# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Synonyms

Example Sentences

The movie was criticized for a novel that glamorizing crime and violence. glamorizes war

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'glamorize.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

1936, in the meaning defined at sense 1

The first known use of glamorize was in 1936

Dictionary Entries Near glamorize

Cite this Entry

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search-ad free!

Merriam-Webster unabridged

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The movie was criticized for a novel that glamorizing crime and violence. glamorizes war These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'glamorize.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

# data[].attributes.headline
Infographic showing the correlation of copycat crimes 

# data[].attributes.subject
Infographic showing the correlation of copycat crimes 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does Glamorizing Violence in Films Inspire Copycat Crimes?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Batman movie killings have media industry watchers once again asking if blockbuster villians inspire murder. Find out how you can protect your kids from the evil on the Silver Screen.

# data[].attributes.headline
More recent example of the glamorizing of criminals through "Dahmer" on Netflix 

# data[].attributes.subject
More recent example of the glamorizing of criminals through "Dahmer" on Netflix 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Not Just Dahmer: Media Glamorize Killers And It Needs To Stop

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Media are keen to blame systems for creating killers, but their glamorization of those killers only incentivizes more of them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fiction is a way to inspire fantasies in which people tolerate unhealthy and unsafe behaviors from people on the basis of their attractiveness or charisma. In other words, these shows and movies are normalizing - and perhaps even romanticizing - violence.

I have nothing against a classic binge-watch, but if we're watching true crime, shouldn't it be somewhat true? Shows like "You" are for giving sex appeal to criminals because this can inspire unhealthy fantasies, like murder, stalking and gaslighting, in viewers.

Conversely, the argument can be made that casting attractive people is a good call, because it reminds us that we shouldn't overlook red flags in people just because they're charming.

Douglas Klutz, an instructor in the UA Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, said he believes that the creative industry capitalizes on public fascination with serial killers and violent crimes.

"These true crime specials lead to a skewed conception of the types of crime being committed and their actual frequency of occurrence, and, in turn, how those crimes feature in these popular media portrayals actually work their way through the criminal justice system," Klutz said.

The sensationalization of brutal crime and serial killings in pop culture cost the public valuable information on the reality of the matter. According to a 2022 Marshall Project study, nearly 80% of Americans believe crime went up in the country, despite crime rates stagnating.

Specifically, viewers are not only beginning to view crime fantasy as plausible, but as a common occurrence. Additionally, glamorizing criminals in shows and movies is very harmful to your mental health.

In a 2021 article, forensic psychologist Jessica Micono said that true crime causes a constant state of alert, hypervigilance and paranoia that ultimately lead to increased stress. "That increased stress can subsequently lead to stress-related illnesses, things like cardiovascular disease or hypertension," Micono said.

Casting attractive people to play real serial killers renews public fascination with horrendous acts that have haunted families and communities. While films like "Fresh" and shows like "You" are entirely fictional, shows on real serial killers are especially heinous and haunting.

Storylines that sympathize with real serial killers do an injustice to victims' families and also romanticize senseless violence and domestic abuse.

The families of Jeffrey Dahmer's young victims certainly agree. Netflix's wildly popular 2022 show " Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story " was met with backlash for its graphic portrayal and sensationalization of Dahmer and his infamous killings of 15 men and two children .

Rita Isbell's brother was Errol Lindsey. He was murdered by Dahmer in 1991 when he was 19 years old.

In an essay for magazine, Isbell expressed her distaste with Netflix. "It's sad that they're just making money off of this tragedy. That's just greed," said Isbell.

The former Milwaukee attorney, Thomas M. Jacobson, who represented eight of Dahmer's victims' families, fought to prevent Netflix from profiting off of the show's success.

In an interview with , Jacobson said that the painful memory of Dahmer in Milwaukee is only reawakening chaos and mayhem in the community. In response to these criticisms, Ryan Murphy, the show's creator, wants to build a victim memorial.

"The only meaningful Dahmer victim family action on Murphy's part would be a monetary consideration from the Netflix profits for their exploitation and continuing trauma," Jacobson said.

These films showcase conventionally attractive actors as criminals, and are often the main source of information that the general public has with the justice system.

Public understanding of crime and psychopathy is inherently skewed because of this media phenomenon. Dolliver said this phenomenon has seeped into all forms of media.

"My research found that viewing true crime and 'reality' based crime media, like local news, is associated with a misperception of what crime rates actually look like and a false belief that crime is on the rise," Dolliver said.

Members of the public, who generally have a basic or glorified understanding of the criminal justice system, are asked to serve on juries relating to criminal cases or to vote on matters impacting criminal justice policies.

Thrillers are certainly entertaining, and the genre has produced some ground-breaking classics, but it is important that viewers take haste in realizing how grossly exaggerated and skewed they can be.

Consuming media should be an enjoyable experience, but it should not come at the cost of public knowledge. Young people are the audience at play, and it is critical that we separate fiction from reality, falsehoods from truth, and ultimately, good from bad.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | If it bleeds, it leads: glamorizing crime in the media and its adverse effects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fiction is a way to inspire fantasies in which people tolerate unhealthy and unsafe behaviors from people on the basis of their attractiveness or charisma. In other words, these shows and movies are normalizing - and perhaps even romanticizing - violence. The fourth season of "You" has found record breaking success, captivating audience members around...

# data[].attributes.headline
This has the viewpoints of not only news reporters, but everyday individuals who are the target audience of these articles 

# data[].attributes.subject
This has the viewpoints of not only news reporters, but everyday individuals who are the target audience of these articles 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Even in death, the voice of Carl Williams is louder than that of his victims. Intimate prison letters written by the convicted murderer and drug trafficker to his ex-wife, Roberta - herself recently arrested on kidnap and threats to kill charges, allegedly made against a documentary producer - were published this month.

The explosion of true crime in podcasts, streaming series, and books has fuelled our interest in violent and dangerous perpetrators, and has increasingly meant the victims continue to be overlooked.

Indeed, Ivan Milat, Ted Bundy, and Jeffrey Dahmer are household names. Yet Deborah Everist, Caryn Campbell, or Tony Hughes - victims of these violent killers, have been largely forgotten.

Deadly charms

My students and I often watch true crime documentaries as stimuli for discussion about criminal causation, or victim selection. Recently, a student in one such tutorial expressed admiration for notorious US serial killer Ted Bundy, even going as far as to say she was attracted to him - or at least Hollywood heartthrob Zac Efron's portrayal of him.

Bundy killed at least 30 women, assaulted many more, and escaped prison twice. He was perhaps active from the late 1960s until 1978. Bundy was the subject of a recent four-part Netflix series entitled Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, billed as "present-day interviews, archival footage and audio recordings made on death row".

The series premiered in January, to coincide with the 30th anniversary of Bundy's execution. Netflix followed this factual account of Bundy's crimes with a film about the case called Extremely Wicked and Shockingly Evil and Vile, starring Efron.

I found my student's affection for him confronting. She was willing to overlook the appalling violence because Efron - and this was also true of Bundy - was a charismatic and attractive person.

I was left wondering if the glamorisation of offenders through true crime was making people desensitised to the plight of victims. And, if this was the case, the affect this had on surviving victims and their families.

Some victims are speaking out.

A recent article focused on on Bill Thomas, whose sister Cathy's 1986 murder in Colonial Parkway, Virginia, remains unsolved. Bill is at the first day of CrimCon, an annual true crime festival, to draw attention to his sister's murder and put pressure on the FBI to investigate it further. To do that, he has to rub shoulders with people wearing clothes emblazoned with serial killers' faces.

We are particularly fascinated by cold cases. Even if we don't know who the offender is, the salacious details of the crimes overshadow the pain and suffering of victims.

I became painfully aware of this recently while writing a book about cold cases, with the goal to maintain a focus on the victims - each case is included with the hopes of learning something new. A new forensic technique that might progress it, another victim that may be part of the sequence and whose case remains unsolved. Victims' identities are perversely subsumed into that of the person who offended against them, and I wanted to try to undo some of that.

Focus is shifting

Narcissistic killers like Ivan Milat and Daniel Holdom (who violently murdered Karlie Pearce-Stevenson and her 2-year-old daughter Khandalyce Pearce in 2010) maintain their notoriety by writing letters from prison. Milat's letters to his nephew, Alistair Shipsey, were published in 2016. Holdom's letters were turned into a podcast by the Daily Telegraph.

But recent events have seen a shift in focus.

Victimology (the study of victims) is growing as a criminological discipline and academics and victims' advocates have been saying for some time that the centre needs to shift from the offenders to the victims. But we have largely been shouting into a black hole.

The Christchurch mosque shootings on 15 March 2019, gave voice to a redirection in attention when New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern refused to name the perpetrator - a 28-year-old Australian man who had live-streamed the atrocity and released a manifesto outlining white genocide conspiracy theories. Instead, she urged the public to speak the names of the victims. This was a powerful message that the perpetrator would not be given the attention he sought.

New Zealand went further, making it a criminal offence to copy, distribute, or exhibit the video of the live shootings, with potential penalties of up to 14 years in prison for an individual, or up to $100,000 in fines for a corporation. One man was sentenced to nearly two years in prison for sharing the video that he embellished to look like a video game, including cross hairs and a body count.

This week, 24-year-old woman Michaela Dunn was identified as the victim of a Sydney knife attack after she was allegedly killed in a CBD apartment by Mert Ney, 20, before he took his knife to the streets and was overpowered by members of the public. Tributes flowed for the victim, described by her mother as a "beautiful, loving woman who had studied at university and travelled widely".

Fame can breed copycats

Publicising violent crime and its offenders can lead to further harm in the form of copycat attacks.

Nine days after the Christchurch shootings, there was an arson attack against a mosque in California, followed by a shooting. The offender praised the Christchurch shooter.

Still, my hope is that if Ardern's ethos is applied to future events, our interest in violent offenders will lessen and our sensitivity to the effect of their crimes will be revived.

We can always learn from true crime events, but we must be careful to move away from glamorisation of perpetrators and pay due respect to the victims and their families.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Glamorising violent offenders with 'true crime' shows and podcasts needs to stop

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even in death, the voice of Carl Williams is louder than that of his victims. Intimate prison letters written by the convicted murderer and drug trafficker to his ex-wife, Roberta - herself recently arrested on kidnap and threats to kill charges, allegedly made against a documentary producer - were published this month.

# data[].attributes.headline
Another take on the moral issues with the new TV show, "Dahmer" 

# data[].attributes.subject
Another take on the moral issues with the new TV show, "Dahmer" 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The sixth episode of Dahmer - Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story begins with the joyful birth of a baby boy, then very quickly cuts to that baby's mother receiving some tough news: that antibiotics previously prescribed to her son have caused permanent hearing loss.

That is what this Netflix series tells us first about Tony Hughes, played with gentle charisma by Rodney Burford of : that he was a well-loved human being who encountered significant challenges before he was even old enough to walk. More than 15 minutes pass in this episode before adult Tony encounters Jeffrey Dahmer, the serial killer who murdered him in grisly fashion along with 16 other victims over the course of more than a decade. Rather than defining Tony by his death at Dahmer's hands, the episode's writers, David McMillan and Janet Mock, and its director, Paris Barclay, deliberately structure this chapter of Dahmer to center Tony's life first and foremost. For long stretches, the audio drops out, allowing us to not only see Tony's experiences but view and hear the world as he might have when he was an aspiring model in his 30s, unwittingly starting a relationship with the man who would cut his life short.

