ERIK MENENDEZ PAROLE HEARING (1)
COMPLETE POOL REPORTS
Parts 1, 2, and 3
Aug. 21, 2025
1. 9:06 am – 8.21.25
UPDATE
James Queally, Los Angeles Times, serving as pool reporter
Hearing begins at approximately 8:45 a.m.
Erik Menendez is appearing from Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego. The commissioners are appearing over Microsoft Teams. He is wearing a light blue jumper, accompanied by two CDCR staffers who are off screen.
Attendees/Participants: Parole Commissioner Robert Barton (presiding commissioner), Deputy Parole Commissioner Rachel Stern, Scott Wyckoff (executive officer, Board of Parole Hearings), Steven Mahler (parole hearing support), Heidi Rummel (parole attorney for Erik Menendez), L.A. County Deputy Dist. Atty. Habib Balian, Sylvia Aceves (CDCR), Robert Love (CDCR, support for the family), Mariam El-Menshawi (CDCR, Chief of Victim Services)
Relatives/Victim Next Of Kin: Natashca Leonardo (great niece of Kitty Menendez), Karen Mae VanderMolen-Copley (niece of Kitty M.), Diane Hernandez, Kathleen Simonton (first cousin to Erik M.), Tamara Lucero-Goodell (great niece to Kitty M.), Erik Vandermolen (great nephew to Kitty M.), Marta Cano Hallowell (niece of Jose Menendez), Father Ken Deasy (retired priest from Diocese of Los Angeles, a former mentor and pastor to Erik M.), Anamaria Baralt (niece of Jose M.), Alicia Baralt Barbor (niece of Jose M.), Teresita Menendez Baralt (Alicia’s mother, sister of Jose M.), Sarah Mallas (great niece of Kitty M.), Kristen H. (great niece of Jose M.), Brian Alan Anderson Jr. (nephew of Kitty M.), Tiffani Lucero Pastor (great niece of Kitty M.), Robert Pastor (support capacity for Tiffani Pastor), Arni Vandermolen (nephew of Kitty M.), Eunice Bautista , Maya Emig (attorney for Joan Vandermolen, sister of Kitty M., also support for several relatives), Stuart Hart (retired Indiana University professor, known Erik M. for 33 years, here as support for Terry Baralt), Amy Hallowell (relative of the victims)
Roll Call completes at approx 9:04 a.m.
2. 10:24 am – 8.21.25
arton speaking directly to Erik M., confirming his crime, sentence and the recent change in status through the resentencing petition in Los Angeles County, which made him eligible for parole under California’s Youthful Offender laws.
Erik confirms he was 18 at the time of the murders.
9:08 a.m., Erik M. is sworn in.
Barton notes Erik M. qualifies under elder parole laws as well (Erik is 54 y/o, he has served approximately 35 years in a California state prison)
DOB: 11/27/70Education Score of 12.9 (meaning he attended some college courses)
Barton confirms Erik M. is experiencing some health issues related to Crohn’s Disease, says the board has reviewed Erik M.’s medical records and is aware of “chronic” health issues.
Heidi Rummel says she has “fundamental disagreements” with clinical diagnoses and conclusions related to Erik M. that have been submitted to the board.
“Mr. Menendez I know you’re nervous. Everyone is nervous when they come to a hearing. What I will tell you is to keep breathing.” – Barton, who describes Erik. M’s file as “extremely voluminous.”
“The purpose of this hearing is not to retry this case. Nor is the purpose of this hearing to put your parents on trial,” – Barton, who notes the purpose of the hearing is to determine whether or not Erik M. poses a risk to public safety.
Barton explains the process of the hearing – Rummel and Balian will both get to question Erik M., Erik M. will get to give a closing statement, and then the victims’ relatives will speak. After that, there will be a break for Barton and Stern to deliberate and deliver a decision. The decision will be to grant or deny. The denial could be for between 3-15 years, depending on what serves as the basis of a denial.
A grant is not final. It can be reversed by Gov. Gavin Newsom or referred to an en banc panel within the next 4-5 months, Barton says.
9:21 a.m. – Barton says the substantive portion of the hearing will now begin.
Barton raises Erik M. had been involved in criminal behavior prior to the murders.
Erik M. says he committed a burglary at age 17.
“It began as a prank with a couple of other people at a party and it escalated and became a serious instance. I wanted to impress them and I was very immature and I made very poor decisions and I ended up hurting those individuals that I burglarized.” – Erik M.
“At that point in time, you didn’t need money … and you realized that you have entry to a safe and it had valuables in it. Do you remember having any thought whatsoever … now you’re actually stealing things. Had you stolen before that?” – Barton (Erik M. replies no)
“I didn’t have a plan. I was with these older kids that I’d known from HS and it doesn’t excuse my actions. I was fully culpable in what I was doing…. Simply doing the act was this sense of validation for me. That I could do this act. I was dealing with tremendous self-worth issues at the time and this made me feel like I could do something.” – Erik M.
Erik M. says he showed off the spoils of the burglary to Lyle, hoping he would say “good job.”
“I did not appreciate the consequences, not just the consequences, but the damage I was doing to the [victims]. In my mind I was saying insurance is going to cover this. I did this with these kids and I’m one of them.”
Barton asks if the first burglary validated Erik M., why commit “the second burglary.”
Erik M. says they “wanted to do a real burglary” and he wanted to do it to impress some older friends. Second burglary site was the “Ginsburg House.”
The friends were a year older, about to go to college.
Lyle is involved in the 2nd burglary. Erik calls Lyle “a second father to me, he was just the person I looked up to and idolized.”
“I just thought Lyle would say, I don’t know what exactly I thought Lyle would say. Maybe he would say this is terrible, you did an awful thing. Maybe he would say this is a good idea. But what he ended up saying is, you’re going to get in trouble … and I’m going to get in trouble for this, with Dad.” – Erik M.
Erik says Lyle’s concern wasn’t about the morality of the burglary but was in fear that there would be an arrest and then consequences suffered at Jose Menendez’s hand.
