going to be there tomorrow, and when?
	When is the role of the parole board going to come in?
	Right.
	And you know what?
	I'm going to actually have the people that are handling the case walk you through all of it.
	The brothers will not be there tomorrow.
	The role of parole board comes later.
	So what we'll do is we'll file our...
	My name is Nancy Thaberge.
	I'm the deputy in charge of the resentencing unit.
	This is Brock Lunsford, Assistant Head Deputy of the Post-Conviction Litigation Division.
	So what will happen is tomorrow we will file the actual petition requesting resentencing with the legal arguments and accompanying exhibits as to why we think it's appropriate.
	It's just a filing.
	No one's going to physically be in the courtroom.
	From there, we'll also serve the defense with our motion and our paperwork so that they'll have their copies.
	And from there, we will...
	Coordinate with the defense to set up a court date with the court so that the petition can be heard.
	Now, whether or not that's a setting or a hearing will be decided between us and the defense and the court once everybody gets an idea of what we've filed.
	Then from there at the hearing, the defense can either decide to have the defendants, the Menendez brothers, physically brought into court.
	They can ask that the individuals appear by video or audio WebEx.
	Kind of a Zoom participation, which we all kind of adapted to because of COVID.
	And then from there, we'll do the hearing and submit all the written and legal and oral arguments and any evidence that needs to be admitted at the time, and then the court will rule at that point.
	But we don't have that court date yet because we're just starting the process tomorrow.
	But it's our intention to have that go forward before the habeas because if the judge grants it, that may impact the defense's decision to proceed on the habeas.
	So we're going to try it just as a matter of economy of time to stack it one before the other.
	Have the brothers found out about this in real time, or were they told about this beforehand, or what was their reaction?
	Actually, the family was only invited to come.
	They were not aware of what the final decision was until a few minutes ago.
	The brothers may be actually seeing you guys.
	TV or social media, but no one knew other than a very small number of people in this office.
	And by the way, I should tell you that actually the final decision was just made about an hour ago.
	Right.
	Then it goes back to the prison system and then the parole system takes over.
	Would there be a parole or probationary period?
	Would they have to live in a halfway house or simply be released if they're allowed to be released?
	You know, those are really entirely up to the parole board.
	What was the factor that made the final decision?
	You said the final decision was just made.
	Was it the letter?
	Was it the menudo confession?
	What was it that put you over the top to me?
	No, what it was is I was evaluating the arguments that were being made within my office, both pro and against the release.
	Yeah, can I ask you?
	Hold on, I had it.
	You have made resentencing a cornerstone of your tenure as district attorney here in Los Angeles.
	There are some people who have accused you of using this very, very highly publicized...
	There's nothing political about this.
	We have resentenced over 300 people, including 28 for murder.
	And we will continue to resentence people in the future.
	That's all I can tell you.
	Excuse me, please.
	You're interrupting.
	Yes, please.
	Could the brothers be home by Thanksgiving?
	I don't know the answer to that.
	Why did you decide not to go with a reduced voluntary manslaughter?
	That was part of the process that I was still going through up until a couple hours ago.
	I don't believe that a manslaughter would have been the appropriate charge given the premeditation that was involved in the murders.
	I believe that this were clearly murders that were premeditated.
	Now, the motivation, that's where, you know, differences of opinion come up, but I don't think it would be appropriate to go all the way down to this slide.
	Would you please stop?
	I am not going to talk about re-election, okay?
	Okay.
	If you want to talk to re-election, go outside.
	We'll talk later.
	Please.
	I'm sorry, you're interrupting, sir.
	Please.
	What's going to happen tomorrow after the court will present the documents?
	Depends.
	Depends.
	As was explained, the abogado, the encargada of this unidad, the court probably will sign another day where the defense and we can go and there will be an evaluation of the evidence, if there is someone who is oping to this motion, to this process that we are starting, then the court will be able to hear all that and the court will take the final decision.
	Did your office announce the press conference before you made your decision?
	Yes.
	Because we're going to make a decision one way or the other.
	It's just a question of what the decision is going to be.
	You are no longer an office.
	What happens to this case?
	Could a potential successor undo what you're about to file?
	I don't think so.
	Once it's filed, it's filed.
	It's up to the court to take it from there.
	You mentioned?
	Yes.
	I'm sorry.
	In a parole situation, obviously you've had a policy, but since we're obviously supporting the push for release here, how would that work with people from post-legation?