This is exactly the sort of thing that Dahmer, co-created by Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan, should have done more frequently and more effectively: focus primarily on the people affected by Dahmer rather than the cannibalistic monster and his atrocities. In its second half, starting with the Tony-focused "Silenced," the series leans more assertively in that direction with episodes that revolve primarily around Glenda Cleveland (Niecy Nash), a next-door neighbor of Dahmer's whose multiple warnings about him were ignored by police, and Lionel Dahmer, played in his later years by Richard Jenkins as a father destroyed by his son's downfall. But the first five of the ten episodes, which bounce clumsily back and forth along the timeline of Jeffrey's childhood and adulthood, have already established that Jeffrey, played by Murphy regular Evan Peters, is the central figure. Even the title of the series, which nonsensically includes the name Dahmer twice, suggests where the lens will most often be pointed.

As indicated by the other operative word in its title - "monster" - Dahmer clearly doesn't aim to glorify this man or even make the show all about him. The series announces early on its interest in the police's jaw-droppingly negligent assumptions that Dahmer couldn't be a criminal; the way he targeted and killed gay men, particularly those of color, at the same time the AIDS crisis was unfolding; and how the race, sexual orientation, and/or economic status of the victims made them less of a priority to racist and homophobic law enforcement. But it handles those issues without significant depth. It's as if the team behind Dahmer marked the socially relevant subjects raised by the serial killer's behavior with a highlighter instead of actually building deeper narratives around them the way a superior true-crime series might. (Admittedly, this is a difficult task, but for proof it can be done properly, please see Unbelievable and I'll Be Gone in the Dark.)

Dahmer has a habit of announcing what kind of show it wants to be instead of actually being that show. Rather than genuinely interrogating why people are so fascinated by the depraved behavior of a serial killer, it has its characters express their horror about all the attention Dahmer begins to attract once he's been caught. "This is not some Halloween story," says Glenda after seeing Dahmer interviewed on television. "This is my life." Murphy and his collaborators are obviously aware of how exploitative it can be when the stories of serial killers are sold to a murder-obsessed public and how hurtful it is when victims are diminished, but the show never figures out a way to avoid committing the same crime. You don't get credit for lamenting the existence of a circus when you happen to be the ringmaster.

Dahmer is very clearly a Ryan Murphy show, as indicated by the grotesque and macabre nature of the material, the "based on a true story" element, and the cast of strong actors who elevate what's on the page. But those factors also magnify the sense that we've seen this narrative before. While Peters is a fine actor, casting him as Dahmer only adds to the sense of the familiar. As a core member of Murphy's troupe, he has played the ghost of a mass shooter ( American Horror Story: Murder House), a mental patient suspected of being a serial killer ( American Horror Story: Asylum), a serial killer ( American Horror Story: Hotel), both Charles Manson and a psychopath influenced by Manson ( American Horror Story: Cult), and a murderous bloodsucker ( American Horror Story: Double Feature). (This is not a complete list.) Perhaps Peters feels the same way about villains as Dahmer purports to feel in this limited series: "Even in Star Wars, I always liked the bad guys more," he confesses to a priest. "So did I," responds the apparently pro-Vader member of the clergy. "Those characters are written better."

As strong as Evans's work is - here he effortlessly slips on a midwestern accent and adopts Dahmer's emotionless affect - the fact that he keeps playing roles like this for the same creator is starting to blunt the impact of that work. It's less startling to see the handsome boy next door fly into a murderous rage when you've already seen him do it multiple times. It also gives Dahmer a tiny hint of American Horror Story vibes, which is the opposite of what you want for a series aiming to avoid turning Dahmer's crimes into another "Halloween story."

It's tempting to assume viewers might be put off by yet another revisitation of the ghastly crimes Dahmer committed given that there have been multiple movies, books, and documentaries about them, including the upcoming Netflix docuseries Conversations With a Killer: The Jeffrey Dahmer Tapes. But almost as soon as Dahmer arrived on Netflix earlier this week, even without any promotion or screeners for advance reviews, it became the most-watched TV show on the platform. In a year that has been overrun with scripted series based on true-crime tales previously told in book, documentary, or podcast form - Apple TV+'s Black Bird, HBO Max's The Staircase, Hulu's Candy and The Girl From Plainville, Peacock's The Thing About Pam - it feels as if we should be reaching a tipping point with this sort of scripted true crime. But, assuming the most-watched rankings on Netflix are actually reflective of viewer interest, it doesn't seem we have. Maybe there is no tipping point for scripted shows about murder, even when they've barely been marketed.

If that is indeed the case, I can only hope creators will realize there is a way to tell these kinds of stories with more sensitivity and care rather than mere gestures toward sensitivity and care. In the sixth episode, Dahmer does exactly that, but it doesn't maintain that approach for the entirety of its season. Even the final act of "Silenced" can't help itself, ultimately leaving us with a nasty image of Dahmer sitting down to eat a freshly cooked organ that once resided in Tony's body.

Honestly, no one, least of all the friends and family of Hughes and Dahmer's other victims, needs to witness that moment and be traumatized or retraumatized by it. It's admirable that Dahmer wants to honor the victims' lives and celebrate who Hughes was as a person. But that effort can't be a complete success in a show that also insists on literally reducing Hughes to a piece of meat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The sixth episode of Dahmer - Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story begins with the joyful birth of a baby boy, then very quickly cuts to that baby's mother receiving some tough news: that antibiotics previously prescribed to her son have caused permanent hearing loss.

# data[].attributes.headline
The fact that this article was even made...

# data[].attributes.subject
The fact that this article was even made...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Serial killers aren't always monstrous, gnarled freaks with bushy mustaches, bulging guts and pock-marked skin. Many infamous murderers and killers have been looked at as handsome, dapper, and even charming. It's that charm and beauty that helps them get close to their victims, and sometimes helps them blend in to their community.

Many of the killers on this list took advantage of their natural charm to gain the trust of victims before dispatching them. Others racked up major female followings while in prison, even charming groupies into marrying them, despite serving life sentences. A few even took advantage of online "fandom" communities to gain large numbers of preteen girls as fans, even though they killed people.

These charming serial killers are among the most violent criminals of recent memory, and all fooled many with their charm. Read on to learn more about the attractive criminals, good-natured seeming murderers, and charming killers who have committed tragic crimes over the years.

Photo: Donn Dughi / State Archives of Florida, Florida Memory / Wiki Commons

Perhaps more than any other serial killer in recent memory, Ted Bundy has a reputation for being charming, handsome, and disarming. His charm and good looks allowed him to get the attention of women on college campuses, and he would often use props as well. Bundy tended to wear his arm in a sling, or put a fake cast on his arm or leg.

Having attracted the attention of a young woman, he'd ask her to help him carry things to his car or help load or unload things. Then, with the victim having dropped her guard, he'd hit them with a pipe or crowbar and put them in his car.

Briefly listed on the FBI's 10-Most Wanted list, Andrew Cunanan had the good looks, charm, and erudite manner to worm his way into the lives of wealthy LGBTQ+ celebrities in Los Angeles and Miami. He also chose a different class of victims than the sex workers, children, and drifters murdered by other killers.

Among his victims were a real estate developer, an architect, a US Navy officer, and most famously, the world-renowned fashion designer and LGBTQ+ icon Gianni Versace. In 1997, with police closing in on him, Cunanan committed suicide by shooting himself.

While not conventionally handsome, Charles Manson so charmed an entire group of people that they committed murders on his behalf and called themselves his "family." Books about Manson described him as intense and charismatic - so much so that his followers did whatever he wanted them to.

Manson's charms continued even from prison, where devoted fans and groupies wrote him endless letters - and one even married him.

With his drawn-in cheekbones and smoldering stare, serial killer Richard Ramirez gained a reputation as one of the best-looking serial killers of the 20th century. And with 13 murder convictions, he was also one of the most brutal.

Despite his horrific killings and rapes, he had female admirers in prison, and he even married one of his fans. He died in prison in 2013.

While not exactly good looking, killer clown John Wayne Gacy Jr. had charmed his way into a prominent position in his community of Norwood Park Township, near Chicago. He was well-liked, active in local politics, hosted summer parties, and even shook hands with First Lady Rosalynn Carter.

That meeting led to major embarrassment in the Secret Service, as he'd been cleared by the Secret Service.

One of the first documented serial killers, Herman Mudgett was a handsome, charismatic, charming man with numerous mistresses and a successful career as a scam artist and grifter, often using the name H. H. Holmes. His great crime was killing the owner of a Chicago pharmacy in 1893, installing himself as the owner and converting it into a hotel.

The "hotel" was actually a maze where Mudgett tracked and killed numerous victims - possibly as many as 200. He was executed in 1896.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 'Charming' Serial Killers And Murderers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Serial killers aren't always monstrous, gnarled freaks with bushy mustaches, bulging guts and pock-marked skin. Many infamous murderers and killers have been looked at as handsome, dapper, and even charming. It's that charm and beauty that helps them get close to their victims, and sometimes helps...

# data[].attributes.headline
This infographic shows the defined "degrees" of murder and this can be used in relation to self-defense meaning it wasn't premeditated 

# data[].attributes.subject
This infographic shows the defined "degrees" of murder and this can be used in relation to self-defense meaning it wasn't premeditated 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
latest true-crime blockbuster -- Dahmer - Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story -- has broken viewing records, but some wish the Milwaukee killer wasn't getting quite so much exposure. Dahmer (the show) has been generating plenty of controversy. Let's break it down.

The reaction

Dahmer is the latest in a long line of real-life-inspired stories that focus on the killer or criminal. The fascination with serial killers goes back past Silence of the Lambs in lurid fiction and nonfiction, with real-life killers portrayed in films like the 2019 movie Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile, which starred Zac Efron as murderer Ted Bundy. There's a whole industry of nonfiction books and podcasts, including the glibly titled My Favorite Murder. Netflix has already got into the act with true-crime serials, including The Staircase, Making a Murderer and Tiger King, as well as serial killer dramatization Mindhunter.

But any true-crime show invites the question of whether it's glamorizing the criminal at the expense of the victims. Rita Isbell, sister of Errol Lindsey, one of the men Dahmer murdered, talked to Insider about the show. She gave an emotional victim impact statement at Dahmer's 1992 sentencing, a scene that is re-created in the series.

"I was never contacted about the show," Isbell told Insider. "I feel like Netflix should've asked if we mind or how we felt about making it. They didn't ask me anything. They just did it."

Others have posted on social media asking that the victims be remembered rather than the man whose name appears twice in the show's title.

What's more, Netflix originally put Dahmer in its LGBTQ category, which usually features upbeat shows like the acclaimed romance . Dahmer was gay, but Netflix has since removed that tag following fan outcry. "This is not the representation we're looking for," one viewer wrote on TikTok.

How real is the series?

Anne E. Schwartz, the reporter who broke the Dahmer story in the Milwaukee Journal in 1991, told the UK-based Independent that the Netflix series wasn't accurate in some ways.

Schwartz, who later worked for the Milwaukee Police Department and Wisconsin Department of Justice, said "the depiction of city police officers as racist and homophobic was incorrect," the paper reports.

Also, the series features Niecy Nash as Dahmer's neighbor, Glenda Cleveland. She's shown as living right next door to the killer and staring him down in the hall, as well as reporting the smells and sounds of the murders to the police. Schwartz pointed out that Cleveland, who died in 2011, actually lived in a separate building from Dahmer. But it was Cleveland who tried to talk the police out of returning a 14-year-old victim, Konerak Sinthasomphone, to Dahmer, who went on to murder the boy.

