Menendez brothers are one step closer to being released – what happens next?

Published

6 months ago

May 14, 2025

admin

The Menendez brothers, who were sentenced to life for killing their parents in their Beverly Hills mansion in 1989, are now eligible to be released from prison for the first time after being resentenced.

Lyle Menendez, 56, and his 53-year-old brother Erik have spent 35 years behind bars for the shotgun murders of their father and mother, Jose and Kitty Menendez.

The brothers have claimed that their parents abused them and have argued that the killings were an act of self-defence.

A Netflix drama series about the brothers called Monsters, which aired in September, thrust them back into the spotlight and led to renewed calls for their release, including from their family.

Now, a long-delayed resentencing hearing has offered them a path to freedom for the first time since their incarceration.

But how is it possible, and what happens next?

What does the resentencing mean?

Before leaving his role in December, former LA district attorney (DA) George Gascon asked LA County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic to review the brothers’ convictions.

During the resentencing on 13 May, he gave them a revised sentence of 50 years to life, making them immediately eligible for youth parole under California’s youthful offender law because they committed the crime while under the age of 26.

The judgment was based on whether the pair had been rehabilitated based on their behaviour in prison.

The brothers’ case highlighted some of their achievements behind bars: attaining several degrees and contributing to the community.

It listed a prison “beautification programme” Lyle Menendez started called GreenSpace as one example, and added that both brothers had received low-risk assessment scores, with Lyle apparently not being involved in a single fight during his time in jail.

The brothers’ attorneys pushed for the judge to resentence the brothers to manslaughter, which would have allowed them to be immediately released, but he gave them a revised murder sentence instead.

Handing them the new sentence, Judge Jesic said: “I’m not saying they should be released, it’s not for me to decide.

“I do believe they’ve done enough in the past 35 years, that they should get that chance.”

The resentencing hearing had faced lengthy delays due to the judge needing to review a large number of files, as well as the LA wildfires in January.

There was also a turnover in the DA’s office, with liberal leaning Gascon replaced by the more conservative Nathan Hochman, who repeatedly attempted to have the resentencing hearing thrown out.

Emotional testimony in court from brothers and family members

The brothers appeared at the proceedings in Los Angeles County Superior Court via video feed from prison in San Diego.

“I killed my mum and dad. I make no excuses and also no justification,” Lyle said in a statement to the court. “The impact of my violent actions on my family… is unfathomable.”

Erik also spoke about taking responsibility for his actions and apologising to his family.

He said: “You did not deserve what I did to you, but you inspire me to do better.”

The brothers chuckled when one of their cousins, Diane Hernandez, told the court that Erik received A+ grades in all of his classes during his most recent semester in college.

Anamaria Baralt, another cousin of the brothers, told the court they had repeatedly expressed remorse for their actions.

“We all, on both sides of the family, believe that 35 years is enough. They are universally forgiven by our family,” she said.

The defence also called a former judge and a former fellow inmate to the witness stand to testify that the brothers were not only rehabilitated, but also helped others. Prosecutors cross-examined the witnesses but didn’t call any of their own.

Former judge Jonathan Colby, who said he considered himself tough on crime, told the court that spending time with the brothers and witnessing their growth made him believe in rehabilitation.

Anerae Brown, who previously served time in prison alongside the brothers, cried as he testified about how they helped him heal and eventually be released through parole.

“I have children now,” he said. “Without Lyle and Erik I might still be sitting in there doing stupid things.”

The judge said he was particularly moved by a letter from a prison official who supported resentencing, something the official had never done for any incarcerated person in his 25-year career.

Los Angeles County prosecutors argued against the resentencing, saying the brothers have not taken complete responsibility for the crime.

The current DA Mr Hochman said he believed the brothers were not ready for resentencing because “they have not come clean” about their crimes.

His office has also said it does not believe they were sexually abused.

“Our position is not ‘no’. It’s not ‘never’. It’s ‘not yet’,” Mr Hochman said. “They have not fully accepted responsibility for all their criminal conduct.”

What happens now?

The reduced sentencing has made the brothers immediately eligible for parole, but they must still appear before a state parole board, which will decide whether or not to release them from prison.

While this decision is made, the brothers will remain behind bars.

Their first hearing must take place no later than six months from their eligibility date, according to board policy.

If they are denied at their first parole hearing, the brothers will continue to receive subsequent hearings until they are granted release.

