Is anyone watching Dirty John tonight? Betty Broderick's story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You forget that Betty had an emotional spending problem. $16K a month back in 1989 was a lot of money. It was stated in the series that Dan was willing to give her half of his law practice. Did he play hardball? Yes, but why would anyone want to support an able bodied ex spouse more than they need to?

Saying that he played "hardball" is a HA-UGE understatement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why her parole keeps getting denied when she's served her full sentence and apparently been a model inmate who's done a lot of good in prison. Criminals with far worse records serve less than 30 years. If she's allowed out under house arrest, living with one of her children, what danger does anyone think this senior citizen would pose to society?

A lot! I wouldn’t trust her to not pull a gun on me if I pissed her off for whatever reason.

If she's under house arrest and the parole board stipulates no weapons in the house? Don't think you, or anyone else, would have anything to fear.

Do you want to have Betty Broderick as a neighbor? I’ve lived next door to two different older divorced women who didn’t kill their exes, but I’m certain they seriously thought about it. One actually was committed for a while after she trashed a neighbor’s house. Their sense of victimhood and anger permeates everything they do. My husband is older than I am, and we are well off financially (more than half the money is mine, fwiw) and I guess that triggers them, but they constantly try to pick fights with my husband over nothing. One of them told one of my family members that my husband is unstable and he beats me. He just refuses to engage with them, which makes them even more crazy. I worry that the one we live near now will do something. I have several other neighbors who are older divorced ladies who are quite normal, btw. I wouldn’t bet on the murders being the only manifestation of this lady’s craziness.

This! The problem with someone like Betty is the total lack of boundaries and self-awareness. If she can murder two people in cold blood, the father of her kids, included, where do you think you’d stand? Plus, In her 70s, she wouldn’t have much to lose and it is clear that prison didn’t deter her from committing her offenses. People who defend her wouldn’t say the same if it had been Her ex-husband who shot her dead in her sleep. Why does she get a pass for being a privileged white lady?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why her parole keeps getting denied when she's served her full sentence and apparently been a model inmate who's done a lot of good in prison. Criminals with far worse records serve less than 30 years. If she's allowed out under house arrest, living with one of her children, what danger does anyone think this senior citizen would pose to society?

A lot! I wouldn’t trust her to not pull a gun on me if I pissed her off for whatever reason.

If she's under house arrest and the parole board stipulates no weapons in the house? Don't think you, or anyone else, would have anything to fear.

Do you want to have Betty Broderick as a neighbor? I’ve lived next door to two different older divorced women who didn’t kill their exes, but I’m certain they seriously thought about it. One actually was committed for a while after she trashed a neighbor’s house. Their sense of victimhood and anger permeates everything they do. My husband is older than I am, and we are well off financially (more than half the money is mine, fwiw) and I guess that triggers them, but they constantly try to pick fights with my husband over nothing. One of them told one of my family members that my husband is unstable and he beats me. He just refuses to engage with them, which makes them even more crazy. I worry that the one we live near now will do something. I have several other neighbors who are older divorced ladies who are quite normal, btw. I wouldn’t bet on the murders being the only manifestation of this lady’s craziness.

This! The problem with someone like Betty is the total lack of boundaries and self-awareness. If she can murder two people in cold blood, the father of her kids, included, where do you think you’d stand? Plus, In her 70s, she wouldn’t have much to lose and it is clear that prison didn’t deter her from committing her offenses. People who defend her wouldn’t say the same if it had been Her ex-husband who shot her dead in her sleep. Why does she get a pass for being a privileged white lady?

Because she was an *abused* privileged white lady. I don't think she'd bother anyone at all if under strict house arrest, do you? But it doesn't matter what I think. Given the severity of the crime and lack of remorse, no parole board will release her. Until she experiences serious health problems and possibly a compassionate release at that point. Either way, she'd be under house arrest and wouldn't be interacting with anyone other than family and friends in a confined space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why her parole keeps getting denied when she's served her full sentence and apparently been a model inmate who's done a lot of good in prison. Criminals with far worse records serve less than 30 years. If she's allowed out under house arrest, living with one of her children, what danger does anyone think this senior citizen would pose to society?