	Are you sent to the big go-to?
	Are you for the release?
	No.
	No.
	We have a policy that we only send victim service as advocates if the victim or the victim's family wants that support.
	We don't send lawyers to our parole boards to relitigate a case.
	The parole board is fully aware of what the initial crime was, the crime that led to the conviction.
	Their work is primarily to evaluate whether they're rehabilitated or safe to be released.
	Can you break down the timeline for us?
	Can we expect a hearing by the end of the year?
	I'm hoping to get it on calendar, depending on the defense preparedness.
	I'd like to see it go to hearing probably from the next 30 to 45 days of tomorrow.
	I mean, there's not much to argue.
	There's One more question, please.
	Related to the case, not to elections.
	Related to the case.
	What would you like to say right now to Eric and Lyleman?
	What we like to say to them, and it's we, because it's not a...
	I've made the final decision, obviously, but we have a whole team that worked on it.
	We have a family here that wants to be reunited.
	We appreciate what they did while they were in prison.
	While I disapprove of the way they handle their abuse, we hope that they not only have learned, which appears that they have, but that if they get reintegrated into our community, that they continue to do public good.
	Thank you so much, everyone.
	Thank you so much.
	Ooh.
	Is that it?
	That's the end of him.
	That's the end of it?
	That's the end of him, yes.
	He's walking away.
	Alright, guys.
	People love your banter, but let's just get some too serious analyses off both of you now separately.
	Matthew, I'll let you go first.
	Just let the viewers know what you think of what you just heard.
	Well, I think it's good that they are finally going to be treated better.
	But I think that that man is a bit of a rat.
	Don't like the man, but look, it's a good thing for them.
	You know, finally they're going to be free.
	Hopefully.
	So, I say cheers to that.
	Alright, Lionel, what's your interpretation of what just happened?
	Well, finally, it's good.
	Just so that people can understand, they're not getting out.
	They now are going to be resentenced.
	A judge will consider this.
	A judge could basically say, no, why do you want to resentence?
	This is more of an advisory.
	Now, as a practical matter, When the prosecutor goes to a judge and says, we'd really like you to look at this again, for the most part, judges will go along with it.
	But theoretically, the judge could say, there's no legal reason why I should do this.
	There's no.
	But let's assume he does.
	It's then refiled as murder, regular murder, with a 50-year versus no possibility of parole.
	Since they were under the age of 26 at the time they committed the offense, They would be, at 34 and a half years after the fact, able to or liable or available for the possibility of parole hearing now, which most probably will end up with them being released, either on their own, maybe in a halfway house, maybe some kind of a community control or house arrest.
	They'll have to probably get in a halfway house.
	Yeah, but that's after the fact.
	But the point is...
	They are not released right now.
	They are not released.
	All they've done is the prosecutor has let the possibility of parole enter it.
	He backs off.
	It's really the safest thing to do.
	He could have just dropped the charges, reopened it, dropped the charges, said, you know what?
	Credit for time served.
	That's enough.
	Or Gavin Newsom, the governor, could have commuted the sentence the whole time.
	There are different ways to do it.
	So this is obviously good news for the brothers Menendez.
	It's very good news for the brothers, Menendez, and I think it will end up being a very good thing for them, and they will end up leaving the prison.
	I think that's probably what will happen, because if it doesn't happen, there might be a bit of outrage.
	Well, imagine being on that parole board.
	If you don't do this now, after...
	A big press conference.
	It looks a bit mucky, doesn't it?
	A little background on Mr. Gascon.
	George Gascon, along with Chesa Boudin, were a bunch of prosecutors who were put into office by George Soros.
	There's a number of them.
	Kim Fox out of Chicago.
	Krasner and Philly, these were these left-wing, you might say, absolutely anti-criminal justice lunatics post-COVID.
	They were the hand-picked disciples of George Soros.
	Understand who he is.
	And let me also understand you and your wonderful crowd here, Sean.
	He right now is in the fight for his life.
	30 points behind.
	Nobody is...
	Sean, you could run against Charles Manson.
	He's dead.
	But he wouldn't be 30 points behind you.
	He's in the fight of his life.
	So, whether this motivates him to do the right thing is a different story.
	But understand who this prosecutor is.
	Mr. Law and Order.
	He's one of the disciples.
	One of the demons of the hellhole.
	Called the Soros Foundation and those people.