“I was raised in a family where stealing wasn’t what was frowned upon. Getting caught was what was frowned upon.” – Erik M.
“I was not raised with a moral foundation … I was raised purposely without the moral foundation that I should not do wrong when I know the difference between right and wrong. I was raised to lie, to cheat, to steal, steal in the sense, an abstract way. When I was playing tennis my father would make sure that I cheated at certain times if he told me too. The idea that there is a right and wrong that I do not cross because it’s a moral bound was not instilled in me as a teenager.” – Erik M.
Says he’s developed a “moral guardrail” as part of his journey in prison.
Erik M. describes his character defects as involving “moral failings.” “I was dishonest. I was angry. I was in a codependent relationship with my brother. I was impulsive. I was entitled. I would violate the rules if I believed that it would benefit me. I did not trust authority. I didn’t trust my relatives. I lived in an isolated household. We were trained not to go outside the household. I had deep character failings.”
Barton references some lesser infractions – traffic violations committed by Erik M. including speeding and failure to appear in court. Erik M. says he lost his license at one point due to speeding, describes it as a “total disregard for the safety of others on the road.”
Back to the burglary – Erik says he believed he would prove he was “worth being in their group,” meaning the older friends, by taking part in a second burglary before they did.
“After I did the 2nd burglary I began to realize what I did was wrong. I hadn’t … some of the jewelry I was looking at looked like it was meaningful and personal. My thought was they were going to be able to replace all of this with insurance but some of it looked like it was not replaceable.”
Erik M. says he went to the safe to return some of it but “it unraveled so fast after I did that.”
Says he took a Solarflex machine, he took paintings, I just “took everything.”
Said he felt like he “failed” in Lyle’s eyes by committing the second burglary.
“I kinda wanted to stick it to my Dad. I was in a very difficult relationship with my father and I was dealing with a whole nother issues with him in terms of my relationship with him and I was resisting him in ways that I could and doing the burglary was one way that I could resist him and sort of be really, really violate his rules and there’s nothing he could do about it.”
“But you murdered him because you thought there was something he was going to do to you?” Barton asks.
“Yes.”
Erik M. describes burglary as an act of “passive resistance” against his father.
Barton cuts Erik off when he starts talking about what sounds like a description of abuse at Jose’s hands.
Erik M. confirms Jose took him out of the will.
“Loyalty in my family was secrecy.”
Erik M. talks about Jose breaking the law, bragging about not paying taxes, killing the family dog.
Erik M. again describes the burglary as “sticking it” to his father because it would hurt Jose’s reputation.
Erik M. says there was “a little over a year” between the second burglary and the murder.
The Tuesday before the murders, Erik said he saw an incident between Kitty and Lyle, he went to the guest house, and broke down. But “there was no talk about doing anything to my parents, the talk was you’re coming back to Princeton with me.”
Erik says he told Lyle “the sexual violence was still going on.”
Lyle believed he could take Erik away from the abuse. “When that did not work, and his confrontation with DAd turned very bad on Thursday night that that was the first talk of buying guns.”
“The talk of buying the guns was not ‘Let’s buy guns and kill them. The talk of the buying guns was it had now become very dangerous and I had broken the one rule my father told me never to break.’”
Eirk says that Tuesday convo was the first time they’d ever discussed their father’s sexual abuse against them.
“Lyle and I were raised purposely to not talk to each other about emotional or traumatic things … talking about something like that was considered a great weakness.” – Erik M.
“The purpose was to use [the guns] if my Dad … when we talked about getting the guns I had made the decision that I was never going to let Dad come in my room and do that again.” – Erik M.
“In my mind, leaving meant death. There was no consideration. I was totally convinced there was no place I could go.” – Erik M.
Barton notes that Erik M. was 18 at the time and could have left home, gone to family members who would have taken him in.
“It’s difficult to convey how terrifying my father was.”
“I fantasized about my father not being alive … but the idea of me walking into a room and pulling the trigger … my father was the most terrifying human being I’d ever met.”
Barton again asks Erik M. why he didn’t leave, or go to the authorities as opposed to obtaining firearms. “What kept you in the house?”
“My absolute belief that I could not get away. Maybe it sounds completely irrational and unreasonable today…”
Barton acknowledges he gets “learned helplessness” concept for sexual assault victims.
“You’re a smart guy. At that point you had a 4.0 or something in high school … still could have gone to college … you could have gotten a job. It would have meant the end of your tennis, the end of your lifestyle.” – Barton.
Barton cites a document written by Erik which says he had “no justification” for the killings. Erik confirms that today.
“Is there any part of this which you believe was self defense?” Barton asks. Erik M. says no.
Rummel objects to questions to Erik that cause him to make legal conclusions, citing the pending habeas corpus petition.
Barton swats this away, says it’s not a request for a legal analysis.
Barton again asks the purpose of getting guns.
“My purpose in getting the guns was to protect myself in case my father or my mother came at me to kill me. Or my father came in the room to rape me. That is why I bought the guns.”
Erik says he purchased two guns. “One for me and one for Lyle.”
“Our lives were in extreme danger immediately,” once Erik and Lyle broke the secret of Jose’s alleged abuse, according to Erik M.
Barton asks why they used a fake ID to get the guns.
“It was the ID I had on me,” Erik says, but then admits he wouldn’t have used his own driver’s license anyway.
Said he did not have an intention to kill his parents on Friday, the day the guns were bought, but feared paperwork would show up at the Menendez household if he bought guns with his own ID.
“Who first acted in terms of the violence?” – Barton
“Lyle came to the top of the stairs after my DAd ordered me to room and said he was coming up… my focus was Dad’s coming to my room. I can’t let him come to my room.”
Lyle said “it’s happening now.” Erik said “my gun is in my room. I ran to my room to get the gun. All I knew as I had to get to that den. FEar was driving me to that den.”
“Dad was going to come to my room and rape me that night. That was going to happen. One way or another. IF he was alive, that was going to happen.” – Erik M.