The basics

Jeffrey Dahmer was real, of course, but the things he did were so horrible it almost seems impossible. Born in Milwaukee in 1960, he had a troubled childhood, with an early interest in dead animals and dissection. Then, over 13 years beginning in 1978, he murdered and dismembered 17 men and boys, committing necrophilia and cannibalism, and preserving body parts and bones. He was finally caught in 1991 and sentenced to 17 terms of life imprisonment. Another inmate beat Dahmer to death in prison in 1994.

The 10-episode series jumps between Dahmer's unhappy childhood, his murders and his eventual arrest. In addition to the horror of Dahmer's crimes, the series shows how the Milwaukee police didn't listen to neighbors who warned them something was going on in the killer's apartment. Two officers actually returned one of Dahmer's victims to him when the boy, badly injured and drugged, tried to escape the house of horrors.

The show is disturbing, often gory, and a grim watch. After about a week on Netflix, it has mixed or average reviews from critics on Metacritic, and generally favorable reviews from users.

Daniel Fienberg of The Hollywood Reporter wrote in his review, "Put through a different editing process, there is an intelligent interrogation of Jeffrey Dahmer's crimes, the real people impacted and the consequences here. It's frequently lost or obscured."

Fienberg and other critics call out episode six, titled Silenced, as an exceptional episode within the series. It focuses on one of the men Dahmer killed, Tony Hughes. "Tony was deaf and, in placing a Black, deaf, gay character at the center of the narrative, the series is giving voice to somebody whose voice has too frequently been excluded from gawking serial killer portraits," Fienberg writes.

But Caroline Framke of Variety writes that, unfortunately, "Silenced is the exception rather than the rule," and not all the episodes are as well-done.

Who plays the serial killer?

Dahmer is played by , who has held multiple roles in various American Horror Story seasons and who plays Quicksilver in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Dahmer reunites Peters with director Ryan Murphy, who co-created both American Horror Story and Dahmer.

Show features two iconic actors

Michael Learned, famous for her role as rural mother Olivia Walton on The Waltons, stars as Dahmer's grandmother, Catherine. Learned is a 1970s icon, but there's also a 1980s icon starring in this show. Molly Ringwald, of John Hughes movie fame, plays Dahmer's stepmother, Shari. You'll barely recognize her.

The series also stars Richard Jenkins as Dahmer's father, Lionel. Niecy Nash plays Glenda Cleveland, Dahmer's apartment neighbor who tries everything she can to make the Milwaukee police pay attention to the horrific smells and sounds coming from behind his door.

How to watch

All 10 episodes are now available for streaming on Netflix.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Dahmer' on Netflix: All the Backlash and Real Story, Explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
latest true-crime blockbuster -- Dahmer - Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story -- has broken viewing records, but some wish the Milwaukee killer wasn't getting quite so much exposure. Dahmer (the show) has been generating plenty of controversy. Let's break it down. Dahmer is the latest in a long line of real-life-inspired stories that focus on the killer or criminal.

# data[].attributes.body
https://nypost.com/2021/04/02/how-tiktok-put-the-menendez-brothers-back-in-the-spotlight/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lyle Menendez, left, confers with brother Erik during a court appearance, April 2, 1991 in Beverly Hills, California. ASSOCIATED PRESS

An army of teens have learned about a closed 1980s double homicide, and they think the convicted killers' case deserves revisiting.

No member of Gen Z was alive to watch the high-profile court trial of Lyle and Erik Menendez's 1989 murder of their parents play out in real time, but many young social-media users have recently discovered the sensational case during the coronavirus pandemic.

Now, they're taking to TikTok to express their dismay at Lyle and Erik's life sentences, which they've been serving since their conviction in 1996.

And of course, leave it to Gen Z to zero-in on the sex appeal: Some are calling them the "hottest criminals ever."

The brothers will be part of a "20/20" special Friday night, revisiting the murder in light of its recent TikTok attention.

In addition to the brothers' good looks, many teens are moved by their defense team's argument that for years the men were sexually abused by their wealthy father.

An Oct. 31, 2016 photo provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shows Erik Menendez (left) and a Feb. 22, 2018 photo provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shows Lyle Menendez (right). The Menendez brothers, who were convicted 25 years ago of killing their parents in their Beverly Hills mansion, have been reunited in San Diego's R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility. The brothers are serving life sentences for fatally shooting their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, in 1989.

AP

"Watching someone describe these types of experiences is always very sad and very compelling," an 18-year-old German woman named Janne told ABC News. After YouTube recommended a video of the trial to Janne, she watched it and additional testimonies in full and became an impassioned supporter of the Menendez brothers. She now posts videos of their sexual-abuse testimony set to sad music on her TikTok, which has close to 45,000 followers.

Numerous accounts have been created for the same purpose, with usernames including "MenendezHelper" and "MenendezGuardians" posting edited trial footage of the men, demanding justice for them and calling them "the most attractive murderers" in the world.

Lyle, left, and Erik Menendez leave the courtroom in Santa Monica, Calif., in this Aug. 6, 1990 file photo.

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Lyle, left, and Erik Menendez sit in Beverly Hills Municipal Court where their attorneys delayed making pleas on behalf of the brothers.

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Other members of Gen Z, however, are disgusted by the idea that the brothers deserve "justice" for their crimes.

"We must stop romanticizing the Menendez brothers," reads an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times High School Insider after recounting various reasons the men were given life sentences: the brutal details of the murder, the motivation of their parents' wealth - which they spent tens of thousands of dollars of in the days following the killing, and why their sexual abuse defense is undermined by the siblings' history of being "seasoned liars," robbing expensive houses and being complicit in burglary and grand theft.

"I do not know if the brothers were abused. All that I know for certain is that these rich, white, Beverly Hills boys murdered their parents and still were not stripped of their privilege," the article concludes. "We must stop blindly defending white criminals, while simultaneously not giving criminals of color a second glance."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How TikTok put the Menendez brothers back in the spotlight

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An army of teens have learned about a closed 1980s double homicide, and they think the convicted killers' case deserves revisiting. No member of Gen Z was alive to watch the high-profile court trial of Lyle and Erik Menendez's 1989 murder of their parents play out in real time, but many young social-media users have recently discovered the sensational case during the coronavirus pandemic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video Menendez brothers find new fame on social media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ldquo;20/20” takes a fresh look at the pair, who were convicted of murdering their parents. The brothers have a strong following on TikTok, with many calling for release.

# data[].attributes.headline
Viral photo in news sources while the trial was in action 

# data[].attributes.subject
Viral photo in news sources while the trial was in action 

# data[].attributes.headline
Photograph from TV remake of the case, further showing how popular this became 

# data[].attributes.subject
Photograph from TV remake of the case, further showing how popular this became 

# data[].attributes.headline
This article touches on the morals or lack thereof in relation to criminals with killing history 

# data[].attributes.subject
This article touches on the morals or lack thereof in relation to criminals with killing history 

# data[].attributes.body
https://philosophy.rutgers.edu/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Basis_of_Moral_Liability_to_Defensive_Killing.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
This is the basis of the "stand-your-ground" 

# data[].attributes.subject
This is the basis of the "stand-your-ground" 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The common law principle of “castle doctrine” says individuals have the right to use reasonable force, including deadly, to protect against an intruder in their home.

# data[].attributes.headline
This explores a tough question but also vital to the case: "can people change?"

# data[].attributes.subject
This explores a tough question but also vital to the case: "can people change?"

# data[].attributes.body
https://psychcentral.com/blog/can-people-really-change#:~:text=People%20can%20change%20when%20they,attitude%2C%20habits%2C%20and%20behaviors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
People can change but only if a few requirements are met, including self-awareness and willpower. There are some exceptions, though.

Your personality is shaped by a dynamic relationship between your interactions, temperament, and environments. Change is possible.

What does it mean for a person to change? Change is a sustained reinforcement of new behaviors and thinking patterns.

Changing who you are or how you behave may be possible through a collective understanding of attitudes, habits, behaviors, and personality traits.

Yes, changing your attitude is possible. But it may be difficult in some cases if you don't explore the root cause of your current attitudes.

Attitude is defined by the American Psychological Association (APA) as "a relatively enduring and general evaluation of an object, person, group, issue, or concept on a dimension." It comes from your beliefs, emotions, and past experiences and behaviors.

It's possible to change your attitude when you understand how it is formed and how it impacts your life.

Sometimes, though, attitude is linked to emotional pain or hurtful past experiences. You may not be aware of this or, even if you are, your attitude in a certain situation may be a reaction to a trigger or an event that activates the pain.

Living with trauma, for example, may lead to a defensive attitude and affect how you respond to specific challenges.

"People who experience this may want to change," says Jeffrey McQueen, executive director of the Mental Health Association of Nassau County and a licensed chemical dependency counselor. "But it's not uncommon for someone who experienced trauma to prefer the lifesaving responses - because it's what has saved their lives and allowed them to feel safe."

Therapy may help resolve emotional and mental health challenges, and this could facilitate attitude change as well.

Yes, you can change your habits, both negative and positive. In fact, as you age, face new challenges, or engage in new routines, your habits may tend to change so you can adapt to the new circumstances.

But, there's a distinction between habits and behaviors. In general, behavior is an action that can be observed and that comes as a response to internal or external influences.

Habits are behaviors you've repeated so often that they become automatic for you and no longer require your intention or conscious thought to be executed. For example, leaving your keys at the console table next to the door or getting that cigarette out whenever you feel anxious.

People can change habits by becoming aware of them and purposefully modifying that behavior enough times until the new habit becomes automatic.

Some habits may require you to explore their root cause, though. For example, if a habit is associated with anxiety, you may want to work at reducing anxiety first.

Before attempting to change what you think it's a bad habit, it's important to understand why you do it. This will help you sustain the change.

"For example, most people would identify smoking as a bad habit," McQueen explains. "A person living with anxiety or bipolar disorder who utilizes smoking to calm and ground them may find this to be more of a coping tool versus a bad habit."

Gaining this understanding may help you change a habit that may be harming you, like smoking, and replace it with effective coping skills.

"Yes, people can change, but it's not that simple," says Misty Smith, a licensed professional clinical counselor in Michigan.

Personality traits aren't static and they may change with age and time. However, core personality traits tend to be longstanding, stable, and persistent.

Personality traits are your characteristic patterns of behaviors, thoughts, and emotions. For example, persistence, generosity, and honesty are personality traits.

These traits exist on a spectrum so you may be more or less persistent than your sibling even if both have that same characteristic trait.

"People evolve and change over time," Smith says. "Our interests and approach to the world changes. Our experiences change who we are, and how we internalize and interpret the world around us."

Because of this, you may be a generous person, but may in time become less generous with certain people or in specific scenarios, for example.

Core personality traits may be less likely to change, even at will.

Known as the Big Five, these core traits are:

extraversion

agreeableness

openness

conscientiousness

neuroticism

They also exist on a spectrum. For example, in the extraversion spectrum, you can be an introvert, an extrovert, or somewhere in between.

"It's not as easy to change those core aspects," Smith explained. So, it's not likely to go from being an introvert to an extrovert, for example.

Yes, people can change behaviors, but they need to first become accountable for those, and then be convinced they should (or want to) change them.

Hurtful behaviors - such as lying, cheating, dismissing, or controlling - are often habits that turn into harmful behavior patterns. They may also be associated with mental health challenges, which makes change more difficult.