	Just keep in mind who we're talking about here.
	Let me bring Matthew back in.
	I can't even speak.
	It's always political, Matthew.
	There's always an agenda.
	That's readily apparent.
	No, but I agree with you on many things.
	You're a lovely man.
	I can tell this already.
	And you should come down here and stay in Saint-Tropez and have a holiday.
	But honestly, you don't listen.
	But the problem is, I'm just trying to say to you that, well, you know, some of these people are just not very reliable.
	Well, that clears that up.
	Matthew.
	Matthew, we're going to have to retire you for the night.
	We'll bring you back.
	We're going to end shortly.
	I'm just going to let Lionel close the show.
	But we really appreciate you coming on.
	We'll speak soon, my friend.
	Okay?
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Alright, Lionel.
	Do you hate me?
	Did you hate me for that?
	Dear God!
	I know he's not here right now, but what is this?
	Help the inebriates out?
	Jesus.
	I've never been so...
	Anyway, let's do our best.
	Matthew is a viewer favorite, Lionel.
	He is.
	The viewers prefer him lit.
	Well, they must be ecstatic tonight.
	In any event, let's go back to this.
	Good news.
	There are many, many separate issues.
	Who the prosecutor is.
	Why he's doing the right thing.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	All of these are interesting.
	But the bottom line is that these people, it served no purpose for them.
	It took a Netflix documentary!
	Not the facts of the case.
	Not the justice system.
	Not the appellate court.
	If anybody questions the power of Netflix and documentaries and streaming and your show, this is it.
	We live in a brand new world.
	Think about this.
	The next point is, and I told you this before, when you are found not guilty by reason of insanity, you always have to allege, I did it, but here's why.
	You can't claim not guilty, and by the way, if you don't buy the not guilty, I was crazy too.
	No, you say, I did this.
	I killed these people, but here's why.
	Now, you also had this therapist, this shrink, this psychotherapist, who somehow released information.
	Let me ask you, and let me ask all of the individuals of this wonderful family, the Sean Atwood family.
	If somebody comes to you and you're a psychiatrist, and this person says, I killed my mother and father.
	I blew their brains out.
	You're the only person that knows this.
	Congratulations.
	All the stuff you're hearing now, all the stuff that's going on in Los Angeles, you're looking at the killer.
	Now, I've retained you as my psychiatrist or psychotherapist.
	And under the evidence code, under the privileges, he cannot reveal in court what you've said.
	Do you think that makes sense?
	Do you think that's a good system?
	What about if you go to a priest?
	How is anybody going to do that?
	Should what you tell a lawyer be privileged?
	Or a priest?
	Or a psychotherapist?
	How can you possibly go seeking psychiatric help if he reads you Miranda warning?
	You have the right to remain silent.
	Anything you can...
	So what happened was during the course of this, this psychotherapist apparently was having an affair with another client, told her...
	She spilled the beans and it was a mess.
	Technically speaking, had he done his job and kept his mouth shut, they may not even have been arrested.
	So that's another issue.
	Is there something wrong with somebody knowing that somebody killed it?
	But then again, how are they supposed to be their job?
	How can you be an alcohol counselor?
	And by the way, let everybody listening, if you ever go to an alcohol counseling unit or some kind of group therapy, There's no, I don't care what country you're in, there's no privilege there.
	Keep in mind that what you're saying about how you did this and this is a part of your recovery, they can subpoena one of your compatriots to appear in court to testify against you.
	Does that make sense?
	That's for another issue.
	But these two people did it.
	And Sean, they could have left at any time.
	Now what our dear friend said, what Matthew suggested was, let's find them guilty of manslaughter.
	Manslaughter is like almost negligent.
	It's kind of like a concession.
	It's like, look, I'm going to just find them guilty of something lesser because there was a reason for it and I hated this.
	Okay, fine.
	But technically speaking, there was nothing negligent about it.
	The facts don't even uphold that.
	What this is about is two people who had it.
	And it's true.
	In 1989, nobody wanted to talk about this.
	Nobody wanted to talk about men having...
	You're your father?
	Think about this.
	Your parents?
	It's like, are you making this up?
	And they are snotty.
	And they are rich.
	And they were spending money like mad.
	They didn't look like grieving kids.
	But you'd be surprised what I found out.
	Sean, in real life, people don't act like they're supposed to.
	After they've been the victim of something.