Usually expressing remorse is a condition of parole. Has she ever admitted it was wrong to kill them? During her first couple of hearings, she would not admit to being wrong.

In one of her parole hearings, she did express remorse. Maybe it wasn't perceived as sincere? I have to say after reading about all of his despicable behavior, I can imagine it would be hard for her to be anything but relieved. But she should be able to say, genuinely, that she was wrong to handle her anger the way she did.

Probably because she was remorseful that not everyone viewed her as the victim and that she was still in jail.

I actually think she was a victim but being the victim of extreme psychological abuse still does not justify murder. There's the rub.

She was absolutely a victim of abuse. And agree that it didn’t justify murder.

+3 and that's what she needs to clearly state in her parole hearing, in a believable manner. The problem is she doesn't believe that, which is why she may never be released.

I think that's right. Her son said something like she's a nice lady and everyone would believe that until she starts talking about Dan. Decades later she's still "angry" according to the parole board. I understand her anger, but she should be able to distinguish between that and her overreaction. But I do feel for her, and the fact that she must have felt she had no recourse when being totally screwed over by her reptile of an ex.

Do prisons really provide that type of mental health treatment that would have helped her process what led to her decision and to be truly remorseful for her actions? It seems like she’d need intensive therapy and possibly meds.

If I'm not mistaken, she worked organizing the prison psychologist's office for a while. So seems there is therapeutic support available, but who knows how good it is or whether she took advantage of it. I wonder how beneficial it would be for someone who has no empathy for two people who gaslit her and treated her like complete and utter trash. I wonder how she'd be able to work through that to at least admit that murder is wrong, even in the face of psychological abuse.

I read an interesting psych analysis stating she was diagnosed as having narcissistic personality disorder and that a major trigger for narc rage is any kind of large blow to the ego plus loss of control. Now of course seems clear Dan also had NPD, a profound lack of empathy for sure, and he had all the financial and legal power and stripped her of all control. That is one toxic stew. So is her lack of empathy for the victims due to narcissism, an understandable response to gaslighting and emotional abuse, or some combo?

This rings true to me. Two narcs at war, but only one of them held all the cards.

There were really good performances across the board in the DJ series, but I really liked the way the Dr. Lustermans character (played by the Machiavellian guy from Scandal) explained the psychological devastation wrought by years of infidelity and gaslighting. That helped me understand why she reacted in such a ferocious and irrational manner.

[Anonymous]

^^he's the real deal, award-winning etc. I gave his book to a friend who found it very helpful. However, the prosecution was able to suppress much of the effective testimony he provided at the first trial.

[Anonymous]

Interesting conversation here.

Which BTW is why production companies are still making reenactments and shows about the Broderick's story. It's unique, it's horrifying, and everyone is a villain and a victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting conversation here.

Which BTW is why production companies are still making reenactments and shows about the Broderick's story. It's unique, it's horrifying, and everyone is a villain and a victim.

Yes, well said.

[Anonymous]

It's a tragic story all around. She was wrong to murder them, nothing excuses that or makes it okay. That being said, Dan really screwed with her head and he contributed to the crazy. He never tried to de-escalate the situation. And Linda, why on earth would you stay with a man with a crazy ex-wife with the behavior she was exhibiting? She was in it for the money too. She also pursued a married man. Nothing about that is right either.

And her family, they certainly didn't help her.

Dan was so arrogant he didn't think he needed a security system, and yes, they were a thing back in the 80's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Betty had an inflated sense of working hard. I guess for the time yeah she probably felt like she “worked hard” those early years but she was a sahm who worked part time jobs or if she worked full time a d had two kids so what? She was so upset that she “supported” Dan but meh, in today’s world what she did was so minimal.

And they were married for 14 years which is long but not that long. Maybe if it had been 20 or 25 years then I could understand.

She loved her lifestyle and the life she had created and she didn’t want to give it up. She couldn’t imagine moving on when it would have been so incredibly easy for her. She could have remarried some other rich guy and Dan would very likely have given her full custody and generous child support just so he could get on with his next phase of life. She was so incredibly short sighted!

Wow, way to minimize her contributions to the family. They were together for 18 years--close enough to 20 for you?