Research from 2020 explains personality may be shaped by an interaction between multiple sources, from genes to events and social relationships, rather than only one source.

Personality development isn't linear, and change isn't either. Though harmful behaviors may have begun as survival or coping mechanisms in childhood, the 2020 study showed positive influences and relationships, like friendships and family, can increase the chance for someone to change those behaviors.

"No one is born acting or behaving a particular way," McQueen said. "Behavior is learned, and so it can also be unlearned. This implies that change is more than possible - it's actually likely."

When a hurtful behavior is associated with a mental health condition, though, professional support may be needed for people to change. Even then, depending on the condition, sometimes change isn't likely.

For example, someone with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) may lack the insight to identify problematic behaviors or the need to change. They may also be less likely to seek support and resources when those behaviors impact their lives.

"People engage in behaviors that serve their purpose," says Smith. "We engage in the behaviors that provide something for us."

Ileana Arganda-Stevens, a licensed marriage and family therapist in California, says the capacity for change grows in the presence of six vital aspects:

If you have a few or all of the above, you're more likely to change behaviors, attitudes, or traits.

"When we start to show ourselves more self-compassion," she says, "rigidity begins to relax, and we become more flexible and open to trying new things and making meaningful changes in our lives."

Motivation is also key, according to Smith.

You may want to change your attitude because it's affecting your ability to maintain relationships; someone else may want to change their habits because they're impacting their ability to contribute at work. Another person may want to change hurtful behaviors because they're impacting their bond with their children.

Not everyone is willing or able to change, though.

This may be because it's not the right time, or the individual may not realize there's a need for change. Maybe they lack the insight to understand how the behavior or attitude is affecting their lives. Maybe these behaviors are linked to emotional pain or trauma, and until that is resolved, change is more challenging.

Why people don't want to change depends on the situation. "The pattern or habit is a tool that allows the person to cope with a deeper struggle," explains Smith.

People can change when they're self-aware, receive support, and become intentional about behaving differently.

But, change takes time and it may be challenging in some cases. For example, if you live with a mental health condition that involves lifelong symptoms that may impact your attitude, habits, and behaviors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can People Change? When, How, and Why (or Why Not)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People can change but only if a few requirements are met, including self-awareness and willpower. There are some exceptions, though. Your personality is shaped by a dynamic relationship between your interactions, temperament, and environments. Change is possible. What does it mean for a person to change?

# data[].attributes.headline
The actual law related to self-defense killings

# data[].attributes.subject
The actual law related to self-defense killings

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's a universally accepted principle that a person may protect themselves from harm under appropriate circumstances, even when that behavior would normally constitute a crime. In the United States legal system, each state allows a defendant to claim self-defense when accused of a violent crime, as does the federal government.

The specific rules pertaining to self-defense vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, however. This article offers explanations of the broad concepts that make up self-defense law in the US, but you should check the laws of your particular jurisdiction to understand the specific requirements for a claim of self-defense.

What Is Self-Defense?

Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. This definition is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations.

For instance, what is a sufficient level of force or violence when defending oneself? What goes beyond that level? What if the intended victim provoked the attack? Do victims have to retreat from the violence if possible? What happens when victims reasonably perceive a threat even if the threat doesn't actually exist? What about when the victim's apprehension is subjectively genuine, but objectively unreasonable?

As you can see, self-defense law is more complicated than it first appears. In order to handle the myriad situations where self-defense arises, states have developed rules to determine when self-defense is allowed and how much force a victim can use to protect themselves. As mentioned, the exact rules differ between states, but the considerations are largely the same.

Is the Threat Imminent?

As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense.

Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended. For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense.

Was the Fear of Harm Reasonable?

Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn't actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a " reasonable person " in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the "reasonable person" is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system's best tool to determine whether a person's perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force.

To illustrate, picture two strangers walking past each other in a city park. Unbeknownst to one, there is a bee buzzing around his head. The other person sees this and, trying to be friendly, reaches quickly towards the other to try and swat the bee away. The person with the bee by his head sees a stranger's hand dart towards his face and violently hits the other person's hand away.

While this would normally amount to an assault, a court could easily find that the sudden movement of a stranger's hand towards a person's face would cause a reasonable man to conclude that he was in danger of immediate physical harm, which would render the use of force a justifiable exercise of the right of self-defense. All this in spite of the fact that the perceived assailant meant no harm; in fact, he was actually trying to help!

Imperfect Self-defense

Sometimes a person may have a genuine fear of imminent physical harm that is objectively unreasonable. If the person uses force to defend themselves from the perceived threat, the situation is known as "imperfect self-defense." Imperfect self-defense does not excuse a person from the crime of using violence, but it can lessen the charges and penalties involved. Not every state recognizes imperfect self-defense, however.

For example, a person is waiting for a friend at a coffee shop. When the friend arrives, he walks toward the other person with his hand held out for a handshake. The person who had been waiting genuinely fears that his friend means to attack him, even though this fear is totally unreasonable. In order to avoid the perceived threat, the person punches his friend in the face. While the person's claim of self-defense will not get him out of any criminal charges because of the unreasonable nature of his perception, it could reduce the severity of the charges or the eventual punishment.

Some states also consider instances where the person claiming self-defense provoked the attack as imperfect self-defense. For example, if a person creates a conflict that becomes violent then unintentionally kills the other party while defending himself, a claim of self-defense might reduce the charges or punishment, but would not excuse the killing entirely.

Proportional Response

Self-defense law requires the response to match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.

Duty to Retreat

The original laws regarding self-defense required people claiming self-defense to first make an attempt to avoid the violence before using force. This is also known as a " duty to retreat." While most states have removed this rule for instances involving the use of nonlethal force, many states still require that a person make an attempt to escape the situation before applying lethal force.

Stand Your Ground

In contrast to the duty to retreat, many states have enacted so-called "stand your ground" laws. These laws remove the duty to retreat and allow for a claim of self-defense even if the claimant did nothing to flee from the threat of violence. As mentioned above, this is the more common rule when situations involve nonlethal force. State self-defense laws are split on the stand your ground principle when lethal force is in play, however.

Castle Doctrine

Even in states that require a person to retreat from the threat of imminent harm before defending themselves, a person can often use deadly force against someone who unlawfully enters their home. This rule, also known as " the castle doctrine," allows people to defend their homes against intruder through lethal force. Like most of these rules, the exact result will vary according to the jurisdiction and the specific facts of the case, so it's always a good idea to consult an attorney to learn more.

Need Help With a Claim of Self-Defense?

Self-defense claims are fairly common and the rules about the situations in which a person can defend themselves and the amount of force they are allowed to use can be complicated. Everything can be made much simpler with the advice of a competent local attorney. Find an experienced criminal defense attorney near you with the click of a button.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Self-defense refers to your right to protect yourself from suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. This is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations. Learn about self-defense law and related topics by checking out FindLaw's section on Criminal Law Basics.

# data[].attributes.headline
^ another take on this law but from the perspective of everyday students, not lawmakers and congressmen 

# data[].attributes.subject
^ another take on this law but from the perspective of everyday students, not lawmakers and congressmen 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-defense

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3750135

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is a good article that gives a general overview of the crime committed 

# data[].attributes.subject
This is a good article that gives a general overview of the crime committed 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Those stupid sweaters. Close your eyes and conjure the Menendez brothers, and they're wearing matching sweaters the vivid, unnatural colors of jelly beans. The two handsome young men wore to court what one might wear to cocktail hour at the country club, as if they were chilly after a tennis match. Maybe they were trying to look younger, or more wholesome, or otherwise less capable of murdering their parents. Instead, their sartorial choices only chiseled out their own caricature: the spoiled rich boys who thought they could get away with anything.

The story of Eric and Lyle Menendez is one of the most notorious true-crime sagas in American history, and the thirst for more and more depictions of the saga cannot be sated. In 2017 alone, three major re-enactments have been staged on TV-a two-hour documentary on ABC, a Lifetime movie, and an eight-hour NBC mini-series starring Emmy winner Edie Falco as the brothers' lawyer, Leslie Abramson.

Unlike other endlessly popular true-crime stories-JonBenet Ramsey, O.J. Simpson, Caylee Anthony, the Zodiac Killer, and the Black Dahlia-there is no mystery around the murder of Jose and Kitty Menendez. The brothers have admitted to killing their parents. It's their theatricality that has made the Menendez men so infamous, their flare for courtroom drama and off-putting outfits, and the brazen nature of their behavior between the murder and their arrests. And then of course there's the question: Was greed at the heart of this crime-are Lyle and Eric the most extreme spoiled brats in Beverly Hills? Or is there something so evil at the core of this family that the brothers' actions might have been justified?

On August 18, 1989, Eric and Lyle Menendez purchased shotguns at a Big 5 Sporting Goods chain store in San Diego over a hundred miles away from their family's mansion in Beverly Hills. On August 19, their parents chartered a yacht and took them shark fishing. On August 20, they burst into the den of their home and discharged 15 shots into their parents while the couple was watching television on the couch. Erik said that he fired first, but in the end Lyle fired best: He landed the bullet in the back of Jose's head, and shot the fatal blow into Kitty's face.

Then the brothers, who were 21 and 18 at the time, drove to a movie theater and bought tickets for Batman. They tossed the guns and changed into clean, unbloodied clothes, before driving back to their house and pretending to discover the scene all over again. Lyle's hysterical whine of "Someone killed our parents!" in his 911 call would later be lampooned in a Jim Carrey movie.

The crime scene on August 21, 1989. Credit: Fabiola Franco/Tribune Broadcasting/Getty Images

We know these details exist because the brothers confessed them all, eventually. But they weren't arrested until half a year after the murders-and the boys painted Los Angeles red in the interim. Over the course of those those six months, they reportedly spent $1 million on parties, travel, and shopping.

On August 24, 1989, the day before his parents' funeral, Lyle dropped over $15,000 on three Rolex watches, as witnesses and he would later testify. Sitting next to his father's secretary Marzi Eisenberg in the limo home from the services, he showed off his leather loafers and quipped, "Hey, Marzi, who said I couldn't fill my father's shoes?" Then he wondered aloud to another friend in the car how he could obtain tickets to the U.S. Open.

The brothers moved out of the family's Beverly Hills mansion and stayed in a series of expensive hotels before finally leasing condominiums on the water in Marina Del Rey. Their adjoining apartments had ample room for parties and movie nights with friends. Erik bought a Rolex too, and clothes, and lost thousands of dollars gambling. He decided to forgo attending UCLA and instead hired a tennis coach for $60,000 a year in the hopes of going pro. He practiced up to 10 hours a day and flew to the Middle East to compete.

Meanwhile, Lyle returned to Princeton, but not to attend classes. Instead he focused on business pursuits and shopping in the New Jersey and New York areas. He hired a team of bodyguards to accompany him on his shopping excursions, and later testified to their spoils, which included $40,000 worth of clothes and a $60,000 Porsche. He purchased a popular student restaurant, Chuck's Spring Street Cafe, for $550,000 and renamed it Mr. Buffalo's after its spicy wings. He hoped to turn it into a franchise. "It was one of my mother's delights that I pursue a small restaurant chain and serve healthy food with friendly service," Lyle told the student newspaper in an interview.

