Erik Menendez was denied parole after making his bid for freedom before California’s parole board.

The younger of the two notorious Menendez brothers, who were both convicted in the 1989 shotgun murders of their wealthy parents in Beverly Hills, made his first plea before the parole board on Thursday morning.

His brother, Lyle, is scheduled to face his own parole suitability hearing on Friday. Both brothers were made eligible for paroled release after they were resentenced by a judge in May.

Erik Menendez can try for parole again at another hearing in three years, the board ruled.

His bid for freedom isn’t over. The denial is likely to shift focus to Gov Gavin Newsom, who is separately mulling a clemency request from the brothers.

Clemency could come in the form of a reduced sentence or even a pardon, but it would not overturn the brother’s convictions. Weighing in on such a high-profile and controversial case could be politically risky for Newsom, who is thought to be a likely contender for president.

Apart from parole and clemency, the brothers have also asked a new trial due to additional evidence being discovered in the case.

A judge is mulling the request, but it is opposed by the Los Angeles district attorney’s office.

During the hearing, a prosecutor from the district attorney’s office argued against Erik’s release, saying positive changes in his behaviour was only motivated by a chance at release. They argued he was “still an unreasonable risk to society” and that “he has no insight into his crimes”.

Erik appeared virtually for the hearing from the San Diego prison where he has been housed, wearing a blue prison jumpsuit and eyeglasses. Members of his family, his attorneys and a prosecutor from the Los Angeles district attorney’s office also appeared on a video call with the parole board panel.

During the nearly all-day hearing, the panel asked him about the killings, his relationship with his parents and his attempts to cover up guilt in the murders. He grew emotional at times, describing the moments he opened fire on his parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, with a shotgun as they watched TV in their Beverly Hills mansion.

The brothers shot the pair more than a dozen times, Erik even reloading the gun and continuing to fire on his mother. He and his brother have long claimed self-defence and said they were being abused sexually.

“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,” Erik said during the hearing before he knew his fate.

“If I ever get the chance at freedom, I want the healing to be about them,” he said. “Don’t think it’s the healing of me – it’s the healing of the family. This is a family tragedy.”

The board questioned him about his time in prison and legal issues before the killings, including being involved in two burglaries. He said his time in prison helped him develop a “moral guardrail”.

The panel also examined factors such as his health and whether he would be a danger to society if released from prison. A risk assessment done for him found him to be a “moderate” risk if released.

They reviewed the schooling and positive programs he’d been involved with in prison, along with transgressions he had while in lockup, including prison fights and being found multiple times with contraband. While behind bars, he’d got in trouble for having a cell phone, art supplies and tobacco – which he’d hidden inside a religious book.

A coalition of relatives, who have long advocated for the brothers’ release, and supporters also spoke before the board, testifying that Erik had changed during his lengthy sentence.

Teresita Menendez-Baralt, Jose Menendez’s sister, broke down in tears as she spoke before the panel, telling them she’s forgiven Erik for killing her brother and the years of trauma he caused their family.

She said that she is dying from stage four cancer.

“The truth is I do not know how much time I have left. If Erik is granted parole, it would be a blessing,” she told them. “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.”

The brothers’ high-profile murder trials were among those that defined the last century.

During their trials, the brothers claimed the killings were done in self-defence and said they’d suffered years of emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of their parents.

Prosecutors, though, argued they were greedy, entitled monsters who meticulously planned the killings then lied to authorities investigating the case while going on a $700,000 (£526,0000) spending spree – with purchases including a new Porsche, Jeep and Rolex watches – with their parents’ estate.

They weren’t arrested until police got word of their admissions to a psychologist.

Three decades later, the case was re-examined in the public thanks to a mix of new evidence, attention on TikTok, Netflix’s drama series Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story and celebrities weighing in.

But movement in the courts didn’t happen until Los Angeles’ former top prosecutor re-examined the case and asked for a judge to re-sentence them, citing California’s evolving approach to juvenile offenders and abuse survivors.

A change in state law allows offenders who were under the age of 26 at the time of their crime to be sentenced as minors rather than adults. Lyle was 21 and Erik was 18 when they killed their parents.

Despite the new LA District Attorney Nathan Hochman fighting against the resentencing effort, a judge in May reduced their sentences to 50 years to life with the possibility of parole.

Hochman accused Erik of continuing to “display narcissistic and antisocial traits” and his office fiercely argued in court against both Erik and Lyle’s release.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on X to get the latest alerts.

Families calling for an inquiry into maternity care in East Sussex say they feel “ignored, exhausted and dismissed” after meeting the chair of a national review.

The group met with Baroness Amos on Wednesday, claiming she was poorly briefed and that no progress was made.

The families, who all lost babies under the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Trust, have been campaigning for 18 months for an inquiry and insist that senior midwife Donna Ockenden is appointed to lead it.

The Department of Health and Social Care has been approached for comment.

In June, Health Secretary Wes Streeting announced a rapid review into maternity services in England and last week appointed Baroness Amos, a former senior diplomat, to lead it. Streeting said he wanted the work to be completed by December and that up to 10 local areas would have their maternity services examined as part of the investigation.

Nine families in Sussex, who say medical errors led to their babies’ deaths, were promised a review by Streeting and the group thought the meeting with Baroness Amos would progress the case.

But they said the chair told them that she was not aware of the history or expectations of the families, and that she did not have the power to decide who would lead it.

“We have spoken to Wes Streeting directly and to the Department of Health & Social Care again and again about the toll these meetings take on us,” the families said in a statement.

“To set aside an hour of our time for a meeting where appropriate preparation had not taken place was deeply dispiriting, and to feel we have still not made progress on our review, despite many months of presenting a clear case for one, drafting the terms of reference and securing the support of Donna Ockenden, is infuriating.”

Ms Ockenden is currently leading a review of maternity care in Nottingham having previously examined services at the Shrewsbury and Telford NHS trust.

Shortly before the meeting, the families were told that Kathryn Whitehill, a former inspector with the Care Quality Commission, had been appointed as an investigator on the review, causing anger among several families who had suffered poor maternity care.

“Bereaved parents had been promised they would be consulted on any appointments and have consistently fed back to the government that this investigation cannot be undertaken by anyone working for the regulators responsible for holding trusts accountable for maternity safety,” the statement from the families added.

“These organisations are part of the system that has continued to deliver unsafe maternity care, and as such should be part of the focus of the investigation rather than leading it.”

The appointment of Ms Whitehill “raises serious doubts about whether the review can be independent or trusted”, the statement added.

The concerns of the group come in the wake of criticism of the rapid review last week from a wider group of families.

The Maternity Safety Alliance, which represents families from areas which have experienced poor maternity care, said Streeting’s inquiry was “doomed to fail” before it has begun due to the behaviour of the Department of Health and NHS England.

Some other families have however expressed a willingness to work with Baroness Amos.