Somehow I'm in the position of simultaneously reading two books about the Menendez brothers murders & it's working, it's interesting, but I don't quite know how I got here, also I have 728 thoughts, but the case is 30 years old so I don't know who would care

is that gonna stop me from writing a long and unpopular thread? no

This is the first court case I remember from TV, and the prosecution certainly won the public over, bc I always thought they killed their parents for money, when it seems like they probably didn't. They were being abused - everyone agrees on that, just not on the degree of abuse

The two books I'm reading are Robert Rand (2018)'s and Don Davis (1994)'s. Neither book has bibliography, endnotes, or an index, which I find bizarre. Both authors are respectable enough, but the books have no provenance for their information. Huh?

Both present the same information in diff ways: a crucial driver's license is stolen in Davis's account & left behind carelessly in Rand's. Neither clarifies whether the parents were asleep or awake when murdered (web says asleep, books say awake), and both present a muddled

account of who these ppl were. Was Lyle an unstable sociopath or a cool, spoiled schemer? Was Erik gay or not, close to his mom or not, a budding poet or a budding killer? Was Kitty too deep in depressive psychosis to make sense of her husband's abuse, or was she an unfit mother?

Neither author seems to've gained access to police documentation/officers, as there's just nothing there abt that. I've read a decent amt of true crime and the police accounts/docs are always a big part; there's NOTHING in either of these books. No interviews, reports, photos.

What I'm saying is that the two best book-length accts of this incredibly famous case are really not that good, or complete. Maybe I was spoiled by Helter Skelter & D Cullen's stunning Columbine, but these are both inadequate. Davis's is not that well-written, while Rand's

has a lot of weirdness: pubbed by a minor press, no back matter, obvious omissions, clear bias in favor of the brothers. More comprehensive but unnecessarily elaborate organizations. The acknowledgments give weird info (the book was 220K, cut down; it was contracted to

Simon & Schuster but that didn't go). The author worked on this book for 30 years & started interviews as early as 1989, and yet this book has so little paratextual credibility. Meanwhile Davis's is a slightly restrained tabloid account. Neither is ideal. ?!?!

I think everyone was tired of the case once it was finally over, but it's a shame no one has written an account that embraces the gray areas & looks at the case from today's perspective. It's interesting to think about how differently we perceive abuse, even in rich families,

30 years later. Then, the prosecutor, THE PROSECUTOR, said to the press it wasn't possible for men to be raped, as they "lack the necessary equipment." What the fork. I can't believe that would not be greeted with outrage in 2022.

There's also a bunch of context that makes the case an interesting slice of history. LAPD and the DA's office had horrendous reputations in the late 80s/early 90s, so they needed a win, & the judge gave them a v unfair one in the 2nd trial. The legacy of this case is a bunch of

strings extending into weird places: the media in court cases, abuse in murder/manslaughter cases, abuse in rich families, the confidentiality of psych/patient confessions, even how trauma responses work. OJ and Rodney King are tied up in this case, somehow, of course.

And yet the books on it are so inadequate. Someone come along and write one, please. A book that's about then and now, guilt and abuse, wealth and suffering. Please and thank you.

OK, I'm done. I think.