Erik says he got the gun, went to the car, loaded it, before Lyle could … “I didn’t even wait for Lyle. I knew I had to get to that den.”
“You do see that there were other choices at that point?” – Barton
“When I look back at the person I was then and what I believed about the world and my parents, running away was inconceivable. Running away meant death.”
Says Jose “had trained me to believe that running away meant death,” notes even as far back as when Erik was 12 Jose would let him go away to tennis tournaments, with no fear he’d report the abuse.
“You would have to live my experience to understand … if my Dad exited that den, I was dead.”
Barton – “Why kill Mom?”
“When Mom told me … that she had known all of those years. It was the most devastating moment in my entire life. IT changed everything for me. I had been protecting her by not telling her” – Erik M, who notes Kitty saw Jose “whip” him.
Barton asks if Kitty was also Jose’s victim, Erik says she was “definitely” his victim.
“He was beating her because I failed” – Erik M.
“If you have this burning hatred towards your Dad, you had no thought about rescuing your Mom at all?” – Barton.
Erik says he believed his Mom would just “egg” Jose on. REferences finding one of Kitty’s “suicide notes” … a few years earlier Lyle asked Mom to leave with them. Kitty responded that Jose was a “great man” and she would never leave.
“Step by step my Mom had shown she was united with my Dad … but when I found out that she knew” about the abuse, Erik says he no longer saw any daylight between his parents. “On that night I saw them as one person. Had she not been in the room, maybe it would have been different.”
“I wish to god I did not do that.” – Erik says of reloading and shooting his mother.
“You’re not fine. No one would be fine after discussing this,” Barton says, after offering Erik a break.
Erik is visibly emotional in discussing the murders, but not crying.
Barton asks about the brothers actions after the shootings.
“Did it ever occur to you that maybe you’re putting other people in danger by just disposing of guns?” – Barton asks. (Erik M. says no)
They dumped the guns “off of Mulholland Highway.”
Barton notes anybody could have found them. He asks Erik about the spending sprees after the killings.
“I was torn between hatred of myself over what I did and wishing that I could undo it and trying to live out my life, making teenager decisions. I bought a Rolex … an incredibly callous act … to make myself feel more like a man now.” – Erik M.,
“I had no plan for my life. I didn’t know what to do with my life. My only plan for my life was to play tennis.”
“After you;d gotten away with it … were there more discussions about keeping it quiet?” Barton.
“I couldn’t go to [Lyle] with the pain that I was in. I couldn’t talk to Lyle about this personal anguish that I could not live with what I’d done.” – Erik M.
He says he did not speak to Lyle about the spending.
Refers to buying the Jeep as a “conservative purchase.”
Barton brings up Erik’s confession to therapist Dr. Oziel.
Barton notes that Erik continued to “do things to thwart being prosecuted” while in custody, even after confessing.
Erik denies doing anything to try to set up an alibi for the murder. He says Lyle wrote Erik a long letter asking him not to testify about the sexual abuse.
“He did not want the secrets exposed. He thought that would be like killing my parents again.” – Erik M.
“The only alibi we had were two people who said we weren’t with them, we must have been somewhere else. We couldn’t manufacture an alibi after the fact.”
“I was genuinely doing my best to tell the truth, and did. I testified about the reloading, which I did not have to. There was no evidence.”
“I did my best to testify truthfully about what I did and did not do.”
Rachel Stern takes over questioning: (approx 10:10 a.m.)
She asks again about Erik using a fake ID to buy the guns, Erik explains his license may have been suspended or taken away due to traffic violations
On the burglaries, Erik tries to explain how he both feared his father and how “resisting my father in little ways” allowed him to feel like he could “live what what he’s doing until I go to college.” The burglaries, putting cinnamon in his father’s coffee instead of sugar, hiding when Jose came to the room, all counted as forms of this minor resistance, Erik says.
Erik describes a moment when Jose was pounding on his door on a Saturday night while he had the shotgun across his lap.
“He was such a larger than life figure to me,” says Erik, that he didn’t necessarily believe he could even kill Jose by shooting him.
“I was not going to let him come to my room. So I was going to do everything I could to resist.” — Erik M.
Break happens from 10:16-10:22 a.m.
3. 12:06 pm – 8.21.25
Erik says his risk areas are “Criminal thinking, substance abuse, violence, anger, impulsivity, cell phone use.” He says he has a “healthy relationship plan” and acknowledges concerns about co-dependency.
Barton wants to go over prison conduct.
“We recognize that you’ve served a lot of time, even as horrific as these murders are, they are not necessarily the thing” that would convince them Erik is a risk to public safety.
Barton asks if Erik developed more “anti-sociality” after coming to prison.
Erik says “in the first decade, absolutely.”
Barton says Erik’s record is “replete” with diverse violations including “violence, manipulation, misuse of things … you have criminal acts.”
Barton says in 1997, Erik was 26 or 27. In March 1997, there is a write-up for doing “personal letters” on a work device. Barton asks what character defect that depicts.
“Entitlement. Disobeying authority. Laziness. I could go on,” Erik says.
April ‘97, there’s a write-up for Erik lying/manipulating CDCR staff involving use of the visiting room, per Barton.
Erik says that incident involves him going to the chapel … incident of “excessive physical contact with the visitor.”
Similar incident happened in 2006 with his current wife.
“I was pushing the line occasionally in the visiting room with my wife because I was attracted to her and we had sexual feelings for one another and we had no way to really express those and it’s difficult to be next to a woman that I love and am attracted to and want to be with and I can only hold her hand. It was a lapse in judgment. This was not something I did every day.”
Barton says the woman’s 9-year-old daughter was there, asks why that didn’t provide deterrence.
Erik says “they were not being sexual” in that they were not engaging in sexual activity. Daughter was reading a book while Erik and the woman were snuggling, she rubbed his inner thigh.
“My daughter was across the table reading the book and my wife and I were snuggling … it was poor judgment but it was not intended to harm the child.” – Erik M.