	They don't do it.
	Sometimes you will never, ever guess that somebody has been through something as traumatic as they say.
	And maybe that's a defense mechanism.
	But understand who this Gascon is.
	In my country, George Soros put into office these left-wing commie, I use that term, but I mean these radical left pro-criminal lunatics.
	Who turned this country upside down.
	That's who he is.
	And I don't know what his deal is.
	And he's from Havana.
	He was part of a...
	He remembers the Castro years.
	And how you think they come to our country from Cuba, from Castro.
	You think the last thing in the world that would ever want to do would be anything even remotely near this demented kind of socialist nonsense.
	That notwithstanding.
	So they're going to go back right now and they're going to find out Well, let's see.
	Let's have that parole hearing.
	Now, the parole hearing, remember, they didn't let Sirhan Sirhan out, even with Bobby Kennedy.
	You think Sirhan, if that's not MKUltra, I don't know what is.
	Sirhan Sirhan's still there.
	Think of those poor people with the Manson families, Krenwinkel and this and that and that.
	How do I remember the names?
	One died.
	And here's the question.
	I'll leave you with this, Sean.
	When do you say, okay, that's enough?
	What is the purpose of this?
	Is it to take somebody off the street forever?
	Is it to make this country safe?
	Is it to teach them a lesson?
	Remember, this is called the penal, poena, from the Latin punishment.
	Penal, penitentiary.
	And your job...
	What we have here in this country under the sentencing guidelines is not to change people, not to rehabilitate them.
	We don't give a damn whether you learn leather craft.
	It's to punish you so you don't do it again.
	But the prison industrial complex, Sean, has taken on this new thing where we love it.
	When they privatize prisons, and that's going to be this far away from it, you'll never get out.
	They're going to put people in prison for stuff you can't even believe.
	It doesn't make you better.
	And what happens is when you put somebody in prison, you better never let them out.
	Because this person that you put in there, you've just changed them.
	90% of the people in prison today, seriously, shouldn't be there.
	Probation is extremely effective.
	Especially when it comes to drugs and things that have nothing to do with really keeping society safe.
	Child molesters, predators, they never get out.
	Because We don't care.
	You've lost your membership card in the human race.
	So I think the good news is, irrespective of why, irrespective of the motivation, these young men then deserve to get out.
	They're not going to do this again.
	This was a freak.
	And I hope this message goes on to any other parent who wants to think about this.
	We as a society understand something.
	You do this to a kid, and we're going to look the other way.
	Murder may apply, but not to you.
	We'll just look.
	It's like that man, I think we told you about, that father who blew somebody's brains out as they were taking him back.
	You've seen this.
	As they brought him back at an airport under arrest and took him into custody, this fellow on a phone, all of a sudden, that's a gun, I mean, plugs him.
	And you know what he got?
	Probation.
	Because under the natural law, we in society, anybody touches your son, The rules are off.
	The rules are off.
	There has to be a human compassion element.
	So anyway, I love this story.
	It is absolutely fantastic.
	By the way, one more thing, and I'll leave you with this.
	Follow this case of New York of this former Marine, Daniel Penny, who was on the fight for his life, who choked out.
	I don't think he choked him as a karate restraint.
	This absolute dirtbag on a subway who threatened people, and now they're trying to pull a George Floyd on him.
	I'll tell you, this is supposed to be about justice, not law and order and technical.
	It's supposed to be making society safe and making sure that we treat people the right way, commensurate with the degree of harm that their actions have caused.
	Hold on a minute.
	I've just got one more question then.
	So, if...
	Childhood trauma is a primary root cause of crime, and this is a classic case of that.
	Does this now mean that a precedent is set whereby many other people who have done similar crimes can say, look, this happened to me as a kid.
	I want to get the same treatment as the Menendez brothers?
	The answer is, it depends.
	By the way, that's the number one answer for every legal question.
	It depends.
	This carries no precedent.
	What this is, you can at any time, if I got you for shoplifting, petty theft, vandalism, and you want to try this defense, give it a shot.
	I don't know how you're going to say childhood trauma made you steal something from a liquor store, but if you can do that, that's fine.
	This is different.
	Anytime you can show a diminished capacity, something that made you not know what you're doing.
	Let me give you an example.
	Let's assume in the middle of the night you're sleepwalking and you think you're pushing an elevator button in your dream.
	Well, it turns out you have a knife and you just stabbed a relative.
