As I mentioned before, this case didn’t receive much worldwide attention earlier on, and as an European, I had never heard of it. I came across it, like many others, through Monsters.

I understand that I don’t know all the facts (and let’s be honest, only four people truly do), but I’m questioning a few things. Considering that the brothers were allegedly victims of sexual abuse and acted upon that, which led to them murdering their parents, we can agree that one’s upbringing shapes the way they perceive life, right? The kids clearly experienced some serious trauma while growing up, though exactly what and to what extent is uncertain.

But can we also consider the same might be true for Kitty? She witnessed her father mistreating her mother at a time when women had no voice. She learned that staying quiet was a means of survival, which may have led to her becoming a deeply troubled and depressed woman. She was clearly struggling with mental health issues. Her husband treated her poorly, and the children weren’t easy to deal with. All of these factors might explain why she didn’t take action, and perhaps even why she had fits of rage and episodes of total apathy.

On a broader scale, we could say the same about their father. He grew up feeling the need to excel in everything, and it seems he, too, may have been a victim of sexual abuse.

This case seems to reflect a continuous cycle of deeply traumatized children repeating the same destructive behaviors later in life. Given this, I struggle to accept that the parents—especially their mother—deserved such a fate. While it's clear that the parents actions warranted jail time, we’re left questioning how much their upbringing shaped their own choices.

If we can find empathy for the brothers, understanding their traumatic experiences where the fuel for this, does this mean we should apply the same perspective to others? Many individuals in prison are products of their environments, often shaped by deeply troubled pasts. Should we extend the same understanding to all cases? For instance, could we view someone like Dahmer through this lens? Should every person who committed a crime and has a traumatic past be offered the same consideration? Where do we draw the line?

Edit: I understand that the Dahmer comparison was excessive, I should have use Gipsy's case instead. There's a clear difference between Dahmer and any of these people involved in the Menendez case

Thanks