In Nov. 1997, Barton says Erik M. has a fight with someone called “Mr. Brown.”
Erik says he “could have avoided” the physical altercation.
“While he struck me first, I acted aggressively with him. I did not de-escalate the event. I escalated it through my behavior.”
Barton describes a 1998 memo where an inmate named Quarles is described as an “enemy” of Erik M., that there were concerns about them being on the yard together.
Barton describes a cell search that resulted in a seizure of art supplies, wax candles, which all would have been contraband, in 1999. Erik says “most of it” was his but he took the blame for “all of it.”
Erik said he had paint rollers and tape to paint the cell.
“Alot of these things that you’re involved in, you don’t go to the next level to think about what the consequences are” – Barton says to Erik.
Barton asks about a time when supplies to make “Pruno” (prison wine) were found in Erik’s cell. Erik references also trying heroin in 1998.
Generally, Erik says, he didn’t care for alcohol. Says he was “allergic” to heroin.
Erik says generally in prison if he used alcohol or drugs it was because he was “miserable” and feeling hopeless due to his life w/o parole status.
“If I could numb my sadness with alcohol, I was going to do it … I would have taken other drugs to numb that pain … I was looking to ease that sadness within me.” – Erik M.
1999, Barton says Erik M. was placed on temporary non-contact status with his wife for “aggressive behavior.”
Another violation – spray paint was found in Erik’s cell in 2002, per Barton
“When I went into a cell, because I’m [life without parole], I knew I could spend the next 5 to 10 years there. So I tried to repaint it … put up shelves. Make it like a home.”
Barton points out the issue is how Erik obtained the spray paint. Erik says he bought it from someone on the yard, and smuggled it into his cell.
2003 – Barton says they found a Bible with a cutout in Erik’s cell. Erik says it was a Christian book, not the bible. Tobacco was inside, wrapped in cellophane, so it wouldn’t go stale. Erik admits this was “criminal thinking.”
2005 – Erik was transferred to Pleasant Valley from Folsom
Barton asks about a hunger strike.
Erik M. says when he was placed under a lot of restrictions regarding where he could live, or who he could live with, because of possible misuse of a state computer in a past facility regarding typing a personal manuscript on a state computer. This isolated him to one building in an “extremely violent” prison.
He went on a hunger strike leading to someone high up in CDCR to come negotiate with him.
There was a violation for Erik not taking properly prescribed medication (Welbutrin) which led him to lose visitation rights for six months.
Barton asks about Erik’s requests to live in the same facility as Lyle.
Barton says Erik was asked about his prior relationship with his brother in 2016, and Erik told staff he and Lyle never had any problems. Barton says this is a “lie.”
Erik references Lyle “molesting [me] as a kid,” says he withheld that from CDCR Staff.
Barton asks about Erik “doing things” for the 2-5ers (Pool Reporters Note: Two-Fivers? Unclear of spelling, but a prison gang).
Erik: “By 2016, a lot changed for me in 2013, says he’d been moved to [Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility],” away from the above referenced gang. Says he hadn’t seen his brother in quite some time and wanted to be closer to family.
Rummell and Barton argue over Barton’s characterization that Erik “lied” by withholding the details of Lyle molesting Erik as a child from CDCR. Says he was not required to tell CDCR every single detail of their relationship, when it was generally “good.”
Barton raises a fight between Erik and someone named “Mr. Farmer.” Erik classifies it as self-defense.
“I was guilty of mutual combat. I fought back,” – Erik M.
Barton is critical of Erik because the report says he continued to attack Farmer on the ground.
Erik says this person swung at him, he grabbed his arm, hit him in the back of the shoulder and pinned the man to the ground. Erik said he was simply restraining the man so he’d stop punching him.
Barton raises an allegation of Erik duping multiple inmates into buying him drugs which he didn’t pay for, leaving the debt on cellmates and friends behind after he was transferred to another prison.
“My roommate Melvin had a lot of debt that I was trying to help him payoff … I was using the canteen. I was negotiating.”
Barton asks about a tax fraud scam in or around 2013.
“The 2-5 was running the yard and they were in charge of the tax scheme on the yard and the guy they had filling out the forms [was released] so they came to me, and I jumped at the opportunity.” – Erik M.
Erik said his closest prison friends had recently been stabbed and raped, respectively, and “it was an extremely violent yard that I was trying to survive.”
“I was in tremendous fear. When the 2-5ers came and asked for help I thought this was a great opportunity to align myself with them and to survive,” Erik M. says, adding in that at this time he was still facing LWOP and thought he had to prioritize protecting himself over following the rules since he had no hope of getting out.
Erik says he didn’t personally control any of the checks.(Pool Reporter’s Note: It was not clear in the hearing what the exact nature of the “tax scam” was.)
When he was transferred one of the checks went missing, Erik said, and the 2-5ers blamed him. “Suddenly I was being called an informant. I was being told that I stole money, and that wasn’t true.”
Barton references a Feb. 2019 “confidential debrief” from another inmate referring to a 2002-2003 incident where Erik invited someone into his cell to smoke marijuana.
Erik says the 2-5ers were providing him marijauna, he did not have it mailed in or smuggled in.
Erik says an incident when a package was sent to him from El Cajon containing used markers “stuffed” with marijuana was sent purposely to get Erik in trouble. He didn’t receive it, and the board didn’t sustain any violation against Erik.
Rummel notes that Menendez is sent a lot of mail as a high profile inmate. Barton snipes at Rummel for testifying, which she has no right to do in this hearing, per him.
Barton references an Erik M. roommate from 2005-2013 who complained to CDCR staff that Erik wanted this person assaulted. Erik denies this and Barton points out the complaint was unfounded.
Barton brings up reports of Erik having access to a cell phone. Barton says Erik has stated he’s rented phones from people, but Erik says he never rented phones out. He did let other ppl use their phones.
“I was in the community of people using phones so if it was someone that I trusted or someone that knew I had a phone I didn’t want to tell him no.”
