How The Menendez Brothers Documentary Is Different From Monsters

Less than three weeks after the debut of Monsters: The Story of Lyle and Erik Menendez, Netflix delivered The Menendez brothersa two-hour documentary that is both more biased and clearer about the case than the limited series.

The drama between Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan offers several explanations for the brothers’ motivations, but the central explanation is consistent with prosecutors’ argument: that the siblings recklessly gunned down their parents, José and Kitty Hernandez, with two 12-gauge shotguns could inherit the family fortune. The documentary, directed by Alejandro Hartmann, takes a clearer stance on the brothers’ version of events, claiming that years of sexual abuse at the hands of their father, who threatened to kill them if they ever told anyone, led the two to commit such a crime to commit heinous crime.

While the limited series explores in detail how the boys were abused and psychologically destroyed by their father, the documentary goes a step further and suggests that the pair should have been convicted of manslaughter rather than first-degree murder because of it Victims were who were mentally insane and not cold murderers who committed the crime intentionally. This view, based in part on the last 20 hours of telephone conversations with the Menendez brothers in prison, is no doubt embraced by the siblings’ supporters, who along with Erik Menendez himself have voiced criticism Monster for its inaccuracy and doubts about the brothers’ allegations of abuse. Prosecutors and many members of the public believed during the brothers’ trial that the two had made up the abuse story, and one of those prosecutors, Pamela Bozanich, appears in the documentary and claims, “This whole defense was made up.” It was artfully done, but it was made up.”

Because Hartmann is so intent on empathizing with the brothers, the narrative he unfolds is more straightforward Monster and provides helpful additional context. But it also ignores crucial details about the case addressed in Monsterwhich makes it too one-sided to be considered a definitive look at the brothers’ story. If the point of The Menendez brothers It’s about clarifying the issue, it should deal with the entire issue. Here’s how the two projects compare in important ways.

José Menendez was demonstrably worse than Monster suggests.
In the limited series, José is portrayed as emotionally and physically abusive towards his sons – routinely insulting and humiliating them, publicly and privately. The series also alleges that he sexually abused her through emotional confessions in which Erik and Lyle describe privately and on the witness stand how he molested and raped them while their mother turned a blind eye. But because Monster Since the series provides equally compelling evidence that the brothers made up the abuse story, one might walk away from the final episode thinking that Jose was bad, but maybe not The bad.

The Menendez brothers completely exposes the viewer to this idea. Both Erik and Lyle disagree that their father began molesting them around the age of six, and both talk about the shame they had to endure to feel comfortable talking about it. In footage from the 1993 trial, both brothers appear genuinely anguished as they describe the abuse they suffered, and in one of the audio interviews, Lyle talks about his ongoing efforts to help other abuse survivors in prison. All of this behavior seems at odds with people making up traumatic stories. Aside from Bozanich’s comments that their defense was “made up,” the documentary takes the Menendezes at their word, somewhat Monster only works partially.

More convincing are interviews with relatives, particularly cousin Diane Vander Molen, who, as during the 1993 trial, says Lyle told her that his father was molesting him, but when Vander Molen brought Kitty Melendez into the conversation, the mother brushed it off.

Even Bozanich testifies to how vile the elder Menendez was. “Other than his secretary, I couldn’t find anyone who could say anything nice about Jose Menendez,” she says. “The loss of Jose Menendez was, in my opinion, a real gain for humanity.” And this is someone who still doesn’t believe that the boys were actually abused by him.

The OJ Simpson connection is more interesting and relevant than Monster suggests.
The limited series contains several scenes referencing OJ Simpson, including one in which he is placed in a cell next to Erik shortly after his arrest for the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. But the Simpson case is also significant in ways that the drama doesn’t delve into as deeply. Opening statements in the Menendez brothers’ second trial, which followed a previous mistrial, began a week after the acquittal was announced in the OJ trial. Following this verdict, the documentary claims that the justice system immediately began to crack down on defendants, particularly high-profile figures like the Menendez brothers. “This is going to be bad for the boys and for everyone else,” Erik’s attorney, Leslie Abramson, said in an archival interview. “It’s time to take revenge.”

