Many people believe the second trial was “rigged” but I wanna know what you think:

1. Exclusion of Key Testimony: In the first trial (1993-1994), both brothers testified extensively about the years of alleged sexual, physical, psychological and emotional abuse they suffered at the hands of their parents. Their defense argued that the murders were committed out of the fear their parents would kill them to stop them from revealing the abuse not greed. The opposition stated the brothers killed due to greed and coined the term ”The abuse excuse” _[could you imagine saying that now.] _ stating the boys only killed their parents because they wanted money. Which is confuses me because they had money when their parents were alive. 🤨

   In the second trial (1995-1996), the judge severely restricted testimony (didn’t allow them to talk on their), including removing the of experts on battered child syndrome from speaking [Battered Child syndrome: key signs that show a child has been physically abused] This shift was seen as eliminating a key part of their defense. In the second trial, the judge significantly limited the defense’s ability to present testimony about the brothers’ claims of sexual abuse by their father.

2. Change in Jury Composition: The first trial ended in two deadlocked juries, resulting in a mistrial. (They just couldn’t agree.)

The jury in the second trial did not have the same diversity of opinion. There were no jurors who seemed inclined to give credence to the abuse defense or to sympathise with the brothers' claims.

[In contrast, the first trial's jurors were divided between those who believed the abuse allegations and those who thought the brothers acted out of greed. - The second Trial didn’t have that. At all. - Which is the clearest indication of “Rigging”. Like “Oops **Everyone* agrees with me, guess I’m right?”]

The jury in the second trial was selected from a different area compared to the first trial and this jury came from a different, more conservative pool.

1. Shift in Prosecutorial Strategy: The prosecution in the second trial took a much more aggressive stance, emphasising the financial motive and the brothers' extravagant spending after the murders.

However please note this excerpt from the wiki article which I indisputably unbiased:

”Collectively, they spent approximately $700,000 before their arrests; family members later disputed a connection between their spending and the murder of their parents, claiming that there were no changes in their spending habits after the killings.” [Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › L...Lyle and Erik Menendez]

Right from By focusing more heavily on this narrative and reducing the impact of the abuse claims, some believe the prosecution painted a one-sided picture that swayed the jury toward a conviction without fully considering the brothers' mental state at the time of the murders.

1. No Mistrial for Hung Jury: Unlike the first trial, where jurors were deadlocked, the second trial led to a swift conviction.

The first trial’s inability to reach a verdict should have resulted in a similar outcome in the second trial, but believe the judge and legal process were more focused on securing a conviction this time around. [Some Jury members contested after that they didn’t even know they could be convicted of manslaughter with for 1 count in California is 3 - 11 years in prison.]

This is due to public opinion that:

1) The state of California wanted a win. Something to show their people and other representatives that their punitive system was in check after the disastrous and controversial OJ Simpson trial. Where many believe he got away with murder. The Menendez trial was the second most publicised trial of the 90s. - This is highly likely.

( 2) This is more opinion based [Conspiracy Based if you will.] People at the time wanted to make an example of the brothers. Their abuse had “Homo-erotic” elements and they killed their abusers. - They wanted to keep sexual victims and people of note quite. Particularly as this was prior to the me-too movement. And there was a lot of (and still is) abuse of power. Coupled with the idea that some people at the time (Late 80s early 90s) genuinely believed men could not be rapped. [Can you imagine?]

[It could be a combination, one or, neither.]

• [ ] 5. Media Influence: The case garnered intense media attention, with many portraying the brothers as spoiled, rich kids who killed their parents out of greed. Supporters argue that this media narrative influenced public perception and the legal proceedings, creating an atmosphere where it was difficult for the brothers to receive a fair trial.

1. Limited Defense Opportunities: The defense was limited in its ability to fully present the brothers case during the second trial. The Judges restrictions includes: witnesses, evidence, and the ability to effectively explain the abuse allegations and more. Supporters feel this hampered the defense's ability to argue the brothers' state of mind at the time of the murders.

See here:[ https://www.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/famous/menendez/trial_17.html#:~:text=At the second trial, the,rebuttal on February 5, 1996.]

Many believe the second trial was “rigged” or “biased” the prosecution’s strategy made it difficult for the brothers to receive a fair and balanced trial. These concerns have fueled ongoing debates about whether they should be granted a retrial or leniency.

But what do you think?