Talk:Lyle and Erik Menendez

Verification audit

Due to a recent report filed at WP:ANI about Iimitlessyou making problematic edits to the article, I am proposing a verification audit of the article. The user in question has made over 100 edits to the article, some dating back to 2021. Zenomonoz has correctly pointed out this is a high traffic article right now, with 3,670,317 pageviews over the last 30 days. So it is incumbent upon us to make sure the content in the article is verifiable, neutral, reliably sourced and due for inclusion. The article is fully protected right now (as of 10 Oct 2024), so please feel free to add to this list any problematic content and/or sources that you find. When the article protection expires, we can get to work on fixing these problematic edits. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: There are several video clips from Court TV being used as references, they are presently formatted using {{cite web}}, ideally these should be converted to {{cite AV media}}, so a timestamp can be used to identify where the event occurs in the source. Some of these videos are one hour and longer, our readers shouldn't have to hunt for themselves where the event occurs at. See example above in protected edit request (2) for an example ref.

Content table

Problematic content

Content	Reason
José Enrique Menendez was born on May 6, 1944, in Havana, Cuba. At age 16, at the beginning of the Cuban Revolution, he moved to the United States.	Only source is IMDb, can't use per WP:UGC
Kitty quit her teaching job after Lyle was born, and the family moved to New Jersey, where Erik Galen was born on November 27, 1970, in Gloucester Township.	Two sources, one is IMDb, needs verification and IMDb removed.
On August 18, 1989, Lyle and Erik went to several gun stores in Southern California to buy handguns.	Two sources, one is video clip from Court TV, needs verification and timestamp for video clip.
Before the fatal shot to her cheek, she was on the ground, crawling away.	Two sources, both video clips from Court TV, needs verification and timestamps, and secondary sourcing.
Erik testified that a couple of weeks before the killings, he told Lyle about the sexual abuse he was experiencing, leading to multiple confrontations within the family.	Only source is video clip from Court TV, needs verification and timestamp, and secondary sourcing.
Both brothers testified that their father had threatened to kill them if they did not keep the abuse secret. As a result, they purchased shotguns for "protection and self-defense." They alleged that the final confrontation occurred in their home's den on August 20, 1989, shortly before Kitty and José were killed. According to their testimony, José closed the den's door, which they described as "unusual." Paranoid and afraid that they would be killed by their parents, Lyle and Erik went outside to load their shotguns. Erik recalled, "As I went into the room, I just started firing."	Two sources, one a video clip from Court TV, the other source is a YouTube video. Unacceptable sourcing for direct quotes like this, needs secondary sourcing, and inline citations to support the quotes.
Immediately after the killings, both brothers remained in the house for a few minutes, expecting the police to respond due to the noise of the gunshots.	Only source is YouTube video from ABC News, needs verification and timestamp.
They later left to dispose of their clothes that were stained with blood, then discarded the shotguns somewhere along Mulholland Drive. In between these, they also went to a movie theater and attempted to purchase tickets for the film Batman to use as their alibi but abandoned the plan due to the timestamp on the ticket stub.	Only source is video clip from Court TV, needs verification, timestamp and secondary sourcing.
They then headed to the "Taste of L.A." festival at Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.	Only source is video clip from Court TV, needs verification, timestamp and secondary sourcing.
Lyle bought Chuck's Spring Street Café, a Buffalo wing restaurant in Princeton, New Jersey, as well as a Rolex watch, a Porsche Carrera sports car and $40,000 worth of clothes.	One unacceptable source, needs secondary sourcing. Fixed: unreliable source removed, new sources added.
As physical evidence, the defense presented photographs of Lyle and Erik's genitalia allegedly taken by their father when they were children. As physical evidence, the defense presented one nude photograph of Lyle and one of Erik taken by their father when they were children.	Only source is video clip from Court TV, needs verification, timestamp and secondary sourcing. Fixed: video clip removed as source, secondary source added.
The prosecution argued that there was no evidence the photographs were taken by José, despite them being documented and kept by Kitty.	Only source is court document, unacceptable source, needs verification and secondary sourcing. Strike "despite them being documented and kept by Kitty". Not in source and impartial tone: WP:OFCOURSE
The brothers then decided to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 7, 2005, a three-judge panel denied both their habeas corpus petitions, although Judge Alex Kozinski noted that the trial judge changed many of his rulings during the two trials.	Two sources, both unacceptable, needs secondary sourcing.
Lyle's prosecutor, Pam Bozanich, argued that "men could not be raped, because they lack the necessary equipment to be raped."	Two sources, but context is missing from the quote and UNDUE for inclusion. Quote is from arguments heard during jury instructions hearing, and the jury did not hear this. Pending: needs discussion.
Erik's prosecutor, Lester Kuriyama, also theorized that Erik's confusion about his sexual orientation may have been the real cause of tensions within the family, ultimately leading the brothers to kill their parents. During closing arguments, Erik's prosecutor, Lester Kuriyama, implied that Erik was gay, and that his sexual orientation "fed the family friction that led to the killings".	One source, needs verification, and is this even DUE for inclusion? Fixed: slightly reworded to reflect what source actually states. Needs discussion whether it is DUE.
As in their pretrial detention, the California Department of Corrections separated the brothers and sent them to different prisons. Since they were considered to be maximum-security inmates, they were segregated from other prisoners. They remained in separate prisons until February 2018, when Lyle was moved from Mule Creek State Prison to the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, where they were housed in separate units.	Unacceptable source, needs secondary sourcing.
In 2018, Lyle and Erik founded the prison reform and beautification initiative "The Green Space Project," which aims to make prisons more "livable" and rehabilitative by painting murals on walls and planting trees.	One source, needs secondary source in order for this content DUE for inclusion.
Both brothers filed habeas corpus petitions with the Supreme Court of California, which were denied in 1999. Having exhausted their appeal remedies in state court, they filed separate habeas corpus petitions in the United States District Court. On March 4, 2003, a magistrate judge recommended the denial of the petitions	Only source is blog, needs secondary sourcing.
In popular culture section: Per MOS:POPCULT, Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. Sources should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, video game, television show, or other cultural item. Several of these items are poorly sourced (book publishers, youtube, etc.) and several unsourced. Needs review to determine if all of these items are DUE for inclusion.
On August 18, 1989, Lyle and Erik went to several gun stores in Southern California to buy handguns. However, due to issues with Lyle's California driver's license and a two-week waiting period mandated by gun laws, the brothers decided to purchase shotguns instead.	The two Los Angeles Times references do not support this content as written. Fails verification.
Example	Example
Example	Example
Example	Example
Example	Example
Example	Example