For this reason, the judge prohibited the defense from bringing up Erik or Lyle’s abuse at the second trial, and according to the film, this is a key reason why the brothers deserve a re-examination of their case. Monster certainly admits this – in episode nine, one of their lawyers, Leslie Abramson, played by Ari Graynor, notes that LA County District Attorney Gil Garcetti is concerned about re-election and that’s why they’re “trying to weaken our case.” – but It doesn’t connect these dots as clearly as the documentary.

The documentary provides more cultural context for the process.
Monster definitely touches on the idea that the public was suspicious of the Menendez brothers at the time of their second trial and showed a snippet of them The Tonight Show to make this point clear. But a documentary that relies more heavily on archival footage can evoke a time period in a way that a scripted series can’t quite achieve. The Menendez brothers Includes footage from various talk shows as well Saturday Night Livewhere the name became a regular punchline. (“These two arrogant brothers are going to fail,” laughs Sandra Bernhard during a conversation with David Letterman.) This context helps explain why people who lived through the 1990s might be confused by the support the Menendezes found on TikTok have – their perception of the case was shaped by public opinion at the time, when society was far less understanding of abuse survivors, particularly men.

The Menendez brothers never suggests that the boys were incestuous.
Both projects include the moment on the witness stand where Lyle apologizes to his brother for once molesting him when they were children. But The Menendez brothers presents no evidence that the two were ever in a consensual, incestuous relationship Monster contains several homoerotic and downright sexual moments between the two, including scenes of provocative dancing at a party, a kiss and a sensual shared shower. These decisions seem even more confusing and distasteful after watching this documentary, which shows the real Lyle breaking down on the witness stand in shame over his abuse of Erik.

The documentary does not mention José Menendez’s will.
While Monster Although José Menendez emphasizes the fact that he left the boys out of his will, the film does not address this fact at all. This is one of the main reasons the prosecution was able to effectively argue that Erik and Lyle were concerned about money – because they might not receive the full inheritance. The only reason for this The Menendez brothers The omission of this information is because it does not support the film’s argument.

Her spending spree after the murder is barely mentioned.
The limited series is fun and plays up the excesses of the luxury shopathon the brothers started not long after the murders. It’s mentioned in passing in the film, but neither Lyle nor Erik are asked to fully explain why they decided to spend so much money on Rolex watches and new cars. Lyle characterizes it as a coping mechanism and insists that he and his brother were in great fear at the time, but he was never pressured to talk about it further.

The brothers’ alibi construction is not discussed.
Monster follows the couple as they leave their parents’ house and go first to the movies and then to the Taste of LA festival to convince law enforcement that they discovered their parents’ bodies after their murders. If there is a reasonable explanation for this, the documentary gives them no opportunity to offer it.

The Menendez brothers never addresses the fact that the brothers’ attorney, Leslie Abramson, used a similar defense in another case.
In MonsterProsecutors and trial observer Dominick Dunne (Nathan Lane) say Abramson, who had mounted an abuse defense in a previous case, simply repurposed it for that purpose, which she denies. While this is mentioned in the limited series, The Menendez brothers doesn’t and misses another opportunity to shoot down part of the “they just made it up” theory. (Abramson chose not to take part in the documentary, saying in an email statement that appears at the end, “I want to leave the past in the past. No amount of media or teenage petitions will be the fate of these customers. Only the courts can change that, and they have decided.”)

Allegations that José Menendez abused minors outside of his family.
Neither the limited series nor the documentary mentions, not even on a title card, that Ray Roselló, a member of the boy band Menudo, said in a Peacock documentary last year that José Menendez drugged and raped him as a teenager. At the time, Menendez was head of RCA Records, the studio that signed Menudo.

This revelation prompted Erik and Lyle Menendez to file a motion to vacate their convictions. Last week, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office announced it would reopen the case to examine new evidence, including Roselló’s allegations. It is a particularly notable omission on Hartmann’s part, as this information only bolsters the Menendez brothers’ case. Contrary to Abramson’s comments, this development also suggests that the courts may not be done making their decision after all.