But the brothers have another potential avenue to freedom, having appealed to California governor Gavin Newsom for clemency before they were resentenced.

Mr Newsom has the power to free them himself through clemency, and in February, he ordered the state parole board to investigate whether the brothers would pose a risk to the public.

They already have a hearing before the board scheduled for 13 June, but that one was set as part of the clemency petition.

It’s not yet clear if that hearing will serve as their formal parole hearing or if a separate one will be scheduled.

Mr Newsom can override any decision the board makes.

Anne Bremner, a trial lawyer in Seattle, said the brothers will be preparing for the parole board and aiming to impress upon them that they should be let out, but suggested the board members will already have a clear view.

“My guess is the parole board has been watching this and of course they’ve done these risk assessments already,” she said, adding they will know “who these two are, what their alleged crimes were and what they’ve done since the time that they were incarcerated until today.”

Potential new evidence

The brothers’ lawyers have also submitted a letter Erik wrote to his cousin as new evidence, saying it was not seen by the jury when the brothers were sentenced in 1996 and could have influenced their decision.

The letter is dated months before the murders, which they say alludes to him being abused by his father, Jose Menendez.

In the handwritten letter, Erik wrote: “I’ve been trying to avoid dad… every night, I stay up thinking he might come in.”

He also said he was “afraid” and that he needed to “put it out of my mind” and “stop thinking about it”.

More new evidence submitted comes from Roy Rossello, a former member of the band Menudo, who alleges he was sexually assaulted by Jose Menendez as a teenager in the 1980s.

He has provided a signed declaration of his alleged rape by Jose Menendez to the brothers’ lawyers, which the lawyers say is further proof of his supposed abusive nature.

LA prosecutors filed a motion opposing the petition, but its status is unclear, and appears to have been halted while the brothers have pursued their resentencing and clemency.

What happened in the original Menendez trials?

On 20 August 1989, Lyle and Erik Menendez shot their parents, Jose and Mary Louise “Kitty” Menendez, multiple times at close range.

The brothers, who were 21 and 18 at the time, initially told police they found them dead when they got home, but were eventually tried for their murder.

During the original trial, prosecutors accused the brothers of killing their parents for a multimillion-dollar inheritance, although their defence team argued they acted out of self-defence after years of sexual abuse by their father.

An initial attempt to try each brother individually in front of separate juries ended in a mistrial after both juries failed to reach a verdict.

In their second trial, which saw the brothers tried together, the defence claimed the brothers committed the murders in self-defence after many years of alleged physical, emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of their father, with no protection from their mother.

They said they had feared for their lives after threatening to expose their father.

The prosecution argued the murders were motivated by greed, and they killed their parents to avoid disinheritance.

Evidence of alleged abuse from their defence case was largely excluded from the joint trial by the judge.

In 1996, seven years after the killings, a jury found the brothers guilty, and they were convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to murder.

They were sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

But the brothers and many of their family members have continued to fight for their freedom ever since.

Although their focus of late has shifted towards the brothers’ rehabilitation in prison, their main argument in recent years has been that more evidence of Jose Menendez’s alleged abuse has come out since the last trial, and that a modern jury would have a better understanding of the impact of abuse than one 30 years ago.

US

‘He must have got this from K’: What mistaken tweet tells us about ‘secret’ plan to end Ukraine war

Published

2 days ago

November 20, 2025

admin

'He must have got this from K': What mistaken tweet tells us about 'secret' plan to end Ukraine war

There are developments in the quest for peace in Ukraine.

It’s been one of those days when different snippets of news have come together to create a picture of sorts. The jigsaw remains complicated, but the suggestion is neither the Ukrainians nor the Europeans have been privy to the developments.

As it happened: Russia responds to spy ship claim

The most intriguing development came at lunchtime on Thursday.

“He must have got this from K…” wrote Donald Trump‘s special envoy Steve Witkoff on X. He clearly thought he was sending a private message.

He was replying to a scoop of a story by Axios’s Barak Ravid.

The story revealed a “secret” plan to end the Ukraine war. The report suggested the Americans had been talking secretly to the Russians about a renewed effort to bring the war to an end, which involved Ukraine ceding land it still controls to Russia.

Who is “K” in Witkoff’s message? It’s probably Kirill Dmitriev, who has become Putin’s unofficial and unlikely envoy to Washington. Kyiv-born and Stanford-educated Dmitriev is, essentially, Witkoff’s Russian opposite number.