Says he lived in a six-man dorm, a locked room, so any roommate would be allowed to use it.
At another point in time, when Erik and Lyle were moved to the same facility, they both had phones, but Erik denied them sharing a phone.
Said his notoriety led people to always know he had phones and led to frequent CDCR searches for phones. Often, Erik said, he would allow others to use the phones in exchange for holding or hiding the phones when there were searches.
Erik says he didn’t truly believe he’d have any chance of leaving prison until the end of 2024.
“What I got in terms of the phone and my connection with the outside world was far greater than the consequences of me getting caught with the phone.” – Erik M.
“In November of 2024, now the consequences mattered. Now the consequences meant I was destroying my life.”
Jan. 2025 – Erik says he had an in-depth conversation with a CDCR Lieutenant and took a criminal thinking class in which he learned a lot more about the impacts of cell phones in a prison.
“There is no tentacle to drugs that isn’t destructive … it’s the same. The damage of using a phone is as corrosive to a prison environment as drugs are. In the sense that someone must bring them in, they must be paid for, it corrupts staff … phones can be used to elicit more criminal activity.”
Erik says he was using the phones for “connection with my wife, watching YouTube, listening to music, watching movies, porn. Anything you could do on a phone, I did.”
Barton says he’s concerned how many of Erik’s support letters discuss how much of a “model inmate” he has been, because he believes that minimizes the seriousness of the cell phone violations.
Erik says he started to go through clemency process in March 2025.
Erik says he got a “wake up call” when he got caught with a phone late in 2024.
“From 2013 on I was living for a different in purpose. My purpose in life was to be a good person … I asked myself who do I want to be when I die. I believe I’m going to face a different parole board when I die.” – Erik M.
“I did not like who I was in 2013. I did not like using drugs. I did not like helping the 2-5 … it just made me feel ugly and dirty.” – Erik M.
“I really became addicted to the phones. You’re doing life without [parole], this is not really harming anyone.” – Erik M.
When he realizes he has a chance to get out, Erik says, his “consequential thinking” kicked in … “I can’t be doing this. I don’t know how people know they’re going to go to the board in five to 10 years could be doing this.”
Says he paid $1,000 per phone. Erik says he got the money from a friend who was paroled pre-COVID.
Barton expresses concern that someone who was paroled helped Erik with a criminal act.
Barton questions Erik about the sprawling impact of phone use again, as it logically meant a CDCR staffer had to bring a phone in, that a prison gang may have benefitted by taxing the import of the phone.
“I knew of 50, 60 people that had phones. They were just available … I justified it by saying if I don’t buy it someone else is going to buy it. The phones were going to be sold and I longed for that connection” – Erik M.
ERIK MENENDEZ PAROLE HEARING (2)
COMPLETE POOL REPORTS
Parts 4, 5, and 6
Aug. 21, 2025
4. 1:40 pm – 8.21..25
Questioning Resumed at 12:16 p.m.
Barton asks why Erik stopped using drugs.
“I didn’t like who I was when I was using drugs. I wanted to make significant changes in my life. I had been in the mindset that I did not want to use anymore.”
Erik M. says on 10/14/23 “I made a commitment to my mother, that was my mother’s birthday” that he would stop using drugs.
“I never want to use again. I will never use again. And I will honor the commitment that I made in October 2013.”
Barton asks why Erik “waited so long” to use the cell phones.
Erik says it was an issue of “access.”
Erik continues to talk about his cell phone use in terms of addiction.
Commissioner Stern takes over questioning:
She questions Erik on why he thought it was still worth it to use the cell phones once the re-sentencing processes had begun. Erik again repeats the comments about he hadn’t “woken up” to the consequences which obviously far outweighed the punishment.
Erik said, if anything, he wanted to use the phone to get more information about how or if the D.A. was really going to pursue resentencing.
He admits he was more motivated by consequence than morality with regard to phone use.
Rachel points out other family members could have provided him that information. He also had access to a television to see the news.
“One of the driving factors for me was a desire to have private conversations,” he says, noting CDCR staff were listening to his approved prison phone calls and letters, and expressed concern that anything he said would be reported to the D.A.’s office.
Stern asks how Erik’s wife felt about him using a contraband phone.
“By calling her on the phone I did damage to my relationship with her. She felt it was immature and I was not being smart by using the phone,” Erik says, noting that this is the reason he lost family visits.
Sterns says he lost family visits for 3 years as a consequence.
Stern says Erik has done “gobs of programming” and that listing all of it would take “until next week.”
Stern talks about Erik’s “relapse prevention plan for anger management.”
Erik says he was “angry, if not rageful, at my Dad for coming into my room and not letting me go to college. At my Mom for knowing … that night, yes, I was terrified for my safety but I was also angry and anger was a part of my childhood throughout my young adult life.”
“The anger at my mother was incredible. I felt incredibly betrayed by my Mother in that last week,” before the murder, Erik says.
He recalls a moment when Jose was “whipping” him and he just looked at his Mother, who did not intercede.
On the night of the murder, Erik said anger “exploded out of me and I can’t imagine being angry at my Mom now. I wasn’t angry an hour afterwards and as I’ve grown I’ve realized just how severe the trauma was that she experienced.”
Erik talks a lot here about his relationship with God and dealing with “toxic shame,” says he even had to repeat a mantra of “you’re worthy, you’re loved, you’re good enough” over and over again before the hearing.
Says he had to admit to the phone violation in a group he was running.
“I can’t do anything in this facility without people knowing it.”
Says he’s terrified and wakes up in cold sweats about some of the violations as they come out in this hearing, such as the tax scam issue possibly destroying his credibility in male sexual assault survivor community.
(The Commissioners are really focused on the cell phone issue. Menendez often defaults to “you’re absolutely right” or “1000%” as default apologetic phrasing when grilled on these issues)
Stern asking about Erik’s work with a “hospice group.” Talks about his work with a life inmate named Thomas, a WWII veteran with a conviction for unspecified sexual violence. Erik says he took the man to “chow,” helped him with his bedding … he saw it as a way to make amends for his father.