It was the first business under the umbrella of a company Lyle called Menendez Investment Enterprises. He hired two friends at Princeton to help oversee and advise on his investments, as they later testified, and foresaw a portfolio of restaurants, real estate, and (like their father) the entertainment industry. Lyle dipped a toe into the last by trying, unsuccessfully, to be named the promoter of a rock concert.

They dreamed of athletic success, musical success, financial success-and they were even interested in politics. "My brother wants to become President of the U.S. I want to be senator and be with the people of Cuba," said Erik. Their slain father Jose had been born in Cuba and fled during the revolution. "I'm not going to live my life for my father, but I think his dreams are what I want to achieve. I feel he's in me, pushing me."

The brothers didn't spend all of their six months of freedom shopping and dreaming out loud, though. They also attended therapy sessions with Dr. Jerome Oziel. It was those sessions that would lead to their eventual arrest.

The stress of it all was giving Erik an ulcer. So he confessed to his therapist what he and his brother had done. Oziel's mistress overheard the taped session, and she went to police. Lyle Menendez was arrested on March 8, 1990 in Beverly Hills. Erik was playing tennis in Israel at the time but came home voluntarily, and was arrested on March 11.

It was an enormous, shocking break in the case-but then it stalled, for years. A judge ruled portions of the tapes of the brothers' therapy sessions admissible as evidence, which their attorneys appealed. The battle for the tapes dragged out for 30 months, until the Supreme Court of California intervened. Both boys were indicted on December 7, 1992 and tried separately for murder. The jury in Erik's case deadlocked on January 10, 1994; the jury in Lyle's case deadlocked two weeks later. The judge declared mistrials. It wasn't until April 17, 1996, that a third and final jury found the brothers guilty together. The whole process took nearly seven years.

The initial cases ended in mistrial because of a convincing (and surprising, when it was introduced) argument from the defense: Attorney Leslie Abramson and her team contended that both Lyle and Erik had been molested by their father since childhood.

Abramson, whom the Washington Post called "a 4-foot-11, fire-eating, mud-slinging, nuclear-strength pain in the legal butt," helped the boys depict a lifetime of gruesome and relentless sexual assaults starting from childhood and continuing into their teens. According to her defense, the brothers finally banded together, in the weeks before the murders, to confront Jose and tell him they'd go public with the abuse and destroy his reputation if it didn't stop. They feared his retaliation, their legal teams argued. They feared for their lives. That's why they bought the guns.

The story was impossible to corroborate because the alleged villain was dead. By the time the brothers opened up about this abuse, the public had been hating them and eating up the spoiled-rich-boys narrative for years.

"What you did was, you killed your parents and then began to spend their money. Right?" hammered Deputy District Attorney Pamela Bozanich while Lyle was on the stand during his first trial.

"Well. That's something that happened," Lyle said, "but I don't think characterizing it that way is putting it in the right context."

"Well, why did you need to buy a Rolex watch four days after your parents were killed?" Bozanich asked.

"I didn't need to."

"You wanted to."

Even the brothers' weepy descriptions of their father's abuse earned them mockery. In a particularly dark October 1993 sketch, Saturday Night Live imitated their smoothly flat voices and the way their faces would crumple into crocodile tears. The mere appearance of host John Malkovich wearing the royal blue sweater on the stand was enough shorthand for a studio audience to begin laughing.

After the verdict in their final trial and before their sentencing, the brothers sat down with Barbara Walters for one final interview. When Walters called them spoiled, Erik protested, "I'm just a normal kid."

The famous interviewer literally cried out in disgust and annoyance. "Erik! You're a normal kid who killed your parents," Walters said.

He smiled and looked up at her slowly. "I know."

Despite their requests to be placed in the same prison, the Menendez brothers were separated and are still serving their life sentences miles apart to this day. Both have gotten married while behind bars -Lyle twice. His first wife was a former model; his current wife, Rebecca Sneed, is a magazine editor-turned-attorney. Erik married Tammi Saccoman, an attractive blonde with whom he'd been exchanging letters for six years.

The case made minor celebrities out of the brothers as well as the lawyers involved. Bozanich appeared in a 2015 episode of Murder Made Me Famous on the Reelz Channel and maintained that 20 years later, she was still completely convinced that the brothers had made up the sexual abuse.

"I am 100 percent sure that they fabricated their defense," she said. "I'm not 90 percent sure; I'm 100 percent sure."

How could she be so confident? "I was told during the trial by the bailiffs that the brothers would high five each other, particularly after a good day in court when they were testifying," Bozanich said. "They would high five each other because they pulled it off."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
why did the menendez brothers kill their parents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The True Story of the Brazen Brothers Menendez

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Those stupid sweaters. Close your eyes and conjure the Menendez brothers, and they're wearing matching sweaters the vivid, unnatural colors of jelly beans. The two handsome young men wore to court what one might wear to cocktail hour at the country club, as if they were chilly after a tennis match.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is a photo of the scene of the murders 

# data[].attributes.subject
This is a photo of the scene of the murders 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
lyle & erik menendez edit — damnn daddy edits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lighthearted Erik Menendez edit | The Menendez Brothers Case

# data[].attributes.body
Quarantine had me on all social media platforms for hours on end. As Tiktok grew in popularity, so did the trends that came with. "Thirst-traps" are videos in which a person is in some way sexualized by music, ambiance, speed of video, etc. As I was scrolling on TikTok, two teenage boys appeared in a video. Jazz music and slow motion videos of the two in a courtroom was accompanied with a caption. "The Menendez Brothers". The comments were uncontrollable. Girls drooling over the criminals. Criminals. Is this glamorization of criminal activity justified purely out of physical attraction? I started to look into the case, and was shocked. Many other ethical questions came to mind. Lets find some answers.

# data[].attributes.body
"Erik and Lyle Menendez, two brothers who grew up in Beverly Hills, California, were convicted of murdering their parents Jose and Louise “Kitty” Menendez on the night of August 20, 1989.

The boys’ father, Jose Menendez immigrated from Cuba when he was 16, and worked his way up in corporate America to become an extremely wealthy business man, and eventually the CEO of LIVE Entertainment.

At ages 21 and 18, Lyle and Erik developed a plan to murder their father, and mother with shotguns they would purchase days before the murder. The prosecution claimed that the privileged brothers murdered their parents out of greed, with the hope of earning the family fortune early."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Erik and Lyle Menendez, two brothers who grew up in Beverly Hills, California, were convicted of murdering their parents Jose and Louise "Kitty" Menendez on the night of August 20, 1989.

The boys' father, Jose Menendez immigrated from Cuba when he was 16, and worked his way up in corporate America to become an extremely wealthy business man, and eventually the CEO of LIVE Entertainment.

At ages 21 and 18, Lyle and Erik developed a plan to murder their father, and mother with shotguns they would purchase days before the murder. The prosecution claimed that the privileged brothers murdered their parents out of greed, with the hope of earning the family fortune early.

On the night of August 20, 1989, Erik and Lyle Menendez opened fire on Jose and Kitty inside their Beverly Hills Mansion. Lyle shot his father several times in the arms and once in the head with a Mossberg 12-gauge shotgun. Kitty was shot in her torso and face leaving her unrecognizable. They shot both Kitty and Jose in the kneecaps to make the incident seem like a mob hit.

Lyle and Erik picked up all shell casings, drove up Mulholland Drive and tossed their shotguns into a canyon. They returned to the house and called the police. When the police arrived, Erik and Lyle ran outside in a theatrical display, screaming as they did so.

Les Zoeller was assigned to the case and, upon examining the crime scene, determined that there was no forced entry and it did not appear to be a robbery. Zoeller, however, did not consider the brothers to be suspects, and he did not administer gunshot-residue tests. During questioning, Erik was very emotionally unstable, while Lyle was calm and collected. When asked if anyone would want to kill his parents, Lyle answered, "maybe the mob." The coroner determined that the shot to her left knee came from a different angle than the other shots, so the killers may have been staging the murder to look like a mob job.

Erik, younger and more frail, was much more psychologically damaged than Lyle. He confessed to the murders to his psychiatrist, Dr. Jerome Oziel and reported his confession to Lyle immediately. Lyle confronted Oziel, threatening his life. Instead of calling the police, Oziel had the brothers come back several times and recorded the sessions on tape, but continued to keep the confessions a secret.

Meanwhile, the brothers spent lavishly following their parents' death. Detectives began searching for physical evidence, linking the two brothers to the murder. Detective Zoeller traced the sale of two Mossberg shotguns on August 18, 1990, two days before the murders occurred. The man listed as the customer proved himself to have been at work in New York at the time of the murders and pointed out that the signature was not even close to his. Zoeller saw an opportunity and requested that Erik and Lyle take a handwriting test, but Erik refused.

In March of 1990, Dr. Oziel's mistress, enraged she had just been broken up with, went to police and told them that the Menendez brothers had been seeing Oziel for psychiatry and had confessed to killing their parents. On March 8, 1990, Lyle Menendez was arrested on his way to lunch with friends. Erik Menendez, who had traveled to Israel, learned of his arrest and turned himself in shortly after.

Controversy arose over whether patient-therapist confidentiality laws applied to the tapes Oziel made of the brothers' confessions. It was eventually ruled that patient-doctor confidentiality had been broken when Erik threatened Oziel's life, and some of the tapes would be considered admissible evidence.

During the first trial, the Menendez attorneys started in their defense that Erik and Lyle were victims of child abuse by their father from a very young age. Over the course of the trial, the defense viciously attacked the character of both Jose and Kitty, in an attempt to show that the brothers felt that they were in "imminent danger." Neither of the brothers had ever stated anything of that sort to psychiatrists, friends, or family members, making it easy for the prosecution to shoot down the claims. Both of the juries announced that they were deadlocked and could not reach a decision, and both cases were declared mistrials.

The second trial was deliberately less publicized and closed to the public, as the Judge felt that the juries in the first trial were influenced by media coverage of the case. On April 17, 1996, the jury decided that life in prison without the possibility of parole was the best punishment for the brothers. They were sentenced to different facilities and have not seen each other in the years since, but do communicate by writing.

Erik Menendez is currently at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility and Lyle Menendez is at Mule Creek State Prison. They are both married and have no children, serving life sentences without the possibility of parole.

Back to Crime Library

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Erik and Lyle Menendez, two brothers who grew up in Beverly Hills, California, were convicted of murdering their parents Jose and Louise "Kitty" Menendez on the night of August 20, 1989. The boys' father, Jose Menendez immigrated from Cuba when he was 16, and worked his way up in corporate America to become an extremely...

# data[].attributes.body
" In compelling testimony lasting over a month, they emotionally described years of sexual abuse by Jose and Kitty Menendez. They insisted that they had shot their parents in self-defense because they believed that Jose would kill them rather than have the abuse be exposed."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lyle and Erik Menendez shoot their parents, Jose and Kitty, to death in the den of the family's Beverly Hills, California, home. They then drove up to Mulholland Drive, where they dumped their shotguns before continuing to a local movie theater to buy tickets as an alibi. When the pair returned home, Lyle called 911 and cried, "Somebody killed my parents!" The Menendez murders became a national sensation when the new television network, Court TV, broadcast the trial in 1993.