	Should you be held to the same standard as somebody who deliberately took a knife out and deliberately stabbed somebody knowing what they were doing?
	I say not.
	Absolutely not.
	You didn't know what you were doing.
	Now, let's take it a step further.
	What if you have PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder?
	You remember a...
	An incident from war.
	Some terrible event.
	And you stop.
	And you say, this is exactly...
	And you go into some autopilot.
	Should you be held?
	Well, you're more aware.
	But I would say, yeah.
	In my opinion as a juror, oh, I'm going to side with you.
	Worse.
	What if you're psychotic?
	And you hear in your head, push the old lady in front of the truck.
	And you say, but I don't want to.
	And it says, do it!
	You're miserable.
	Because people talk about how the voices demean them.
	And they say, okay.
	And they push the person.
	Knowing it's wrong, but because of a psychotic episode.
	These become more and more attenuated.
	More and more tenuous.
	If I can convince a juror, if I can convince a jury, and I basically tell them, look, you have the ability to...
	Nullify the verdict.
	Meaning, you can find me not guilty for any reason you want.
	That's kind of what I want you to do.
	I'm all for it.
	Because what's happening...
	Remember, there was a case of a woman years ago who killed her pimp.
	This young girl killed her pimp.
	Nobody...
	But because she might not have been very attractive.
	Or, better yet, Sean, they have a prior criminal record.
	And they say, oh, hear this.
	Sometimes bad people...
	Can find themselves the victims of something else.
	Prostitutes can be raped.
	People can be harmed just because the activities that they're involved in is a different story.
	So yes, this can be brought.
	It should be brought.
	But then again, it only works in the case of you killing the person who abused you.
	Now, one of the reasons is drunk driving or drink driving or whatever you want to call it.
	One of the reasons I find that interesting is that There is no room for excuse whatsoever.
	And if ever anything screamed for an excuse, that's it.
	And I love the fact that in society we tell you, you can't drink and drive, but we have parking lots at bars or car parks.
	I don't get that.
	So anyway, that's another story.
	But the issue is, this I think shines a light on the problem and it makes the issues that you and I talk about resonate so much more.
	And I told you this again, shameless plug.
	My wife at Lynn's Warriors, she's now investigating kids, listen to this, who commit suicide because of bots.
	Sean, we live in a world right now where people are doing things based on a host of reasons.
	Influences from TV, from sextortion, kids all of a sudden.
	She talks about this.
	Kids who are thinking they're playing with a friend.
	Hey, show me.
	I'll send you a picture.
	Next thing you know, their pictures are in some site.
	You know how many kids commit suicide because of that?
	So, I want everything to be open.
	I want everything.
	And let juries and legislatures and common sense citizens like you and me decide.
	Again, one time, Lynn's Warriors.
	I just want to tell you this.
	This is a passion.
	Because these kids, remember, those two young men, they may be older.
	They're in their 50s now.
	Those were kids.
	Those were immature kids.
	They might have looked older, but it was an infantilism to them.
	And that's what victimization does.
	It shunts you.
	It shuts you.
	You don't develop.
	It's a rest of development.
	It teaches you that you are, maybe it's me.
	Maybe it's my fault.
	If I was a good person, they wouldn't be doing this to me.
	Maybe that's why nobody loves me.
	I mean, it is so complex.
	So God bless the system, albeit a bit late, and I hope these two kids, they will never hurt anybody again, and if anything else, they can turn their life around and go and spread the holy word of truth.
	Thanks, Lionel.
	We've got 3,000 watching live.
	Lionel's links are in the description box.
	He's at Lionel Media on Twitter.
	We've got a huge amount of watching.
	Yeah, Lionel Media on Twitter, and also Lionel Nation on YouTube.
	And Sean, every time you and I are together, I cannot believe the people, Who stop me and say, they saw me on your show.
	Your fame.
	I'm serious.
	Again, these aren't the finest people you want to meet.
	They're demented and generous, but that doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter.
	A viewer is a viewer.
	I love you, brother.
	Thank you, my friend.
	Much love and respect, Lionel.
	I'll put a one in the chat if you want to see Lionel back.
	ASAP.
	It's going to be all ones.
	We will see you soon, my friend, no doubt.
	And Lionel's links are down there.
	Check him out and support his work.
	Thank you for joining us.
	Thank you, brother.
	Thank you, sir.

▲