Erik said this experience highlighted to him that there’s a lot of bullying of the elderly in prison, who he said were very alone and uncared for. Erik says he created this “life care & hospice group” as a support group and even brought in some of the bullies to try and dispel the idea that there’s a hierarchy of crimes inside.
Erik says his current role is to get inmates to work 1-on-1 with other inmates who are struggling: either elderly, disabled or people that have life-limiting illnesses. Says he’s currently a caregiver. Stern actually thanks him for working on that program.
Erik recently graduated from UCLA, in June.
Stern asks about boundaries with Lyle. Erik says he now stands up for himself, that he doesn’t put his older brother’s needs ahead of his own. They tend to do different programming ,don’t facilitate classes together or share clothing. Erik says Lyle is respectful of those boundaries.
1 p.m. – Attorneys are now allowed to ask clarifying questions
DDA Balian begins to direct questions through Barton. Balian wants to know about a witness named Tracy Baker, who testified that Kitty Menendez tried to poison the family at a dinner. Balian asks if Erik knew Lyle wrote a script for her to testify to that.
Erik says he was unaware.
Balian says Erik testified at both trials to the details in the Baker script. Erik said he believed he testified that Kitty threatened to poison the family, “which was true,” but that he didn’t testify to the specific Baker incident that Balian was referencing.
Balian asks about Erik discussing with Lyle plans to suborn perjury. Erik said he was not happy about it.
Balian tries to ask again if Erik was aware of Lyle planning to get someone to testify to an allegation that Jose raped them. Barton is pushing back on Balian’s questioning somewhat, since he says he won’t hold Erik responsible for Lyle’s behavior.
Balian asks why Erik killed his mother. Barton says he’s already answered that question.
Erik – “I saw my mother and my father as one person after I learned that she knew, so when I was running into the den, I was in a state of terror, of panic, of rage. I didn’t parse out in my mind my mother or my father I ran in because fear was compelling me to run to the den. So I didn’t, I didn’t, I didn’t, think Mom or Dad, I just thought I’ve gotta get there before my Dad exits the den.”
Balian asks if Erik believed his Mother was going to kill him
Erik – “Yes… please understand that I’m trying to reason it out through my brain as an 18-year-old. At the time, one of the things that was exploding in my mind was my Dad isd going to come up to my room and rape me.”
“My brain was not processing in any capacity to have logical or rational thought,” – Erik, who also said his Mom bought a gun the year before and said she was going to kill somebody.
Balian tries to talk through Kitty begging for her life, saying “No” before the final shot , but Barton dismisses as irrelevant.
Balian asks if there was any discussion of reloading, Erik says no it was instinctual.
Balian asking about pre-planning, Erik says no. Erik says no discussion of murder ahead of time.
Balian asks about Erik’s role in the first burglary, which he acknowledges he was an active participant in.
Balian asks about animosity Erik felt toward his father at the time of the burglaries. Barton blocks this as both commissioners asked about it and it was discussed at length.
“We’re not here to prove pre-meditation … while I’m giving Mr. Balian leeway, I’m not going to give him much more. We’re not here to retry this case.” – Barton.
Balian again asks about Erik’s hatred for his parents, Barton again says this has been asked and answered.
(Balian repeatedly refers to Menendez as “the inmate”)
“I know you’re a seasoned prosecutor so I know you know how this works … I’m not going to belabor these points. This is not the time for closing arguments.” – Barton, growing increasingly annoyed with Balian questions on the purchase of the guns.
When Balian asks again about confusion over an attempt to buy handguns or shotguns, Barton simply responds “I don’t care.”
Balian raises the idea of Erik being disinherited by Jose, and Erik’s contemplation of suicide after the murder. Balian goes to ask about Erik looking into the status of a “competing will,” and Barton cuts him off again.
Rummel also objects that Balian is fishing for info to address the habeas motion.
Barton: “These questions seem to be asked so you can then put them in your argument … let’s move to something that actually clarifies testimony.”
Balian asking about the purpose of using the cell phones. Erik says he didn’t use them for any other criminal purposes.
Balian brings up the idea of the killings being staged as a mafia hit, Barton says its irrelevant.
“I’m not going to play that game, Mr. Balian. It’s not relevant to me that he’s corrected the record.” – Barton says of Balian asking questions that imply Erik committed perjury at trial.
5. 3;04 pm – 8.21.25
Heidi Rummel begins questioning her client – 1:30 p.m. break. Resume at 1:40 p.m.
She asks about Erik’s resistance to Jose’s behavior.
“Resistance to my Dad was how I retained my sanity,” he said.
Says sometimes he drowned his food in lemon to “reduce my taste buds to semen.”
Referred to himself as “Hurt Man” sometimes.
Rummel asks about how Erik’s life changed in 2013.
Erik says faith was a “fundamental component”
“Being an LWOP prisoner is not an excuse but it is a devastating sentence. Hopelessness in prison is devastating,” Erik says to rationalize some of his prison behaviors and violations.
Rummel asks when the last time Erik was tempted to go outside of his moral guardrails was and how he handled it
Erik: “It happened last week.” – he said he wore his full prison outfit, despite it being very hot, because he didn’t want to engage in entitled behavior.
“It’s not that I don’t have the thoughts. It’s now that I catch them.”
Erik describes his journey through the prison system as a “journey into hell,” referring to the Level 4 (high security) yard in Pleasant Valley. He says being away from Lyle may have played a part in his drug use as Lyle is “heavily anti-drug.”
Rummel asks about Erik’s relationship with Lyle in prison.
Says he was ashamed to tell Lyle about his drug use, his tax fraud issues with the 2-5 gang, and their cell phone use.
Erik says now they’re “serious accountability partners.”
“If we have an itch or fall into a trigger we discuss it with each other.”
Barton begins questioning Erik if Lyle introduced him to cell phone use in prison or vice-versa, Erik says no.