Although the Menendez brothers were not immediately suspected, Erik couldn't take the guilt and confessed his involvement to his psychotherapist, Dr. L. Jerome Oziel. Ignoring his own ethical responsibilities, Dr. Oziel taped the sessions with his new patient in an apparent attempt to impress his mistress. But the woman ended up going to the police with her information and, in March 1990, Lyle, 22, and Erik, 19, were arrested.
READ MORE: Why the Menendez Brothers Killed Their Parents-a Look Inside Their Murder Case
For the next three years, a legal battle was fought over the admissibility of Dr. Oziel's tapes. Finally, the California Supreme Court ruled that the tapes could be played. When the trial began in the summer of 1993, the Menendez brothers put on a spirited defense. In compelling testimony lasting over a month, they emotionally described years of sexual abuse by Jose and Kitty Menendez. They insisted that they had shot their parents in self-defense because they believed that Jose would kill them rather than have the abuse be exposed.

The first two juries (one for each brother) deadlocked, and a mistrial had to be called. For the most part, the lack of a conviction was considered a travesty. At the retrial, which began in October 1995, the judge was much more restrictive in allowing the defense attorneys to focus on the alleged sexual abuse. In March 1996, both Lyle and Erik were convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Menendez brothers murder their parents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lyle and Erik Menendez shoot their parents, Jose and Kitty, to death in the den of the family's Beverly Hills, California, home. They then drove up to Mulholland Drive, where they dumped their shotguns before continuing to a local movie theater to buy tickets as an alibi.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ties in the role of a therapist working closely with criminals 

# data[].attributes.subject
Ties in the role of a therapist working closely with criminals 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-03-29-mn-923-story.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two Beverly Hills brothers allegedly confessed to their psychologist that they murdered their multimillionaire parents two months earlier "out of hatred and out of a desire to be free from their father's domination," according to tape recordings detailed Thursday in a state appellate court ruling.

Climaxing a year of legal wrangling, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that psychotherapy sessions between Lyle and Erik Menendez and psychologist Jerome Oziel were not protected patient-therapist communications and that any claim to privacy had evaporated when the brothers threatened the therapist.

The ruling, if upheld, means that the tapes will be given to prosecutors for possible use as evidence in the murder trial.

Attorney Joel Isaacson, who represents Lyle Menendez, 23, said the defense will appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court, thus delaying the release of the actual tapes and the start of proceedings against the defendants. They have been held in County Jail without bail since their arrest last year, and are due in Beverly Hills Municipal Court on Tuesday to schedule their preliminary hearing.

"Most of what is on the tapes is the statements, personal thoughts and impressions of Dr. Oziel," said Isaacson, adding that the psychologist "clearly was manipulating Erik and Lyle." He said the tapes represent but "a small portion" of the story that will unfold at trial.

Three of the audiocassettes consist of notes dictated by Oziel after therapy sessions with the brothers on Oct. 31, Nov. 2 and Nov. 28, 1989. The fourth records a session on Dec. 11. The decision by the three-member appeals panel did not clearly identify which statements on the tapes were made by the brothers or by Oziel.

The tapes, seized from Oziel the day of Lyle Mendendez's arrest, are the key prosecution evidence against the pair in the shotgun slayings of entertainment executive Jose Menendez and his wife, Kitty. They were shot at close range on the evening of Aug. 20, 1989, as they watched television and snacked on ice cream.

At first, authorities were investigating the murders as a possible mob hit aimed at Menendez, a high-ranking executive with Carolco Pictures Inc.

In October, 1989, Erik Menendez, now 20, telephoned his therapist for an urgent appointment.

They met late Halloween afternoon, talking first in Oziel's Bedford Drive office and then during a walk in a nearby park, according to court records. It was there, Oziel said on the tapes, that Erik confessed that he and his brother had committed the murder.

"Erik revealed in detail the planning and execution of the crime, including (the brothers') fabricated alibi defense," Oziel said, according to the decision.

On Nov. 2, 1989, both brothers discussed their motivation for the crime, according to the psychologist's account. "They didn't kill their parents for money but rather out of hatred and out of a desire to be free from their father's domination, messages of inadequacy and impossible standards," the decision quoted Oziel as saying.

The ruling also revealed previously secret testimony by Judalon Smyth, identified in court records as Oziel's "paramour." Smyth said she was in a hallway outside Oziel's office when she overheard Lyle explode in anger after learning that his brother had admitted the murders to Oziel.

"I can't believe you did this!," Lyle Menendez allegedly told his brother. "I can't believe you told him! I don't even have a brother now! I could get rid of you for this! Now I hope you know what we are going to do. I hope you realize what we are going to have to do. We've got to kill him and anyone associated to him."

Smyth also testified that she heard Erik sob, "I can't stop you (Lyle) from what you have to do, but . . . I can't kill anymore."

After the session, Oziel panicked, told his wife to leave their house with their children and spent the night at Smyth's home, according to the decision.

The psychologist told his wife and Smyth details of the brothers' alleged confession and threats, then he bought three shotguns, repaired his home security system, and decided to try to persuade the brothers that he was on their side.

According to the decision, Lyle told Oziel that "it wouldn't look too good if I (Oziel) disappeared too soon. It would start to become obvious that it wasn't too healthy to be associated with the Menendez boys since people who did seemed to die a lot and always with shotgun shells around."

When Lyle asked if he was frightened, Oziel replied that ordinarily he did not choose to live in fear, the decision said.

"Lyle looked at me coldly and said, 'Neither did my father,' " according to Oziel.

The psychologist said that when Erik was alone with him, the brother expressed fear of Lyle and remorse for the killings, saying: "It wouldn't be so bad if he killed me. I would just let him do it." According to Oziel's account, Erik said his brother was not interested in further sessions: "I don't think he wants to be controlled by anybody . . . that's why he murdered my parents . . . he just wants to be free and he wants to do whatever he wants to do."

Oziel is expected to be a key witness at the Menendez murder trial, where defense attorneys say they will challenge his credibility.

Oziel had sought the return of his tapes, but Santa Monica Superior Court Judge James Albracht ruled last August--after a series of closed-door hearings--that they were not privileged and could be used as evidence against the brothers. Attorneys for the brothers appealed to the state Supreme Court.

The California Psychiatric Assn. filed a friend of the court brief supporting Oziel's contention that the tapes should remain private. Mental health professionals view any disclosure of communications between therapists and patients as a violation of the long-held principle of doctor-patient confidentiality.

The state Supreme Court sent the case back to the appeals court for a full hearing, which also was conducted in secret.

The appeals court held that "where a psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that his patient poses a threat to himself or others, the psychotherapist may disclose otherwise confidential communications . . . to prevent the threatened danger.

"Where the patient seriously threatens the therapist himself and thereafter neither the psychotherapist nor the patient are engaged in a genuine therapeutic relationship, the confidential nature of the therapist-patient relationship ceases to exist and further communications by the patient to the therapist are not privileged."

The court held that while the first two sessions fall into the category of therapy, the final two "focus primarily upon topics which might aid petitioners should they be arrested and tried for the murders. During these sessions, Dr. Oziel was motivated by self-preservation, and petitioners were motivated by self-interest.

"The purported 'therapy' was, in fact, a charade."

Neither Deputy Dist. Atty. Pamela Ferrero nor defense attorney Leslie Abramson, who represents Erik Menendez, could be reached for comment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Menendez Tapes Ruled Acceptable as Evidence : Murder case: Brothers allegedly told therapist of killing their parents. Decision will be appealed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two Beverly Hills brothers allegedly confessed to their psychologist that they murdered their multimillionaire parents two months earlier "out of hatred and out of a desire to be free from their father's domination," according to tape recordings detailed Thursday in a state appellate court ruling.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated February 01, 2019 10:17:14

American serial killer Ted Bundy brutally murdered dozens of young women in the 1970s.

Many of them were kidnapped, raped and assaulted before their death. One was just 12 years old.

So when Zac Efron, the teen heartthrob from Disney's High School Musical, was cast to play the killer in Joe Berlinger's new film Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile, you can understand why some were apprehensive.

People worried Efron would be too charming in the role, and fans would find themselves lusting after a notoriously violent criminal.

"People gonna be falling in love with a serial killer," one person wrote on Twitter.

Then Netflix dropped its new docuseries, Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, and ran into a similar problem.

The series paints a disturbing picture of Bundy, through interviews with the detectives that discovered his crimes, archival footage of his trials, and audio recordings he made while on death row, though much of the chatter online was around his good looks.

It prompted this response from the streaming giant:

But this is nothing new...

Bundy was an attractive, college-educated and charismatic man.

He was a former law student, had worked in politics, and was described by those who knew him as very likeable with a good sense of humour.

So when he was caught by police and went on trial for murder, many couldn't picture him carrying out such brutal crimes.

His handsome looks made him somewhat of a celebrity and he attracted many female fans.

Margaret Good, one of his early defence lawyers, recalls in Berlinger's docuseries how women would turn up to court and pass her handwritten notes to give him.

"He just doesn't look like the type to kill somebody," one young woman told a reporter outside the courtroom.

Carole Ann Boone, one of Bundy's close friends, even agreed to marry him just moments before he received a death sentence for murdering middle school student Kimberly Diane Leach.

She believed he was innocent and had a child with him while he was on death row.

But eventually Bundy confessed to his crimes just before being executed by electric chair in Florida, 1989.

So what is it about violent criminals that people find attractive?

Charles Manson, the cult leader who directed his devotees to murder seven people, had a fan club.

People are still fascinated by the Milwaukee Cannibal, Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed and ate 17 people.

And Penn Badgley, the former star of Gossip Girl, had to fight off fans who loved him as a murderous stalker in Netflix's TV series, YOU.

So what is it about violent offenders?

Katherine Ramsland, a professor of forensic psychology at DeSales University in Pennsylvania and the author of The Human Predator, said in Bundy's case it was his good looks and charm.

"Many women thought Ted Bundy was handsome," she said.

"That he was in law school and knew how to dress well was also a plus."

But Dr Ramsland said offenders - both men and women - didn't have to be physically attractive to attract admirers.

"They can be bold and confident," she said.

"[Bundy] had the confidence, charisma, daring, and resourcefulness of an alpha-male personality that projects a sense of protection.

"In addition, he had a nervous energy and predatory look that attracts some types who like the edginess of a person who can plan and carry out violent acts.

"In their minds, they thought, he might kill other women but he'd be good to me."

Sometimes just the media attention can be enough.

"Lots of people are drawn to 'celebrities', no matter what they've done," Dr Ramsland said.

And others like the "edgy sense of violence in getting close to convicted killers", she said.

Hybristophilia, for example, refers to when people are sexually aroused by partners who are known to have committed an offensive or violent act.

Topics: arts-and-entertainment, television, human-interest, film-movies, crime-films, law-crime-and-justice, united-states

First posted February 01, 2019 06:05:20

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No, you should not think this serial killer is hot

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Netflix wants viewers of its new docuseries on Ted Bundy to stop talking about the serial killer's good looks and to remember his brutal crimes. But women fawning over Bundy is nothing new - he had fans even on death row.

# data[].attributes.headline
This article touches on the TV show that was based on the brothers 

# data[].attributes.subject
This article touches on the TV show that was based on the brothers 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio/2023/04/24/menendez-brothers-tv-series-reveals-rape-allegation-against-their-father/#:~:text=The%20first%20prosecution%2C%20which%20began,in%20prison%2C%20where%20they%20remain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It was a gripping case that was one of the first to draw a daily national audience to a televised criminal trial. Two affluent young men were charged three decades ago with murdering their parents by marching into the den of their Beverly Hills mansion with shotguns and unloading more than a dozen rounds on their mother and father while they sat on the couch.

Lyle and Erik Menendez were convicted in 1996 of murdering their mother, Mary Louise, a former beauty queen who went by Kitty, and their father, Jose, a music executive, despite defence arguments that the brothers had been sexually molested for years by their father and had killed out of fear.