Sources

Discussion

Tone / prosecution

There are issues with the persuasive/argumentative tone that is most evident in the 'trials' section. It may be best to shift away from citing videos for this reason, and stick with an overview of the trial via reliable secondary sources.

Probably need to add in clarity around the prosecution case: e.g. the duo hired a computer expert to delete Jose's updated will, which they were written out of. The prosecution also argued against the idea of panicked self defense based upon tapes, and that they bust into the den to kill their parents while they were sitting watching TV. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"men could not be raped" comment

As discussed earlier: "This theory was disputed by the defense team, claiming that the brothers did not think they were getting an inheritance after José threatened to disinherit them. Lyle's prosecutor, Pam Bozanich, argued that "men could not be raped, because they lack the necessary equipment to be raped."". This is somewhat confusing: the first sentence occurred during the trial, while the sentence that follows it was at the start without the jury. I don't know which definitions were on the books at the time, but in some jurisdictions ‘rape’ refers (or referred) to vaginal penetration, while forced sodomy was a seperate charge. It sounds like Bozanich is seeking clarity on this in the video, but my speculation is no better than others speculation she "argued" that. What would be great is a secondary source discussing that properly. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That is my understanding of this too, having watched the video, but I've not found any good source for what the penal codes were at the time. They were discussing a point where some factor can apply to "rape or forcible sodomy". She then I believe is discarding the "rape" option as not applicable in that jurisdiction, then going on to discuss the other option, which does. It sounds bad now, but if it's just what the law was at the time, she isn't arguing, she's describing. For comparison, statutory rape was only made gender neutral in California in 1993. This really needs a decent secondary source. Void if removed (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Ninth court appeal document

