The Psychology of the Menendez Bros (Chapter 6: The Trial)
Added 2025-06-06 11:00:06 +0000 UTCDr Kirk and Humberto explore the Menendez Bros case.
00:00 The defense argument
19:27 Does the abuse justify murder?
34:01 Was the abuse discussed in therapy?
44:24 Was there physical evidence?
52:01 The trial verdict
1:00:22 The second trial
1:10:04 The final verdict
1:24:16 Appealing the verdicts
1:26:25 Predicting the newest developments
Become a member: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOUZWV1DRtHtpP2H48S7iiw/join
Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/PsychologyInSeattle
Email: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com/contact
Website: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com
Merch: https://psychologyinseattle-shop.fourthwall.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/psychologyinseattle/
Facebook Official Page: https://www.facebook.com/PsychologyInSeattle/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@kirk.honda
June 6, 2025
The Psychology In Seattle Podcast ®
Trigger Warning: This episode may include topics such as assault, trauma, and discrimination. If necessary, listeners are encouraged to refrain from listening and care for their safety and well-being.
Disclaimer: The content provided is for educational, informational, and entertainment purposes only. Nothing here constitutes personal or professional consultation, therapy, diagnosis, or creates a counselor-client relationship. Topics discussed may generate differing points of view. If you participate (by being a guest, submitting a question, or commenting) you must do so with the knowledge that we cannot control reactions or responses from others, which may not agree with you or feel unfair. Your participation on this site is at your own risk, accepting full responsibility for any liability or harm that may result. Anything you write here may be used for discussion or endorsement of the podcast. Opinions and views expressed by the host and guest hosts are personal views. Although, we take precautions and fact check, they should not be considered facts and the opinions may change. Opinions posted by participants (such as comments) are not those of the hosts. Readers should not rely on any information found here and should perform due diligence before taking any action. For a more extensive description of factors for you to consider, please see www.psychologyinseattle.com
Comments
I think the difference in dynamic between parent and child versus partners makes it incredibly different. If someone is abused by a partner, they usually have a support system or at least the independence to find help. At least it’s more likely that they do. If you are being abused by both your parents, you have no support system. You also might have parents that purposely separated you from the world, made you think the world was bad, made you think the world was unsafe. I didn’t grow up with a quarter of the abuse they did and when I was an adult, I still felt like there was going to be no way to escape my abusive parent. They have complete control over you financially medically legally. Even if you’re an adult if you don’t have a safety net or the support to make a safety net yourself, it feels impossible. again, I was an adult, but because of the financial abuse it made it feel impossible to leave . I can see it being even harder if you grew up athlete because you don’t even know the support systems or the government programs that you can rely on. it just must seem so much scarier too.
Colleen
2025-10-28 21:37:54 +0000 UTCPlease look into Gypsy Rose again. I used to believe her. There's a whole movement trying to correct the narrative. Start with the fact that she has (and HID until someone else came out with it) a genetic chromosome condition called microdeletion. Which explains every single surgery she had. Her stories are totally contradictory and are quite clearly lies. Please look into it. I'm trying to get the word out there. She also planned the murder for 2 1/2 years.
Haley Kukan
2025-10-07 12:26:13 +0000 UTCidk y'all, as a hispanic child, even when i was 18-20 if my parents said i wasn't leaving the house... i wasn't leaving the house 😂
Alex (they/he)
2025-06-13 22:01:06 +0000 UTCYou are talking about the Novelli tape and no he didn’t say he was going to school half the country what he said was he thinks he could compel a jury
Marie Safi
2025-06-11 14:03:57 +0000 UTCThank you Berto for covering such a triggering topic. You are doing an amazing job and I really appreciate the work that you do! Maybe you could watch some snippets from the Netflix documentary in future episodes?
Kate
2025-06-07 20:39:46 +0000 UTCI truly feel sorry for the brothers. If I was in the jury I would have voted manslaughter with time served.
Anna Zalutska
2025-06-07 17:20:15 +0000 UTCHumberto says we're going to point out all the mistakes, but if we're being transparent, it's the reason I became a patreon member!! I had already been a YouTube member for awhile but Humberto, you roped me in with how well you were doing this that I had to subscribe. More of Humberto leading the way! Love this!!