Now Roy Rosselló, a former member of Menudo, the boy band of the 1980s that became a global sensation, is coming forward with an allegation that he was sexually assaulted as a teenager by Jose Menendez.

The assertion was aired Tuesday in a segment on the Today show that outlined some of the findings of a three-part docuseries scheduled to air on US channel Peacock, the streaming service from NBCUniversal, beginning May 2nd. The series, Menendez + Menudo: Boys Betrayed, based on reporting by journalists Robert Rand and Nery Ynclan, is largely focused on Rosselló.

He describes an encounter with Menendez but also recounts separate incidents of sexual abuse that he said were inflicted on him by one of Menudo's former managers when he sang as part of the group.

"I know what he did to me in his house," Rosselló said of Menendez in the clip of the docuseries that aired on Today.

It is unclear what impact, if any, Rosselló's account will have on efforts by defence lawyers to secure a new trial for the brothers, whose prior appeals have been denied.

The credibility of the brothers' account and the admissibility of defence arguments that pointed to sex abuse as a mitigating factor in the case were central to the criminal trials that unfolded after the discovery of the murders in 1989.

The first prosecution, which began in 1993, ended with two hung juries and mistrials. When the brothers were retried together two years later, they were found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison, where they remain.

The Los Angeles county district attorney's office, which prosecuted the cases in the 1990s, did not immediately respond to a request for comment early Tuesday morning.

The Today report previewed interviews with Rosselló in which he is said to describe a visit to the Menendez home in New Jersey when he was 14 - a visit during which he said Jose Menendez drugged and raped him.

"That's the man here that raped me," he said in a clip of the docuseries, pointing to Menendez in a photo. "That's the paedophile."

He is also heard saying, "It's time for the world to know the truth."

Menendez was affiliated with Menudo because he had signed the group as an executive of RCA Records.

Rosselló has previously described being sexually abused as part of Menudo. Others have also said they were verbally, physically, emotionally and sexually abused as part of the band in the four-part HBO Max docuseries Menudo: Forever Young. No one has ever been criminally charged in connection to the allegations.

One of Kitty Menendez's brothers, 88-year-old Milton Andersen used an expletive to describe Rosselló's allegation as flatly false and said the Menendez brothers should not be set free.

Andersen said his brother-in-law was not a sexual predator and objected to the idea that the new accusation could in any way lead to Lyle and Erik Menendez having their case re-examined.

"They do not deserve to walk on the face of this earth after killing my sister and my brother-in-law," he said.

The Menendez murders drew wide public attention, in part because the brothers had been children of affluence. Lyle Menendez was attending Princeton at the time of the killings. Erik Menendez was pursuing a career in professional tennis. Prosecutors presented them as coldblooded killers, interested in getting unfettered access to their parents' $14 million estate.

Jose Menendez was shot five times, including once in the back of the head. By the brothers' own testimony, after they had discharged several rounds, Lyle Menendez went to his car, reloaded his 12-gauge shotgun and pushed the muzzle of his gun to his mother's cheek and shot her again.

The police initially believed that the slayings were tied to the Mafia. But investigators turned their attention to Lyle Menendez, who was 22 at the time of his arrest, and Erik Menendez, 19, after the brothers bought Rolex watches, condominiums, sports cars and other items in the months after the murders.

'In the end, in the second trial, the jury just didn't believe them'

Although they initially denied any role in the killings, they became primary suspects after the discovery of taped recordings of conversations the brothers had with their psychologist in which the brothers explained what had led them to kill their parents.

As the first trial neared, the brothers' defence lawyers came forward with their own explanation for the crimes: that Lyle Menendez had confronted his father about the family's sex abuse secrets, that his father had become enraged and threatening, and that the brothers had killed out of concern for their lives.

The defence argued that the murder charges should be reduced to manslaughter because the defendants had honestly, if incorrectly, believed that their lives were imminently threatened.

The trials, which played out on Court TV, ushered in a new era of televised courtroom drama. At least some jurors in the first set of trials believed the brothers, who had movingly testified of the abuse they suffered. The testimony left the jurors split between manslaughter and murder verdicts and contributed to the impasse that led to the mistrials.

When another jury convened to decide the brothers' fate, the circumstances had changed. The judge banned cameras in court and severely restricted witness testimony and evidence related to Jose Menendez's parenting. Prosecutors, who had let the brothers' molestation accusations go unchallenged at the first trials, went right at Erik Menendez when he took the stand, seeding doubt about whether the abuse had happened at all.

"Can you give us the name of one eyewitness to any of the sexual assaults that took place in that home," the lead prosecutor, David Conn, repeatedly asked Erik Menendez as he ticked through the places the brothers had lived.

According to transcripts of the testimony, Menendez kept repeating the same answer: "No."

The defence also did not present at trial anyone beyond the brothers who described Jose Menendez as a sexual predator.

As the trial wound to a close, the judge, Stanley Weisberg, ruled that the "abuse excuse" argument could not be used at all. The ruling essentially forced jurors to decide between letting the brothers off entirely or convicting them of murder. They did the latter.

"We did think there was psychological abuse to some extent. I think most of us believed that," one juror, Lesley Hillings, told The Los Angeles Times afterward. "Sexual abuse? I don't think we'll ever know if that's true or not."

Legal experts said that even with the new allegation brought by Rosselló, the lawyers defending the Menendez brothers would face an uphill battle if they sought to have the case re-examined.

Laurie Levenson, a professor of criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who provided legal analysis of the Menendez case in the 1990s, said Rosselló's information might come "too little, too late."

"In the end, in the second trial, the jury just didn't believe them," Levenson said of the brothers and their sex abuse allegations.

Rosselló's account "could be something you could file with the court and claim that it's newly discovered evidence and that it would have made a difference in the case," she added. "But they will have the burden to show that."

In the segment aired by Today, Alan Jackson, a criminal defence lawyer, agreed that the brothers had "a big mountain to climb". Still, he said the assertion brought forward by Rosselló provided the brothers a "glimmer of hope". - This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

2023 The New York Times Company

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Menendez brothers: TV series reveals rape allegation against their father

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It was a gripping case that was one of the first to draw a daily national audience to a televised criminal trial. Two affluent young men were charged three decades ago with murdering their parents by marching into the den of their Beverly Hills mansion with shotguns and unloading more than a dozen rounds on their mother and father while they sat on the couch.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is the most recent updates regarding incarceration and other personal information 

# data[].attributes.subject
This is the most recent updates regarding incarceration and other personal information 

# data[].attributes.body
"Lyle and Erik Menendez remain incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lyle and Erik Menendez have since been convicted of their parents' homicides and have been serving time in prison.

Where are the Menendez brothers today?

Lyle and Erik Menendez remain incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego.

Previously, the Menendez brothers were jailed at separate prisons.

From 1996 to 2018, the eldest brother Lyle was imprisoned at Mule Creek State Prison.

Meanwhile, Erik spent that same amount of time at Pleasant Valley Prison.

In April 2018, Lyle and Erik were reunited after more than 20 years.

The last time they had seen each other was on September 10, 1996.

Regarding the brothers' reunion, ABC News observed: "They just hugged each other for a few minutes without saying any words to each other."\

"Then the prison officials let them spend an hour together in a room."

How old are the Menendez brothers?

Lyle was born on January 10, 1968, and Erik was born on November 27, 1970.

At the time of Menendez + Menudo: Boys Betrayed's release date, the former is 55 years old and the latter is 52.

When they killed their mother and father, Lyle was 21 and Erik was 18.

On August 20, 1989, the two brothers used shotguns to carry out the murders of their parents Kitty and Jose Menendez.

While at the family's Beverly Hills home, the brothers fatally shot Jose in the head and Kitty in the face and stomach.

On March 20, 1996, both Lyle and Erik were convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

On July 2, 1996, they were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Throughout the brothers' trial, their legal team argued that they were sexually abused by their father.

How can I watch Menendez + Menudo: Boys Betrayed?

The Menendez brothers' trial is relived in the docuseries Menendez + Menudo: Boys Betrayed.

On May 2, 2023, the program will be available to stream via Peacock.

In Menendez + Menudo: Boys Betrayed, the documentary includes Lyle and Erik's claims of sexual abuse and ties it in with similar claims made against the brothers' father Jose Menendez.

According to former Menudo band member Roy Rosello, he was allegedly sexually assaulted by Jose while the patriarch was an executive at RCA Records.

Prior to the docuseries, the case was featured in an episode of ABC's 20/20 titled Inside the Menendez Movement Online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What to know about the Menendez brothers and their whereabouts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lyle and Erik Menendez have since been convicted of their parents' homicides and have been serving time in prison. Lyle and Erik Menendez remain incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego. Previously, the Menendez brothers were jailed at separate prisons.

# data[].attributes.headline
The psychology relating to success in crimes and the overall level of attractiveness in a criminal 

# data[].attributes.subject
The psychology relating to success in crimes and the overall level of attractiveness in a criminal 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The serial killer Ted Bundy was convicted of one kidnapping and three murders before being sentenced to death in Florida.

Before his death, authorities say he confessed to murdering 30 people across the US. Some experts believe that number could be much higher.

Bundy was a master manipulator, in part because he was able to blend in.

Forensic psychologist Darrel Turner believes that one of the most important takeaways from the Bundy case is that to be a successful serial killer one must be able to blend in and earn people's trust by appearing ordinary.

As one of the most infamous serial-killer cases in American history, the saga of Ted Bundy in the 1970s arguably changed the way society thinks about serial killers and the horrors of sexual violence and murder.

INSIDER spoke with forensic psychologist and FBI and law enforcement consultant Darrel Turner about the Ted Bundy case. A specialist in psychopathy, predatory behavior, and violent crime, Turner has studied and lectured about the Bundy case for several years.

There's a lot of deeply disturbing ground to cover, and chances are that no one will ever have all the answers. That said, here's what we do know about the Bundy case.
Editor's note: This post contains descriptions of violence that may be disturbing for some readers.

Even as a child, Ted Bundy showed some signs of disturbance and may even have started killing much earlier than investigators first thought.

"He had classic signs of conduct disorder as a child. There is one instance where a female family member woke up and Bundy had arranged kitchen knives all around her body," Turner told INSIDER.

"He also looked at violent pornography at a young age and read detective magazines voraciously. There is a large body of law enforcement that believes he killed a neighborhood girl when he was still a teenager."

Bundy confessed to murdering 30 women between 1974 and 1978. Five women are known to have survived his attacks.

Authorities say Bundy confessed to 30 murders across seven states. Bundy seemed to mostly prefer college-aged women.

He started his known attacks on January 4, 1974, with 18-year-old Karen Sparks. Bundy beat her severely and sexually assaulted her in her bed, but she survived with severe brain damage and no memory of what had happened to her, according to "Inside Edition."

The victims we know about from Seattle are Lynda Ann Healy, Donna Gail Manson, Susan Elaine Rancourt, Brenda Carol Ball, Georgeann Hawkins, Brenda Baker, Janice Anne Ott, and Denise Naslund. After killing Susan Rancourt, Bundy also killed Roberta Kathleen Parks in Corvallis, Oregon.

These murders spanned from January to July 1974, according to Crime and Investigation, but their remains would not be discovered until later.