By all accounts she was an excellent mother to four children, all of whom did sports, music lessons and various other extracurriculars. She attended all their events and handled all aspects of their care. Dan was at work of course, rarely if ever present, including on family vacations which she usually handled solo. She entertained his clients and colleagues and basically devoted her life to their family, managing the household and supporting his career. He never had to cook, clean, or be involved in the kids' lives in any meaningful way. Do you really think she didn't work at least 40 hours a week doing all this? She was an asset in every way, other than getting older. And where is the evidence Dan was willing to give her full custody and equitable financial support?

No she continued to claim they were married even after they were separated and then divorced. Separated after 14 years of marriage, divorced final after 16 years.

And so what? Lots of moms today do all she did PLUS work a full time demanding job. She didn't do anything that spectacular. She didn't work full time and support Dan because it wasn't the norm and daycare was hard to find. She felt she "worked hard" in comparison to other sahm moms back then because she had to get a job outside the home which wasn't common and she was raised to believe that was not what she would need to do.

She was dumb. She could have had a repeat of her life with the next guy. She was attractive and guys liked her and Dan would have been happy for her to take the kids because he wanted to start over again. The one or two shrinks she saw should have just given her anti anxiety meds. She would have been better off.

The death of her baby was truly horrible. I am so sad that she didn't get a chance to name him and bury him. But back then they probably gave Dan the advice to just move on quickly and not think about it so that she would not be upset. That's how it was dealt with. It was terrible. He probably did think he was doing the right thing after all doctors were advising him to do it.

[Anonymous]

I honestly think Betty caused them more anguish than the other way round with the vitriol and property damage. Breaking and entering is not cool. Part of me wonders why Dan never invested in a proper security system. Was it just not a thing in 1989?

Well, if you keep her out of the house then you couldn't point to all the terrible things she did, now could you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I honestly think Betty caused them more anguish than the other way round with the vitriol and property damage. Breaking and entering is not cool. Part of me wonders why Dan never invested in a proper security system. Was it just not a thing in 1989?

Well, if you keep her out of the house then you couldn't point to all the terrible things she did, now could you?

Bingo!

And all of the things she did, provoked by his abuse, provided him with HUGE narcissistic supply. He thrived on it, he loved it. I'm sure the day she ran her car into the front door of his house gave him a big high. He loved being the puppet master and relished in the reactions he got from her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Betty had an inflated sense of working hard. I guess for the time yeah she probably felt like she “worked hard” those early years but she was a sahm who worked part time jobs or if she worked full time a d had two kids so what? She was so upset that she “supported” Dan but meh, in today’s world what she did was so minimal.

And they were married for 14 years which is long but not that long. Maybe if it had been 20 or 25 years then I could understand.

She loved her lifestyle and the life she had created and she didn’t want to give it up. She couldn’t imagine moving on when it would have been so incredibly easy for her. She could have remarried some other rich guy and Dan would very likely have given her full custody and generous child support just so he could get on with his next phase of life. She was so incredibly short sighted!

Wow, way to minimize her contributions to the family. They were together for 18 years--close enough to 20 for you?

By all accounts she was an excellent mother to four children, all of whom did sports, music lessons and various other extracurriculars. She attended all their events and handled all aspects of their care. Dan was at work of course, rarely if ever present, including on family vacations which she usually handled solo. She entertained his clients and colleagues and basically devoted her life to their family, managing the household and supporting his career. He never had to cook, clean, or be involved in the kids' lives in any meaningful way. Do you really think she didn't work at least 40 hours a week doing all this? She was an asset in every way, other than getting older. And where is the evidence Dan was willing to give her full custody and equitable financial support?

No she continued to claim they were married even after they were separated and then divorced. Separated after 14 years of marriage, divorced final after 16 years.

And so what? Lots of moms today do all she did PLUS work a full time demanding job. She didn't do anything that spectacular. She didn't work full time and support Dan because it wasn't the norm and daycare was hard to find. She felt she "worked hard" in comparison to other sahm moms back then because she had to get a job outside the home which wasn't common and she was raised to believe that was not what she would need to do.

She was dumb. She could have had a repeat of her life with the next guy. She was attractive and guys liked her and Dan would have been happy for her to take the kids because he wanted to start over again. The one or two shrinks she saw should have just given her anti anxiety meds. She would have been better off.