Rummel asks what Jose or Kitty would think of Erik, but Barton says it’s irrelevant. “His father’s opinion of him has no relevance to me whatsoever.”
“Seeing my crimes through my family’s eyes has been a huge part of my evolution and my growth. Just seeing the pain and the suffering. Understanding the magnitude of what I’ve done, the generational impact.” – Erik M.
Talks about the pain he has put his aunts and uncles through, even Milton, the one relative who did not want them set free.
“I’ve called it a forever crime. It will impact every generation to be born. I cannot express sorrow and remorse enough. Doing it for the rest of my life will not be enough.” – Erik M.
Closing Statements: 2:09 p.m.
Barton places a 10-minute rule on Balian & Rummel
Balian:
“I don’t know that it’s possible to state the people’s position in 10 minutes.”
“No doubt Mr. Menendez has sat in many classrooms and earned many achievements … no doubt he’s made many pro-social efforts to improve himself. We don’t dispute that … we applaud it.”
“We hope that he one day achieves redemption. But the real question is did he learn, in all those classes … the most important lesson of all. Does he understand the full severity and depravity of his conduct?”
Balian questions if Menendez’s behavior is “Calculated” to get a result here.
Balian says much of Menendez’s improvement is solely motivated by having a chance to be released.
“To justify killing his Mom at trial he had to claim self defense b/c any purported sexual abuse would not legally justify the killings.”
He’s on the Lyle-Baker script again, regarding the allegation that Kitty tried to poison the family.
Balian is reading Erik’s testimony about this poisoning allegation into the record, says it matches the Lyle script closely, and now claims Erik lied to the parole board today and minimized his accountability.
Balian again revisits the idea that Erik was asking about the status of the competing will within 24 hours. Then he turns to the spending spree post murders.
“He never accepts anything. He had to create a fake false self defense narrative,” Balian said. “A narrative he continues pushing today.”
Balian attacks the self-defense motive and brings up the original prosecution theory of greed/fiscal motive again.
Barton: “all of this is in your brief … if you want to get to current dangerousness, that’s probably where you want to focus.”
Balian starts reading from the prison risk assessment which raises concerns about Erik’s anti-social behavior, makes reference to Erik “having advance knowledge of an escape plan in prison,” (which has not been brought up yet).
“He’s on the road. He’s not there yet. He doesn’t have insight [into his crimes],” Balian on Erik’s suitability.
“When what you’ve done is shotgun your parents to death, deleted any competing wills, taken their money, spent their money, you’re a violent person.” – Bailian
“When one continues to diminish their responsibility for a crime and continues to make the same false excuses that they’ve made for 30+ years, one is still that same dangerous person that they were when they shotgunned their parents.” – Bailian
“Is he truly reformed, or is he just saying what wants to be heard?” – Balian
“He is not reformed. He is still an unreasonable risk to society. He has no insight into his crimes.” – Balian.
Rummel Closing:
“36 years is a lifetime. It’s two of Mr. Menendez’s lifetimes at the time he committed this crime. The legal determination for this board today is whether Erik Menendez poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society … not whether he was dangerous to his parents in 1989. Not what his brother did … not whether his belief in his fear of his parents was reasonable or unreasonable.”
She says he was not dangerous prior to those crimes.
“This crime, as the rest of the world seems to understand, was driven by extraordinary trauma, physical abuse, emotional abuse and relentless domination by his parents.”
“Yes, Mr. Balian, it is a terrifying crime. But what was happening in that home, to young teenagers, was also terrifying.”
Rummel recasts his CDCR violations as “low level violations” to survive that pales in comparison to the behavior of most inmates on high-security yards. She claims he called out to a guard tower for help the first time he saw a bloody fight in prison.
“In 2013, with life without parole and no remote possibility of leaving prison … he made dramatic changes in his life. He found his faith. He became accountable to his higher power. He found sobriety and made a promise to his mother on her birthday.”
“Has he been perfect since 2013? No. But he has been remarkable. His journey is inspiring. He was raised in a family where wealth and success masked complete dysfunction.”
“Every lesson he was taught is a lesson that shouldn’t have been taught to a young child.”
Rummel turns to the cell phone use and acknowledges that’s a big issue but she asks the panel to contextualize the choices.
“What’s important is where he is now.”
“There is not a nexus from his cell phone use and the criminal thinking that was involved in it, back to his crime.”
“What made him dangerous was unresolved trauma, a myopic fear and an inability to ask for help … going to his brother for help instead of asking for police.”
“Being Erik Menendez in prison means all eyes on you. Staff love to write up the Menendez brothers for things they’ve done and things that aren’t even against the rules.”
Rummel says the risk assessment by CDCR overly focuses on the cell phone use, and again repeats the point that it has nothing to do with this crime.
“Mr. Menendez is so far from the person he was when he committed this crime.”
“Never have I been in a hearing where so many family members, who know him so well and who knew what happened in that house and who loved his parents, have gone so far out of their way to support his release.”
Erik Menendez Closing Statement:
Says this is the first time he and many of these relatives have all been together in 35 years.
“Yesterday was Aug. 20th. Aug. 20, 1989 was the day that I killed my parents. Today is August 21st. Today is the day that all of my victims learned my parents were dead. So today is the anniversary of their trauma journey.”
Erik talks about how he and his brother have been the center of this story for 36 years, and that always disturbed him because: “This crime is about my family. It’s about what they’ve endured. What they’ve suffered. What they’ve gone through, and that’s not about me at all. The real impact of this is about them.”
Erik says he sees trauma in younger generations of his family, people who weren’t alive when the murders happened, even if they don’t. Erik talks about how this has caused divisions and disassociation in the family through the constant media attention.
“I just want my family to understand that I am so unimaginably sorry for what I have put them through from Aug. 20, 1989 until this day, and this hearing. I know that they have been here for me and they’re here for me today, but I want them to know that this should be about them. It’s about them and if I ever get the chance at freedom I want the healing to be about them.”