Is the ninth court appeal decision (2005) a primary source or secondary, as it is a review of the case in 2005? WP:BLPPRIMARY says do not use court documents, but it seems to be about primary sources. Isaidnoway? Zenomonoz (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It's an official court document. We need a secondary source discussing the photographs. Here is what the article states: The prosecution argued that there was no evidence the photographs were taken by José., which is a definitive statement, but what the court doc actually says: Ladies and gentlemen, that is a very easy allegation to make, when two such photographs do exist. But the question is just because those photographs exist, does that mean that that’s proof that Jose Menendez was the one who took those photographs?, which is a question the prosecution is asking. We shouldn't be analyzing and interpreting official court records, we need secondary sources to do that. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I’m only asking if that review can be used for other things in the article? (the mention of ‘court documents’ in BLP primary is only in reference to primary source court docs?). I could probably ask on BLP noticeboard.

Re: that specific statement needing a source, there is NY Times source in one of the earlier versions stating the defense argued the photos were in a film roll taken a children’s birthday party.

Zenomonoz (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

How is this random bio ranked 4th in view count?

Views/Name

138,652,900/Main_Page

63,473,185/Special:Search

19,650,294/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures

12,946,439/Lyle_and_Erik_Menéndez

-Despyte (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It's even ahead of Cleopatra

https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/reading/top-viewed-articles/normal%7Ctable%7Clast-month%7C(access)~desktop*mobile-app*mobile-web%7Cmonthly

  

-Despyte (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

There's a Netflix series about this bio that recently came out. Alienist6721987836 (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

False information added by User:Zenomonoz

@Zenomonoz has added misinformation about the tape recorded conversations between Lyle Menendez and Norma Novelli.

"Lyle did not testify in the second trial, because of evidence the prosecution had gathered since the first trial. Prosecutors had tape recorded conversations between Lyle and Norma Novelli, in which Lyle described how he "snowed" the jury at his first trial with his testimony about abuse."

This is false. There is no such conversation in the Norma Novelli tapes. There is no evidence that Lyle Menendez told anyone that he "snowed" the jury. Norma Novelli never claimed this. The woman who claimed she had tape recordinngs of Lyle Menendez saying that was Martha (Marti) Shelton. She later admitted that Vanity Fair reporter Dominick Dunne paid her to lie about having those tapes. Dominick Dunne himself admitted to paying Shelton but denied asking her to lie.

1. Link to Dominick Dunne article about Marta Shelton - Vanity Fair - March 1994 [1]https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2015/03/dominick-dunne-menendez-trial

2. LA Times article about Shelton tapes - May 25, 1994 [2]https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-05-25-me-62043-story.html

3. NY POST - May 14, 2004 - "She Says He Dunne Her Wrong" (Shelton claims Nick Dunne paid her $6100 to fabricate info about Lyle Menendez) [3]http://nypost.com/2004/05/14/she-says-he-dunne-her-wrong/

NY POST - May 2005:

Dominick Dunne, one of his most famed writers in the Vanity Fair stable, is being accused by a woman of paying her to lie for some of his stories.Dunne says she’s trying to shake him down for money. And the woman admits she has had trouble with the law in the past: in particular, she was convicted of forging checks.

But Dunne also acknowledges he interviewed the woman, Martha (Marti) Shelton, and did give her money – four checks, amounting to about $1,600 over the years.

“I did indeed send her money from time to time,” he said in a statement. “It was always after a request from her. I seem to remember that one time she had just gotten fired from a job and she was going to be evicted. There was always a hard luck story. I can’t remember the specifics. Once her furniture was put on the street, I think.” Shelton says she received at least $6,100 over a nine-year period as part of her “deal” with Dunne.

“I’m a soft touch for a hard luck story,” Dunne explained. “I always have been.” He said it was never as payment for being a source, though she did make an appearance in two stories.