Laura Garza
2025-06-07 15:58:19 +0000 UTCAnother interesting fact is that the parents were tapping the phones and Eric couldn't figure out why his mom especially knew private details, and actually believed she was a witch. So they obviously had some kind of fantastical thinking. Not to mention, Lyle talked about how his Dad would just "show up" wherever he was without notice, Princeton etc. Their parents paid for everything so if they run and cut contact, how would they survive as traumatized as they are, and having never lived without someone guiding their every move. Jose even went behind Lyle's back and scared his girlfriend into having an abortion and Lyle wanted the baby, but knew he had no ultimate choice, even as an adult, because he's financially dependent and traumatized.
Chels
2025-06-07 11:02:07 +0000 UTCDr. Burgees, FBI/Psychologist, testified that Dr. Oziel used leading language in therapy and overpowered them at times when Eric made statements alluding to abuse. She analyzes the tapes under testimony and points these things out that made it hard for the brothers to open up because Dr. Oziel was most worried about his own interest.
Chels
2025-06-07 10:25:30 +0000 UTCI Love his random 'careers' & Dr. Honda expressionless reaction like it's true Lol
Chels
2025-06-07 09:42:29 +0000 UTCYes I was hoping Dr. H would analyze her main testimony along with Eric's male psychologist, forgot his name....Dr. Vicari (someone else posted).
Chels
2025-06-07 09:41:03 +0000 UTCMy take on the sentences is that they needed to have a follow up, time in institution to reconstruct themselves after all the years of abuse but definitely not life in prison. Plus I am quite critical of the carceral institutions since studies show that they don't help the collective/society (doesn't decrease crimes rates and even makes relapse - if you get released- more likely, help creation of gang/mafias and their recrutements etc.) or the individual (it basically destroys mentally most people, drive them to poverty most of the time etc.), so I hope we'll be, as societies able to change our practices and how we care for each others. Punishment feels good but has a very limited beneficial effect
Louise Dolbeau
2025-06-07 09:00:38 +0000 UTCActually one more element (and I'm writing before finishing the episode) is that they claim that during the last argument they had, where their parents forbids them to go out, was the moment their mother told them she knew about the abuse For the question about Erik psychologist. The thing is that they didn't want to talk about the abuse. It was hours with two psychologists mandated by their lawyer that made it possible, weeks since their being arrest. They both (the psy) saw very quickly that Eric had something going on but he would not say anything. One of them asked him to draw how life in the house was before the murder and it was through that process that Eric started to talk. And when Eric had talked, then Lyle was questioned by the lawyer. So Eric never talk to his first/outside psychologist because he signed a paper where he had to report to Jose but also because it was so embedded in him to never talk about it that it didn't come to his mind (plus the first psychologist didn't seem very interested in his therapy)
Louise Dolbeau
2025-06-07 08:46:29 +0000 UTCI hope you guys can watch and react to some of Dr. Ann Burgess’s testimony, who testified about the crime scene being disorganized and showing a LACK of planning; and she also interviewed and evaluated Erik for 60 hours and came to conclusions not only about the horrible abuse he suffered through, but she also goes into details about the neuroscientific / biological events happening in the brains of trauma victims, such as hypervigilence, fight-flight mode being triggered more easily, etc. In her conclusions it may have been unreasonable to an *outsider* to think they were in danger after the last confrontation with their parents, but she does believe that the boys honestly believed they were at grave risk and acted in full panic mode.
Kira S.
2025-06-07 03:34:08 +0000 UTCI like the way you kept bringing it back to what a 1996 average jury would've believed regarding male sexual assault.
Dina Andriusis
2025-06-07 02:22:03 +0000 UTCI really wish Dr. Honda would have seen some clips of the family members who testified regarding the abuse they witnessed.
Mariana
2025-06-07 01:49:36 +0000 UTCGood point! I think Berto confused that part a little bit. A jury can ALWAYS find someone not guilty. The judge basically gives the jury the options of 1st & 2nd degree murder plus voluntary & involuntary manslaughter, then he lays out the burden of proof for each verdict. And the jury then has to vote on guilty vs. not guilty on each of those options. Hypothetically, if the jury found a lack of evidence or enough reasonable doubt, they could've voted "not guilty" on all four of those options, and the brothers would've been fully acquitted. The defense knew that was extremely unlikely, which is why they argued for imperfect self-defense = an honest, but unreasonable fear for their lives = voluntary manslaughter.
Kira S.