After moving to Salt Lake City to attend law school, Bundy murdered Nancy Wilcox, Melissa Smith (the 17-year-old daughter of Midvale police chief Louis Smith), Laura Aime, and Debby Kent between October and November 1974.

He attempted to kidnap Carol DaRonch as well but she escaped. Her kidnapping, survival, and the ensuing trial resulted in Bundy's first conviction. Nurse Caryn Campbell in Aspen, Colorado, was next to be murdered. In the months that followed, Julie Ann Cunningham, Denise Lynn Oliverson, Lynette Dawn Culver, and Susan Curtis would follow.

Meanwhile, Bundy's longtime girlfriend Elizabeth Kloepfer was one of four people who had suggested Bundy's name to police as a suspect.

Kloepfer lived in Seattle but had roots in Utah, and had phoned SLC police when she first began to suspect that Bundy might have something to do with the very similar tales of missing women in the Seattle and Salt Lake City areas.

Another person who had put Bundy's name forward as a suspect was a former police officer who would go on to become the well-known true-crime writer Ann Rule.

Rule had worked with and befriended Bundy while working at the Seattle Crisis Clinic. Under contract to write a book about the missing women but not realizing at first that her friend Ted had anything to do with it, Rule would go on to write " The Stranger Beside Me" about the Bundy case.

Investigators of the time didn't have the powerful technological advances we have today.

The most well-known murders committed by Bundy took place between 1974 and 1978, although some experts believe he started much earlier.

Through a modern lens, it's easy to forget the kind of pitfalls that law-enforcement officials worked under then. Modern forensic science techniques simply didn't exist. Hair and fiber analysis was standard practice and was not yet considered controversial, as it would be decades later. DNA testing wasn't yet a thing.

Just in terms of long-distance communications, this was a time before even something like fax machines were around to quickly transmit information, let alone email. Instead, most of the time, you picked up a rotary telephone or sent a letter by postal mail.

Finally, the FBI's ViCAP program - which links state and federal law-enforcement resources to apprehend exactly this type of behavior across states - didn't come into being until 1985.

Bundy got pulled over by a Utah Highway Patrol officer on August 16, 1975, and then police searched his car.

If you're familiar at all with Bundy's case, you've probably heard about the tan Volkswagen Bug he used much of the time which was also the car police were searching for.

According to Rule, police noticed several key things inside the car:

A ski mask

Pantyhose

Rope

An ice pick

A crowbar

Handcuffs

Trash bags

The front passenger seat had been removed - which police later determined made kidnappings much easier to facilitate

At this point, DaRonch had reported her kidnapping and described the vehicle involved and SLC police had also taken Kloepfer's detailed call about her Bundy suspicions, so they took the matter seriously.

This led to a warrant to search Bundy's apartment, where police found even more circumstantial evidence.

Caryn Campbell had been abducted from the Wildwood Inn in Colorado and Bundy coincidentally had a Colorado ski resort guide with the Wildwood Inn marked.

The town of Bountiful housed Viewmont High School, from which Debby Kent had disappeared after attending a school play. Bundy had the play's program in his possession.

While definitely suspicious, police still couldn't prove anything at this point.

On March 1, 1976, Bundy was found guilty of the kidnapping of Carol DaRonch.

He was sent to Utah State Prison for a sentence of one to 15 years, but was extradited to Colorado in January 1977 to stand trial for the murder of Caryn Campbell.

That's when Bundy escaped from prison for the first time.

Rather than hire a lawyer, Bundy intended to represent himself and so was given access to the law library in the Pitkin County District Courthouse where his trial was to be held. According to local paper, The Post Independent, he escaped by jumping out a second-story window in the library.

People in the surrounding area were terrified. A June 9, 1977, front-page story in the Glenwood Post read , "Since Bundy's escape, parents have been asked to pick up their children at schools; the sale of guns and ammunition has been banned; people have been asked to travel in pairs and not to go camping alone."

Bundy was caught in Aspen a few days later while driving a Cadillac he had stolen.

On December 30, 1977, Bundy managed to escape from prison a second time.

One of the things Bundy is best known for is his chameleon-like ability to change appearance, including his weight.

He was skinny enough at the time to squeeze through an approximately 1-foot-square hole for a light fixture in the ceiling of his cell and then squeeze through the ductwork into a closet in the jailer's apartment , according to The Post Independent.

This time, he made it out of Colorado.

Bundy fled to Florida, where he committed his final murders.

In the middle of the night of January 15, 1978, several residents at Florida State University's Chi Omega sorority house were sleeping when Bundy struck.

He brutally murdered Margaret Bowman and Lisa Levy while they slept , according to the Tampa Bay Times. He also attacked Karen Chandler, Kathy Kleiner, and Cheryl Ann Thomas that night, but all three women survived.

Three weeks after the FSU murders, 12-year-old Kimberly Leach disappeared from Lake City and her body wouldn't be found until April 1978.

Bundy was executed in the state of Florida via electric chair on January 24, 1989.

After two very public trials in Florida, Bundy was found guilty of two counts of murder for Bowman and Levy's death and three counts of attempted murder on July 24, 1979. He was also found guilty of the abduction and murder of Kimberly Leach on February 10, 1980.

Prior to his execution nine years later, authorities say Bundy confessed to the murders of many of the victims whose names we know today. Many felt this was yet another attempt at manipulation to delay the inevitable, but if it was, it didn't work.

Pete Axthelm and Michael Ryan wrote for People magazine: "The day Bundy died found his victims scattered widely across the grim landscape of grieving and recovery. For some, his death may have helped to exorcise the horror."

Now that you know what he did, it's important to understand why he succeeded.

Turner wants people to understand the reasons why Bundy was able to do what he did for so long.

"I think it's important that people understand that Ted Bundy was successful because he was so 'ordinary,'" Turner told INSIDER. "But more than that, he was charming and handsome and a charismatic young man."

Turner went on to point out that Bundy was a psychology student and a law student and worked on a Republican presidential campaign, a suicide hotline, and a campaign for a governor of Washington. He was likable and appeared successful, which is what made him so dangerous.

"It was these successful aspects of his personality that allowed him to go undetected for so long, and it was these same traits that allowed him to be so successful in apprehending victims," Turner said.

"He used guile and cunning, charm, and sympathy to win the trust of his victims and lower their defenses before subduing them. In fact, he was quite proud of this and felt it was something that set him apart from other 'gentlemen,' which is how he referred to other serial killers."

To read more at length about these more everyday aspects of Bundy's formative years, Ann Rule's book is essential reading.

Bundy was able to manipulate people easily to gain their trust, and that's how he got away with so much.

Turner explained to INSIDER that one of the reasons Bundy was able to get away with so much is that he gained people's trust. Turner called him a "cunning and manipulative psychopath":

"His looks helped, but a psychopath is, by nature, a cunning individual, one who can quickly read another's weaknesses and capitalize on them, one who acts without the 'burden' of remorse, guilt, or the ability (or desire) to empathize with others," he explained. "Psychopaths exist outside the context of serial killers. Serial killers are individuals who are psychopathic and lack remorse and empathy and are willing to victimize others, true, but they also have deviant sexual interests that require victimizing others to satisfy."

Turner said this combination of deviant sexual interests (including necrophilia and sadism) with a psychopathic personality is what is arguably what formed Bundy as a serial killer.

Although we want to know what drives a person to do such horrible things, most of the time, all we have are theories.

"Regarding what drove him to kill, I think aside from the sadistic and necrophilic interests, it was the thrill, and the power and rush of 'getting away with it,'" Turner told INSIDER.

Turner posits that a lot of what drove Bundy was a sexual urge to "hurt, torture, kill, and rape women" to feel in charge.

"Unfortunately, there will always be individuals who have these interests and are willing to act on them, and it is exceedingly important for us to educate ourselves about these killers in order to help prevent ourselves from becoming victims," Turner said. "If something doesn't feel right, it doesn't feel right for a reason. Don't let others guilt you into going somewhere or doing something that feels 'off.' Our instincts are there for a reason!"

Like many experts who have studied this case over the years, Turner has some thoughts about the ultimate number of murders that Bundy may have committed.

While Bundy confessed to 30 murders and was convicted of three, some experts believe the number could really be in the hundreds. Turner agrees.

"Bundy confessed varyingly to 30 murders and to over 200 murders. He made a comment to law enforcement agents at one point who indicated that he had approximately 30 victims - 'add two digits to that and you've got it,'" Turner said.

Because he often crossed state lines and because law enforcement coordination is not what it is today, Bundy could get away with a lot. Turner said that because of this Bundy's victims probably number in the hundreds.

"There are still many, many missing person cases from that time and from the areas where Bundy lived, worked, studied, and traveled," Turner said.

Ultimately, what drove Bundy to rape, murder, and defile the corpses of his victims defies simple explanations.

Some people have simplified Bundy's crimes to be about victims that looked alike (long brown hair, parted down the middle). But Turner says this is at best an oversimplification of his motives and at worst inaccurate.

"That's just how most women wore their hair in the '70s, and so the two are simply unrelated in my opinion," Turner told INSIDER. "He also had numerous victims that bore no resemblance whatsoever to this [physical type]."

He said that most serial killers are a product of genetic and environmental factors that cause them to become monsters. That's partly why people are still so interested in these cases.

"Bundy is interesting to so many people, I feel because he represented two completely dichotomous people: One charming, handsome, successful individual, and the other a sadist, necrophile, rapist, and murderer with zero remorse who took pride in his ability to successfully kill and evade capture," Turner said.
Visit INSIDER's homepage for more.

More: ted bundy True Crime Extremely Wicked Shockingly Evil and Vile Freelancer

Chevron icon
It indicates an expandable section or menu, or sometimes previous / next navigation options.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Ted Bundy got away with so many murders, according to a forensic psychologist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The serial killer Ted Bundy was convicted of one kidnapping and three murders before being sentenced to death in Florida. Before his death, authorities say he confessed to murdering 30 people across the US. Some experts believe that number could be much higher. Bundy was a master manipulator, in part because he was able to blend in.

# data[].attributes.headline
May be able to find others along with Dahmer and Bundy 

# data[].attributes.subject
May be able to find others along with Dahmer and Bundy 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From serial killers to celebrity victims, some sensational murder cases grab our collective imagination and won't let go, like the unsolved Oakland County murders. The following is a look at a handful of the most infamous murder cases in recent American history. Some of the killers have been caught, tried, and punished. Other cases remain open and may never be solved.

In the late 1960s, a charismatic drifter with delusions of rock and roll grandeur named Charles Manson coerced a number of young women and men, many of whom were vulnerable teenagers, to join a cult called " The Family."

The group's most infamous murders took place on in August 1969. On the night of August 8, directed by Manson, several of his "family members" invaded a home in the northern hills of Los Angeles. Over the course of the night and into the next morning, they killed five people, including director Roman Polanski's wife, Sharon Tate, who was eight-and-a-half months pregnant at the time and Abigail Folger, heir to the Folger Coffee fortune. The next night, Manson family members continued their spree, murdering supermarket executive Leno LaBianca and his wife Rosemary.

Manson was indicted and convicted along with the family members who'd carried out the murders at his behest. Manson was sentenced to death, however, he was never executed. He lived the rest of his life in prison and passed away in 2017 of a heart attack.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 of the Most Famous Murder Cases in Recent American History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From serial killers to celebrity victims, some sensational murder cases grab our collective imagination and won't let go, like the unsolved Oakland County murders. The following is a look at a handful of the most infamous murder cases in recent American history. Some of the killers have been caught, tried, and punished.