“Don’t think it’s the healing of me, it’s the healing of the family. This is a family tragedy.”
Victim Relatives are about to begin speaking. There are 18 expected speakers. 3:04 p.m.
6. 4:22 pm – 8.21.25
This is largely a quote rail of victim impact statements. There are still 8 speakers remaining.
Stuart Hart
Says he’s known Erik M. for 33 years
“He’s been incarcerated for nearly all of his 54 years of life,” Hart says, comparing his upbringing under Jose’s “terrorizing” ways to a form of imprisonment
“He’s planned for, and will find, at ready support … to live constructively and freely in society.”
Father Deasy:
Says he’s long ministered to the incarcerated.
Deasy is dismissive that prisons can be homes for rehabilitation when there is “so much despair, hopelessness, not being understood.”
“When I met Erik he always was remorseful, since Day 1. I often wonder what it would be like before all this stuff … before he killed his parents.”
Says Erik was “raised in evil. In sickness.”
“Let’s not worry about cell phones. Oh my gosh we spent a half hour on cell phones. I know we have rules with institutional living, I know it better than the Our Father. But you’ve gotta know the kid.”
“Is he a current danger? No. He’s not violent. He speaks calmly and gently. I’ve never seen him … he was one of the guys that said ‘Ya know Ken, I’ve never known friendship until I’ve known you.’”
Teresita Menendez-Baralt (Erik’s aunt, Jose’s brother)
She starts crying immediately, speaking rapidly, almost out of breath
“I want to make clear that although I love my brother, I have fully forgiven Erik.”
She says Erik is a “sweet gentle soul” who deserved love, she says she wishes she could go back in time to “shield him in the way he should have been protected.”
“Erik carries himself with kindness, integrity and strength that comes from patience and grace. Erik has asked for my forgiveness for the crime, for two trials, for the 35 years of media attention and for the ongoing trauma, including today.”
She notes she is dying from Stage 4 cancer.
“The truth is I do not know how much time I have left. If Erik is granted parole, it would be a blessing to help him in any way I can … more than anything I hope I live long enough to welcome him into my home. To sit at the same table. To wrap my arms around him. That would bring me immeasurable peace and joy.”
Natascha Leonardo, Kitty’s great-niece
She says much of his cell phone use is motivated by curiosity, not criminality. That they often talk about this, that she’s trying to work on it with him together.
Promises to the parole board she will house him in Colorado, where he can spend time with his family and enjoying nature like he once did at his New Jersey home, away from the public eye. She says Erik is incredibly close with her kids. Promises to provide him a home of “unconditional love and stability.”
“We’re not asking you to release Erik into uncertainty. We’re asking you to release him into a network of love and support.”
Eileen Cano, Jose and Kitty’s niece
Says she loved both victims dearly. Is also tearful throughout her time speaking.
“I will admit my uncle was a powerful, successful and to some an intimidating man who expected the most of his kids.”
Tears up remembering Erik staying with her for the Christmas following the murders and describes him screaming in the middle of the night in terror.
“Never in a million years did I think Erik could be capable of doing such a thing.”
Said she’s speaking on behalf of dead relatives, including Jose’s mother,
“I know Erik wishes Aug. 20, 1989 never happened. And I know he lives with his pain and his remorse.”
“He took full accountability for every single action. His words deeply moved and healed me.”
“He’s prepared to contribute positively using his experiences to mentor, guide and inspire others.”
“I have already witnessed my grandmother and my mother pass away, without ever having a chance to fully heal from this tragedy,” she says, but notes several other relatives are older and in poor health and could be denied a chance to see Erik walk free if the board doesn’t grand today.
Tiffani Lucero Pastor, speaking on behalf of Joan Vandermolen, who is 93 and not physically able to speak. Joan is Kitty’s sister.
“Joan wants you to know how much she loves Erik and how much she loved her sister, Kitty. She misses them both … she still mourns
“My grandmother struggles with the shame and humiliation of the fact that the boys suffered abuse, and that her sister remained silent.”
Tiffani says Joan is “horrified” by the fact that Kitty did not stand up for the boys.
“Joan does not shy away from the fact that Erik killed her sister. But Erik has earned a second chance … she is so proud of how he has worked relentlessly on himself, emotionally, spiritually.”
“I cannot emphasize enough Joan wants you to know she has forgiven Erik and she wants to see him outside of prison walls. She is proud of who he is today.”
“As she approaches her 94th birthday, right around Erik’s birthday, it is my grandmother’s most heartful wish that Erik be given a second chance. He cannot undo the past … but he will continue to live a life of service, of purpose, in honor of those he hurt.”
Tiffani now reading a letter from her sister, Tamara Lucero-Goddell, Speaker 7
Tamara is Kitty’s great niece.
“I am also looking forward to helping connect him to other leaders in healthcare” to help connect him to people who can help Erik expand the healthcare and hospice programs he started in prison.
She credits Erik with giving her space to discuss the nature of the crime and question him.
“I have come to understand forgiveness and repentance in a different way.”
Tiffany Lucero-Pastor now speaking for herself.
She’s Karen Vandermolen-Copley’s oldest daughter.
She was a teenager in 1989, immediately begins crying as she starts to speak.
“To say that our family has experienced pain does not quite capture what the last 35 years have been like … it has divided us. It has caused us panic and anxiety. It has led to many of us retreating.”
“What I know now is that when one has no hope, and then one is given hope, it follows that one can change.”
“I will support Erik. I will answer his calls day and night. I will tell him the truth, even if it’s not popular or comfortable.”
Kathleen Simonton (Joan’s daughter, Kitty’s niece)
Says she lived with the family for a few months, and it was one of the worst times in her life. She said it was “depressing and horrible.” Kept her remarks short as she had a lot covered in letters that are in the file
Marta Cano Hallowell (Jose’s niece)
“He has a long journey. But he has all of us beside him … making sure he second guesses himself if he does anything he’s not quite supposed too. We will keep him accountable.”