2025-06-07 01:05:46 +0000 UTCHi Miriam - I'm a fellow German here! :) Your comment is very interesting. One thing I wanted to point out, though, is that even though you're correct that there are some differences in the definitions of murders vs. manslaughter in the U.S. compared to German law, the murder "mindset" attributes such as greed are ALSO often components in murder cases in the U.S. For example, in the Menendez case the prosecution not only argued that the boys supposedly planned this all in advance and that it was premeditated, but that it was done out of greed (for the inheritence) and/or out of revenge (hatred because of the parents' abuse). In California (where the Menendez brothers were put on trial), the difference between 1st degree and 2nd degree murder is actually that 2nd degree murder is an intentional killing (e.g. for greed) but WITHOUT premeditation. So in California, even without the pre-planning you can still be found guilty of murder, it would be 2nd degree with a slightly lesser sentence. Manslaughter is more like a killing in the heat of the moment, for example in an argument etc. - which is why the brothers claimed this for their defense.
Kira S.
2025-06-07 00:14:06 +0000 UTCHumberto's true career is finally revealed- Humberto manufactures Humberto shirts!!
Rorey
2025-06-06 20:35:56 +0000 UTCIn the second trial the jury actually only had the option 1. degree murder or 'not guilty'. No lesser charges. (At least that is what german wikipedia says.) Interesting for me to think about these murder degrees in US law. In Germany the definition of murder and manslaughter is different. Murder being defined by specific murder attributs, like cruelty, egoism, greed etc. not mostly by being planed and willful. Thus this case would be quite clearly not murder but manslaughter, propably in a lesser form. Since somthing along these circumstances is described in the law. Even in '93. It is strange how different two different cultures can define something like murder and how much this changes the outcome of trials - and even how we feel about what is and what is not murder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_German_law And since they would have been under youth law (14-21) the max. penalty would have been 10 years in jail over here. Minimum propably 1 year jailtime. But then - I hope that in Germany in the 90th these boys would have had an easier time getting help and definitely a less easy time getting weapons - so maybe the whole thing would not have happened that way.
Miriam
2025-06-06 20:20:48 +0000 UTCI want to thank Berto for how vulnerable and open he’s been during this series. I think sharing your stories will help a lot of other victims and seeing you work out your feelings in real time is proof that working through trauma is a lifelong pursuit
Olivia Kanyo
2025-06-06 19:00:46 +0000 UTCYes! A lot of information was left out I wish would have been adressed.
Arlene Calles
2025-06-06 17:57:40 +0000 UTCAnother great episode! It’s so frustrating that witnesses were blocked because up until recently it helps to have as many witnesses as possible. If there is no hard evidence the next best thing is having victims/witnesses brave enough to come forward to say they themselves have experienced or seen a pattern of behaviors from the perpetrator. I’ve come to realize that even though I do not agree with murder/vigilante style justice I am also very empathetic towards people who are pushed to that point such as Gypsy Rose, Eric and Lyle, Luigi Mangione, and even Aileen Wuornos. They prove that the systems in place don’t work and the system has failed them and will continue to fail other people. I just can’t blame people fighting for survival even if it turns deadly.
Katie
2025-06-06 15:56:37 +0000 UTCI assume the 6 episodes within a day or two. I’d like for Kirk to take a 48 hour period to research on his own after this. Then have a seventh episode of Kirk kind of coming back with new things he found and if he has any different takes on anything.
Oddly Specific with Audra
2025-06-06 15:03:04 +0000 UTC100% agree with Berto that the second trial would not have resulted in such a unanimous verdict if the boys had been allowed to share the abuse testimony. The fact that two separate juries in the first trial could not come to an agreement makes me think this. A third jury getting an easy unanimous decision when some of the most crucial information about the case was left out… it’s just suspicious. Obviously the prior juries DID feel the information was incredibly relevant to the crime. It’s like the third jury is being presented with budding serial killers instead of a dog who’s been kicked over and over again. Of course vigilantism is wrong and they had other options available to them, like just leaving. They were adults, technically. But that denies all the conditioning they’ve had to make them think they can not get away. Their mental state at the time is important because that makes a huge difference to determining if they are likely to commit crime in the future. Their parents had gotten them out of many societal consequences of their own actions, and had been abusing them their entire lives. They probably knew about lots of other things that their father had done that he was not held to account for. And 90 witnesses to testify… it’s like they weren’t even hiding the non-sexual abuse. But none of those people helped the boys. Why would they think anybody else would?
Stefan and Erin S
2025-06-06 14:05:45 +0000 UTCThe jury still has the option of "not guilty" - it's just unlikely here because they admitted to it. But the judge can't say you're not allowed to come back with a "not guilty" verdict. If they did it'd be jury nullification.
Kathryn T
2025-06-06 13:14:44 +0000 UTC