In a sense, they are the yin and yang of this geopolitical puzzle. Witkoff is a real estate mogul. Dmitriev is an economist. They are opposing forces with backgrounds that are, on the face of it, equally unsuited to geopolitical conflict resolution. Yet their two leaders are trusting them with this huge task.

‘Territorial concessions’ in 28-point plan

So, back to the developments to have emerged over the last 24 hours.

First, we know senior US Department of War officials, including Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, have arrived in the Ukrainian capital to meet their counterparts there.

Their visit was scheduled but the focus shifted. The plan to discuss drone technology and the winter offensive morphed into a discussion about a Russian-presented peace plan Witkoff and Dmitriev had been discussing.

This is the second development. The Axios report – which Witkoff seems inadvertently to have suggested came from Dmitriev – claims the two envoys met recently in Florida (Witkoff’s base) to discuss a 28-point plan for peace.

A defence official told our partners at NBC News that Driscoll has been briefed on the 28-point plan. Driscoll and his military staff are thought to have been presenting an initial brief to the Ukrainian side of this Russian-sponsored plan.

Ukrainian sources have suggested to me in clear terms they are not happy with this Witkoff-Dmitriev plan. Sources tell me it includes “territorial concessions” and “reductions in military strength”. The Ukrainian position is the plan represents the latest attempt to “play the American government”.

What’s happening with security guarantees?

Ukraine wants security guarantees from the US. Trump signalled during Zelenskyy’s last visit to Washington that he was willing to provide those. This was framed by the Europeans as a huge positive development, even though the White House did not spell out the crucial detail – what would these guarantees actually entail?

The latest reporting, from Axios, suggests the security guarantees (still undefined, publicly at least) are dependent on Ukraine giving up the whole of the Donbas region – this would include about 15% of territory Russia does not currently hold.

Crucially, the areas of the Donbas from which Ukraine would withdraw (the 15%) would be considered a demilitarised zone. The plan is very similar to one floated by Vice President JD Vance in the months before Trump won last year’s election, which was roundly rejected as a non-starter at the time.

Is Gaza plan the model?

Another source, from a third country close to the negotiations, has told me the Qataris are playing a role in the talks and were present at the weekend when Steve Witkoff met Ukraine’s national security advisor Rustem Umerov last weekend.

Qatari and Turkish mediation, along with the multipoint peace plan for Gaza, is being projected as a model transferable to Ukraine despite the conflict, challenges, and root causes being wholly different.

Other European sources told me this morning they were not aware of this Russian-American plan. It’s worth remembering it’s in the interests of the Russians to be seen to be engaged in peace proposals in order to avoid secondary sanctions from the US.

Zelenskyy has been in Turkey over the past 24 hours, where he singled out Trump’s efforts to find peace.

“Since the beginning of this year, we in Ukraine have supported every decisive step and the leadership of @POTUS, every strong and fair proposal aimed at ending this war.” Zelenskyy wrote. “And only President Trump and the United States have sufficient power to make this war come to an end.”

This is the vital language of flattery.

US

Deadline day for Andrew to respond to Epstein inquiry – but it’s hard to imagine why he’d talk

Published

2 days ago

November 20, 2025

admin

Deadline day for Andrew to respond to Epstein inquiry - but it's hard to imagine why he'd talk

They’ve said they are offering him an opportunity to tell them everything, once and for all.

But as we hit the two-week deadline set by the US Congress committee investigating Jeffrey Epstein for a reply from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, will he agree to their request to open up about the paedophile financier?

The letter sent by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said members wanted to talk to him because of the widely reported allegations that have been made against him, which he denies, and because of his relationship with Epstein and what he may have seen.

The committee is looking into Epstein’s crimes and his wider sex trafficking network. Andrew was given until today, 20 November, to respond.

Legally he isn’t obliged to talk to them, and to be honest it’s hard to imagine why he would.

The only time he has spoken at length about the allegations against him and his relationship with Epstein was that Newsnight interview in 2019, and we all know how much of a disaster that was.

Yes, this could be an opportunity for him to publicly apologise for keeping up his links with Epstein, which he has never done before, or show some sympathy towards Epstein’s victims, even as he vehemently denies the allegations against him.

But while there is the moral argument that he should tell the committee everything he knows, it could also raise more uncomfortable questions for him, and that could feel like too much of a risk for Andrew and the wider Royal Family.