The death of her baby was truly horrible. I am so sad that she didn't get a chance to name him and bury him. But back then they probably gave Dan the advice to just move on quickly and not think about it so that she would not be upset. That's how it was dealt with. It was terrible. He probably did think he was doing the right thing after all doctors were advising him to do it.

He owed her half of everything he earned during the marriage as a lump sum, plus child support and alimony until she could get a job or remarried. But that’s not what he did. He took everything, even her kids, and financially abused and controlled her through legal means. Keeping her wedding china, their furniture, which I am sure she picked out, in the home that he set up with his affair partner turned wife. What purpose could doing things like that serve except to torture and humiliate her? If he really wanted to just move on, he wouldn’t have done any of that.

Murder is never right, but we didn’t lose any good people in this situation. I do feel sorry for their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I honestly think Betty caused them more anguish than the other way round with the vitriol and property damage. Breaking and entering is not cool. Part of me wonders why Dan never invested in a proper security system. Was it just not a thing in 1989?

Well, if you keep her out of the house then you couldn't point to all the terrible things she did, now could you?

Bingo!

And all of the things she did, provoked by his abuse, provided him with HUGE narcissistic supply. He thrived on it, he loved it. I'm sure the day she ran her car into the front door of his house gave him a big high. He loved being the puppet master and relished in the reactions he got from her.

Yep, he provoked her and relished her playing right into his reptilian hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Betty had an inflated sense of working hard. I guess for the time yeah she probably felt like she “worked hard” those early years but she was a sahm who worked part time jobs or if she worked full time a d had two kids so what? She was so upset that she “supported” Dan but meh, in today’s world what she did was so minimal.

And they were married for 14 years which is long but not that long. Maybe if it had been 20 or 25 years then I could understand.

She loved her lifestyle and the life she had created and she didn’t want to give it up. She couldn’t imagine moving on when it would have been so incredibly easy for her. She could have remarried some other rich guy and Dan would very likely have given her full custody and generous child support just so he could get on with his next phase of life. She was so incredibly short sighted!

Wow, way to minimize her contributions to the family. They were together for 18 years--close enough to 20 for you?

By all accounts she was an excellent mother to four children, all of whom did sports, music lessons and various other extracurriculars. She attended all their events and handled all aspects of their care. Dan was at work of course, rarely if ever present, including on family vacations which she usually handled solo. She entertained his clients and colleagues and basically devoted her life to their family, managing the household and supporting his career. He never had to cook, clean, or be involved in the kids' lives in any meaningful way. Do you really think she didn't work at least 40 hours a week doing all this? She was an asset in every way, other than getting older. And where is the evidence Dan was willing to give her full custody and equitable financial support?

No she continued to claim they were married even after they were separated and then divorced. Separated after 14 years of marriage, divorced final after 16 years.

And so what? Lots of moms today do all she did PLUS work a full time demanding job. She didn't do anything that spectacular. She didn't work full time and support Dan because it wasn't the norm and daycare was hard to find. She felt she "worked hard" in comparison to other sahm moms back then because she had to get a job outside the home which wasn't common and she was raised to believe that was not what she would need to do.

She was dumb. She could have had a repeat of her life with the next guy. She was attractive and guys liked her and Dan would have been happy for her to take the kids because he wanted to start over again. The one or two shrinks she saw should have just given her anti anxiety meds. She would have been better off.

The death of her baby was truly horrible. I am so sad that she didn't get a chance to name him and bury him. But back then they probably gave Dan the advice to just move on quickly and not think about it so that she would not be upset. That's how it was dealt with. It was terrible. He probably did think he was doing the right thing after all doctors were advising him to do it.

He owed her half of everything he earned during the marriage as a lump sum, plus child support and alimony until she could get a job or remarried. But that’s not what he did. He took everything, even her kids, and financially abused and controlled her through legal means. Keeping her wedding china, their furniture, which I am sure she picked out, in the home that he set up with his affair partner turned wife. What purpose could doing things like that serve except to torture and humiliate her? If he really wanted to just move on, he wouldn’t have done any of that.

Murder is never right, but we didn’t lose any good people in this situation. I do feel sorry for their kids.