Whatever Dunne’s motivation, it’s unusual for mainstream journalists to give money to sources, and now Dunne’s regretting it. He has the support of his boss. Through a spokeswoman, Carter said he’s OK with what Dunne did, since the money came out of the writer’s own pocket.

“It was a personal relationship with this woman,” a Carter spokeswoman said. “He felt sorry for her. It has nothing to do with the magazine. Conde Nastnever sent her a check.”

Shelton, 40, who lives in Stafford, Va, says Dunne first paid her to lie for a piece he wrote about Erik and Lyle Menendez in April 1994, then paid her to keep quiet over 10 years. Later, she alleges, he offered to pay her to help cook up a story about the sex life of former Rep. Gary Condit.

She is quoted in Dunne’s April 1994 piece saying she overheard Lyle Menendez tell someone, after his first trial ended in a mistrial, “We’ve snowed half the country. Now we have to snow the other half.” “That was a lie,”

Shelton now says. According to stories in the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post in mid-May 1994, authorities searched her home to find evidence to support her quoted statement, but came up empty.

Shelton now says she never overheard Menendez say that, but she was coached by Dunne.

Shelton says she told Vanity Fair fact checkers at the time the quote was made up, but they were only interested in getting her tape-recorded statement owning up to the quote – which she provided. Kimiashn (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Both you and Alienist6721987836 have posted in short succession and making very similar arguments to the topic banned Iimitlessyou. Edit: Alienist6721987836 has been confirmed as a sock and blocked. Kimiashn is unrelated Zenomonoz (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Alienist6721987836 only argued about the necessity of including this information since it was "not admitted into evidence." I am saying it is a lie because these tapes never even existed. These are not similar arguments. Kimiashn (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ve trimmed it out (temporarily) while I can review it in more depth later. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Alienist6721987836

Note that Alienist6721987836 is a  Confirmed WP:TOPICBAN-evading sockpuppet of Iimitlessyou and any edit they made to the article or to this talk page should be reverted and ignored. --Yamla (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

False information: "hiring of a computer expert to delete father's recently updated will" and "lavish spending of their multimillion-dollar inheritance"

"Police initially investigated this claim, but grew suspicious of the brothers' lavish spending of their multimillion-dollar inheritance, and their hiring of a computer expert to delete their father's recently updated will."

[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyle_and_Erik_Menendez&diff=1251793114&oldid=1251792232&variant=en

This is not accurate. The police did not suspect the brothers for hiring a computer expert to delete their father's "updated will." The family members had already searched the computer for any new will, but found nothing. Even if a "computer will" had existed, a document on a computer without a signature or witnesses is not legally considered a valid will.

"A digital copy, like a PDF of your will saved on your computer, isn't considered valid under California law."

https://www.freewill.com/learn/california-last-will-and-testament#:~:text=Your%20will%20must%20be%20in,considered%20valid%20under%20California%20law.

The brothers never recieved their "multimillion-dollar inheritance", they were arrested before they recieved any inheritane. The money that they spent was from an insurance policy which was around $300,000 for each brother and not "multimillion-dollar."

There is a lot of information about the will, insurance policies, the estate funds and post-crime spending, which is all presented in the trials.

A summary of that information based on first trial testimonies of Carlos Baralt, Marta Cano, Roger Smith, Steve Goldberg, Howard Witkin, Lyle Menendez and second trial testimony of Randolph Wright:

The Safe:

The brothers never stated to anyone they knew where the will was. On Aug. 21 Lyle and Erik went over to Mr. Wright's home. Wright asked them questions about the will and if there was a safe. (According to Wright, he got the impression there may have been changes in the will) Wright testified that in response to his questions, Lyle told him there might be a will on a computer.

Lyle didn't spend two days with the safe on his own. Erik stayed at the Wright home for 2 days (Aug. 21-22) after Wright offered both brothers a place to stay. Wright told the brothers to leave the safe at his home and he explained it can only be opened with an executor present. That's where the safe was, locked. On Wednesday or Thursday Carlos Baralt and Brian Andersen, along with the brothers and a locksmith came to the Wright home and opened the safe in front of the brothers and their uncles. There was nothing in it.