However, even saying no won’t draw all this to a close. There are other outstanding loose ends.

The Metropolitan Police still have to tell us if they intend to take any further action after they said they were looking into claims Andrew had asked one of his officers to dig up dirt on his accuser, Virginia Giuffre.

There could also still be a debate in parliament about the Andrew problem.

The Liberal Democrats have said they want to use their opposition debating time to bring the issue to the floor of the House of Commons, while other MPs on the Public Accounts Committee have signalled their intention to look into Andrew’s finances and housing arrangements.

And then there are the wider Epstein files over in America, and what information they may hold.

From developments this week, it seems we are edging ever closer to seeing those released.

All of this may mean Andrew in other ways is forced to say more than he wants to, even without opening up to the Congress committee.

US

Trump signs bill approving release of Epstein files

Published

2 days ago

November 20, 2025

admin

Trump signs bill approving release of Epstein files

Donald Trump has signed a bill approving the release of files relating to Jeffrey Epstein by the US Justice Department.

“I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!” he said in a Truth Social post, following a lengthy preamble aimed at discrediting the Democrats.

“Democrats have used the ‘Epstein’ issue, which affects them far more than the Republican Party, in order to try and distract from our AMAZING Victories,” he continued.

It comes after the Senate finished the formalities and sent the proposed legislation to the president’s desk, having comfortably cleared a vote in the House of Representatives on Tuesday.

The Justice Department now has 30 days to release the documents it holds on the paedophile financier.

WHAT DOES THE BILL SAY MUST BE RELEASED?

All files relating to Epstein, including investigations, prosecutions, or custodial matters;
All files relating to Ghislaine Maxwell;
Flight logs or travel records for any aircraft, vessel, or vehicle owned, operated, or used by Epstein or any related entity;
Individuals named or referenced in connection with Epstein’s criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity or plea agreements, or investigations;
Entities with known or alleged ties to Epstein’s trafficking or financial networks;
Any immunity deals, non-prosecution agreements, plea bargains, or sealed settlements involving Epstein or his associates;
Internal DOJ communications concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates;
All communications concerning the destruction, deletion, alteration, misplacement, or concealment of files related to Epstein;
Documentation of Epstein’s detention or death, including witness interviews and autopsy reports.

How did we get here?

Mr Trump promised during last year’s election campaign to release the Epstein files in full, but has since spent months decrying them as a Democratic “hoax”.

His links to the Epstein have long been subject to scrutiny. Mr Trump has always denied any wrongdoing.

His change of heart on releasing the files came as a surprise over the weekend, as he called on Republicans in Congress to vote for the so-called Epstein Files Bill and indicated he’d sign it.

“Because of this request, the votes were almost unanimous in favor [sic] of passage,” Mr Trump wrote in his late-night post announcing the signing of the bill.

The House of Representatives was indeed near unanimous in voting for the material to be released, with 427 in favour and one against.

Hot on the heels of that vote, which was met with cheers in the chamber, the Senate said it too would pass the bill.

Trump tries to tie Democrats to Epstein

Mr Trump’s post repeatedly labels Epstein as a Democrat, citing his past associations with the likes of Bill Clinton.

Mr Trump has said he wants the Justice Department to investigate Epstein’s links to Mr Clinton, former treasury secretary Larry Summers, and Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn founder, who is also a prominent Democratic donor.

All three men were mentioned in the 20,000 other Epstein-related documents released by Congress’s House Oversight Committee last week. None of them, however, have been accused of wrongdoing in the case.

Tap here to follow Trump100 wherever you get your podcasts

Emails, photos and other documents released by Congress in recent weeks have included references to Mr Trump, the UK’s since sacked US ambassador Lord Mandelson, and former British prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who has faced calls from members of the committee to give evidence.

Like Mr Trump, both Britons have denied any wrongdoing and expressed regret about their relationship with Epstein.

The deadline for Mr Mountbatten-Windsor to respond to an official request from the committee is today.

Unrest in MAGA world

The issue has proved to be a major source of division within Mr Trump’s Make America Great Again movement.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a long-time Trump backer who publicly fell out with the president just days ago, stood with Epstein survivors on the steps of the Capitol ahead of Tuesday’s Congress votes.

She said: “These women have fought the most horrific fight that no woman should have to fight. And they did it by banding together and never giving up.”

Read more: Who is Marjorie Taylor Greene?