The more I read about the case, the more all people involved seem horrible but Betty was definitely provoked. He did keep all the furniture she picked out, hid a ton of other joint assets, Linda wouldn't return her wedding china despite having selected her own, Linda bought the exact same "Mrs. Daniel Broderick III" stationary Betty had used for years, and even slept under the quilt Betty had purchased for her marital bed. Dan kept Betty's belongings in his garage and would occasionally dole out an item. He love the abusive control. It was sick!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Betty had an inflated sense of working hard. I guess for the time yeah she probably felt like she “worked hard” those early years but she was a sahm who worked part time jobs or if she worked full time a d had two kids so what? She was so upset that she “supported” Dan but meh, in today’s world what she did was so minimal.

And they were married for 14 years which is long but not that long. Maybe if it had been 20 or 25 years then I could understand.

She loved her lifestyle and the life she had created and she didn’t want to give it up. She couldn’t imagine moving on when it would have been so incredibly easy for her. She could have remarried some other rich guy and Dan would very likely have given her full custody and generous child support just so he could get on with his next phase of life. She was so incredibly short sighted!

Wow, way to minimize her contributions to the family. They were together for 18 years--close enough to 20 for you?

By all accounts she was an excellent mother to four children, all of whom did sports, music lessons and various other extracurriculars. She attended all their events and handled all aspects of their care. Dan was at work of course, rarely if ever present, including on family vacations which she usually handled solo. She entertained his clients and colleagues and basically devoted her life to their family, managing the household and supporting his career. He never had to cook, clean, or be involved in the kids' lives in any meaningful way. Do you really think she didn't work at least 40 hours a week doing all this? She was an asset in every way, other than getting older. And where is the evidence Dan was willing to give her full custody and equitable financial support?

No she continued to claim they were married even after they were separated and then divorced. Separated after 14 years of marriage, divorced final after 16 years.

And so what? Lots of moms today do all she did PLUS work a full time demanding job. She didn't do anything that spectacular. She didn't work full time and support Dan because it wasn't the norm and daycare was hard to find. She felt she "worked hard" in comparison to other sahm moms back then because she had to get a job outside the home which wasn't common and she was raised to believe that was not what she would need to do.

She was dumb. She could have had a repeat of her life with the next guy. She was attractive and guys liked her and Dan would have been happy for her to take the kids because he wanted to start over again. The one or two shrinks she saw should have just given her anti anxiety meds. She would have been better off.

The death of her baby was truly horrible. I am so sad that she didn't get a chance to name him and bury him. But back then they probably gave Dan the advice to just move on quickly and not think about it so that she would not be upset. That's how it was dealt with. It was terrible. He probably did think he was doing the right thing after all doctors were advising him to do it.

He owed her half of everything he earned during the marriage as a lump sum, plus child support and alimony until she could get a job or remarried. But that’s not what he did. He took everything, even her kids, and financially abused and controlled her through legal means. Keeping her wedding china, their furniture, which I am sure she picked out, in the home that he set up with his affair partner turned wife. What purpose could doing things like that serve except to torture and humiliate her? If he really wanted to just move on, he wouldn’t have done any of that.

Murder is never right, but we didn’t lose any good people in this situation. I do feel sorry for their kids.

The more I read about the case, the more all people involved seem horrible but Betty was definitely provoked. He did keep all the furniture she picked out, hid a ton of other joint assets, Linda wouldn't return her wedding china despite having selected her own, Linda bought the exact same "Mrs. Daniel Broderick III" stationary Betty had used for years, and even slept under the quilt Betty had purchased for her marital bed. Dan kept Betty's belongings in his garage and would occasionally dole out an item. He love the abusive control. It was sick!

I'm not sure any woman would have kept her cool under the circumstances, especially when he made sure she received the most paltry divorce settlement possible. 33K, are you kidding me? He made nearly 1.4 million in 1986 and maintained control over all of their joint assets including a massive amount of money he had hidden. In light of all of this, her request of 1/5 of his monthly income for ten years was really not unreasonable.

Also, how many of you know Dan ensured the divorce files were sealed and then they somehow, mysteriously, disappeared. Why do you think that is, hmm?