On August 21, 1989 Klara Wright went to the Menendez home to pick up her son’s tennis rackets that were left there after the Kalamazoo tourtament. She saw police there. Erik came out and told her their parents were killed. According to her, Erik asked if he and Lyle could speak to her husband who they knew was a lawyer. A few hours later, Lyle and Erik went over to the Wright home and spoke to Mr. Wright. Wright asked if they can think of any place their father might keep a will and Lyle told him there was a safe. Wright explained they can get the safe to his house and it will not be opened until someone such an executor is present. Lyle returned with the safe about 20 minutes later. Wright told them to put it in an empty bedroom at his house. Wright asked if they wanted to stay over at his house because of everything that happened. Lyle left that night and Erik stayed at the Wright home for 2 days. The brothers never asked Wright to keep the location of the safe a secret or anything like that, they weren't his clients. When Wright asked, Lyle gave him the phone numbers of Jose's lawyer and secretary. It was Wright who asked them if Jose had a will or insurance policies.

The will:

In the days after the killings, family members were searching the Beverly Hills home and Jose’s office for a will. On Thursday, Carlos Baralt was made aware the will was found and he and Lyle went over to the Beverly Hills house. (they were staying at the Bel-Air hotel at the time) The will was found in the bathroom off the master bedroom. There were two wills, one for Kitty, one for Jose.

There was a provision in the 1981 wills that at 22 Lyle could legally become the executor of the estate. Lyle turned 22 on January 10, 1990 but Lyle declined the opportunity to be executor and left it up to Carlos. When Lyle needed money out of the estate he had to ask Carlos.

If there was a new will, no lawyer, or anyone for that matter, ever came forward and said he saw or helped write or advise Jose Menendez of a new will. Baralt called lawyers who worked with Jose and tried to find if there was a new will.

The reason Baralt thought there might be a new will was because in early summer of 1989 (Baralt said June or July, the defense had some travel documents that indicated it could have been May) he had a conversation with Jose where Jose asked him if he’d be willing to still be an executor (Jose’s financial situation obviously improved since 1981 and Carlos got the impression he was considering a new will) Jose told Baralt he was disappointed in his sons and he’s taking them out of the will. Baralt was surprised to hear it and asked how Jose was going to tell them. Jose told Baralt that he had already told the boys they were out of the will.

The computer:

After the 1981 will was found, relatives were looking for a more recent will.

Carlos testified that Jose’s cousin, Carlos Menendez, who was one of the relatives that searched for the will, told Baralt that he found a reference in the computer to a “will” and asked Baralt to take a look.

Baralt explained to the relatives (Lyle was also there) that a computer will with no signature or a witness will not be valid and that there weren’t enough characters in the file for it to be a will. (there were 30 to 50 characters.) This happened Thursday.

There were several discussions among family members about a will and the computer. There were three entries on the computer and relatives were trying to get more information about them. They tried pulling up the files but couldn't open them, not much was there.

A few relatives wanted to find a computer expert to take a look. A cousin from New Jersey who worked at IBM offered to try and find someone in California who could help.

According to Lyle’s testimony, on Friday he left for New Jersey. Lyle knew at that point that relatives wanted to hire an expert. The cousin who worked at IBM came over to the Baralt house and was upset because while she had arranged for someone to look at the computer,  Carlos Menendez already arranged for someone else to come to the house and look at the computer. Lyle said the Baralts stayed out of the computer issue because they knew nothing on it will be valid.

Lyle claimed that once he found out Carlos Menendez hired his own expert, Lyle called the Beverly Hills house and talked to Erik. Erik said that a computer expert was supposed to come on Friday. Lyle said he was suspicious of Carlos Menendez because Carlos didn’t talk to the executors (the Baralts) or the brothers before setting this up.

Then Lyle flew to California and hired Witkin. Lyle said he asked Witkin to erase what little was on the computer without a trace of it. Lyle testified the reason he did this was because he wanted to know there was nothing on the computer in case Carlos Menendez would later try and claim he found something on the computer.

Insurence Policies:

1. There was one insurance policy Martha Cano sold her brother Jose years before the murders, when she worked in life insurance. Martha and the brothers said Erik nor Lyle knew about the policy. (Carlos Baralt who was the executor also didn’t  know about it until Martha told him, after the killings.) 

After the parents were killed, Marta let the brothers know about the policy and she arranged it be paid. This insurance policy was not an asset of the estate. The 1981 wills did not mention life insurance policies. ($650,000 total for both brothers)

2. The 5 million dollar policy: L.I.V.E Entertainment had a 5 million dollar key man policy on Jose. But the policy was not active when Jose died. He didn't take the physical exam needed. His co-workers and family members knew he didn't take the physical (so did the brothers and Lyle told Randolph Wright it wasn’t valid on Aug.21, when Wright asked about insurance policies.)

L.I.V.E did pay for a few things despite not being obligated to. They sponsored Erik's tennis and they were the ones who paid for the security guards to guard the Beverly Hills home in the days after the killings.

The Estate:

In 1991, family members agreed the estate funds will pay for the legal defense (of the first trial) that ended up costing around 1.5 million dollars.

The money Lyle spent to buy the restaurant in New Jersey was a loan that was given to him by Carlos because the probate judge was still not releasing the funds. Carlos agreed the restaurant was a good idea. Lyle told him he tried to get a bank to finance the purchase of the restaurant but he wasn’t approved for a loan. (The price was $550,000. The deal was that $300,000 be paid first and then $250,000 at a later date. Lyle was arrested before the reminder $250,000 was ever paid so the restaurant ended up going back to the original owner, as part of the deal the original owner kept the $300,000)

There was a family allowance approved by the probate court (that required an aproval of family members and the judge) but other than that the brothers did not spend money out of the estate. Despite Goldberg (the probate attorney) being involved with Erik’s Jeep purchase, the Jeep was not purchased out of the estate money. Erik never asked Carlos for estate money.

Testimony of Carlos Baralt (testimony about the will starts at 31:29) [5]https://www.courttv.com/title/82-ca-v-menendez-carlos-baralt/

Article on Carlos Baralt's testimony: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-10-28-me-50394-story.html

Testimony of Marta Cano (testimony about the will and the insurance policy starts at 51:20) [6]https://www.courttv.com/title/38-ca-v-menendez-marta-cano-pt2/

Testimony of Roger Smith (testimony about the insurance policy starts at 1:06:38) [7]https://www.courttv.com/title/84-ca-v-menendez-witness-testimony-pt2/

Testimony of Steve Goldberg (1:48:41) [8]https://www.courttv.com/title/27-ca-v-menendez-witness-testimony/

Testimony of Howard Witkin (from 1:30:00 to 1:50:00) [9]https://www.courttv.com/title/16-ca-v-menendez-computer-expert-testimony/

Testimony of Lyle Menendez (from 16:30 to 30:00) [10]https://www.courttv.com/title/52-ca-v-menendez-lyle-menendez-pt5/

Testimony of Randolph Wright [11]https://web.archive.org/web/19961018013656/http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/menendez/transcripts/oct95/oct19.zip Kimiashn (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2024

In paragraph right below box, it should be “led” not “lead”. Lukejstancil (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done FifthFive (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Fix Typo

Under Trials > First Trial (1993-1994) > paragraph 6

“Smyth’s tesitmony” should be “testimony” BeignetBat (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit request, October 25

Near the bottom of the article, under "Appeals", is an accurate, verbatim quote from an ABC News report.

"I do believe that the brothers was subjected to a tremendous amount of dysfunction in the home and molestation", according to the esteemed and honorable Mr. Gascón.

He believes the brothers was subjected to dysfunction. I believe the quote should be amended to read ". . . the brothers was (sic) subjected . . ." 2601:249:4300:6CC0:E182:9D0:3A20:5556 (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)